THE Sandiganbayan has assumed jurisdiction over three corruption cases against executives of the Procurement Service of the Department of Budget and Management (PS-DBM) and Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corp (Pharmally) involving the procurement of P4.16 billion worth of COVID-19 testing kits from April to June 2020 during the Duterte administration.
In the 43-page resolution dated July 21, 2025, the Sandiganbayan declared that the Ombudsman was wrong in filing the cases with the Manila Regional Trial Court on July 17, 2024.
It said the Ombudsman acted on a “flawed interpretation” of Republic Act No. 10660, the 2015 law that modified the structure and the scope of the anti-graft court’s jurisdiction.
Associate Justice Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta penned the court ruling, while Associate Justices Georgina D. Hidalgo and Zaldy V. Trespeses concurred.
The first case involved the purchase of 41,400 units of BGI Real-Time Fluorescent RT-PCR Kits worth P2.877 billion on June 8, 2020. The accused from PS-DBM were Undersecretary and executive director Lloyd Christopher Lao, Procurement Group director (and later Overall Deputy Ombudsman) Warren Rex Liong, and procurement management officers Augusto Ylagan, Webster Laureñana, and Paul Jasper de Guzman.
The second case concerns the purchase of 8,000 units of PCR Kit and BGI Real-Time Fluorescent RT-PCR Kit, amounting to P600 million. Indicted from PS-DBM were PS-DBM were Lao, Liong, and de Guzman.
Finally, the third case was about the procurement of 2,000 units of A Star Fortitude RT-PCR test kits on April 22, 2020 worth P688 million. Named defendants were Lao, Liong, director Christine Marie Suntay, Procurement Division chief Jasonmer Uayan, and de Guzman.
In all three cases, named private defendants were Pharmally president Twinkle Dargani, treasurer and secretary Mohit Dargani, director Linconn Ong, director Justine Garado, board member Huang Tzu Yen, employee Krizzle Grace Mago, and financial manager Lin Weixiong.
Separate investigations by the House quad committee into the human trafficking and illegal Philippine offshore gaming operations (POGO) also linked Lin Weixiong to the Baofu Land Development Corp. of ousted Bamban, Tarlac mayor Alice Guo.
The Lower House and the Senate said Guo and Lin are Chinese citizens, although the former was able to obtain spurious Filipino registration while the latter was married to a Filipina who ran twice for a congressional seat representing Quezon City.
TWICE DISMISSED
Records showed that Branch 39 of the Manila RTC dismissed the cases on September 9, 2024 for lack of jurisdiction and declared that the nature of the allegations in all three cases placed them under the exclusive jurisdiction of the anti-graft court.
But on October 8, 2024, the Executive Judge of RTC Manila ordered the transmittal of the cases to the Malolos RTC in compliance with the Guidelines issued by the Supreme Court for R.A. No. 10660 that the cases should be referred to the RTC of the “nearest judicial region.”
The Malolos RTC Branch 12, where the cases landed after raffle, opted to consult the sponsorship speeches of Senators Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III and Franklin Drilon for guidance on the question of jurisdiction.
In its Resolution dated December 26, 2024, the Malolos RTC also dismissed the cases, quoting from the speeches of both senators that only cases classified as “minor” may be transferred to the RTCs.
Considering that the Pharmally cases involved ranking public officials and billions of taxpayers’ money, Malolos RTC Judge Julie Mercurio held that there is no way the said cases can be considered “minor,” hence they should have been filed with the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan Seventh Division sustained the position of the Manila and Malolos RTCs, saying the Ombudsman erred in its understanding of Section 2 of RA 10660, which redefined its jurisdiction on cases involving public officials.
“Petitioner’s stance is fundamentally flawed. Insofar as the three information are concerned, it is declared that it is the Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over the crimes charged,” the court said.
CONFLICTING DEFINITION
At the center of the controversy is the Ombudsman’s interpretation of the term “damage” to the government.
The 2015 law states that where the case contains no allegation of damage to the government, or where there is damage but it is lower than one million pesos, the case should go to the regional trial court.
All three information alleged that the accused PS-DBM executives gave “unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference” to Pharmally, which is one of the modes by which a violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is committed.
The other mode is by causing undue injury to any party, including the government.
Since the allegation in the information only cited the first mode, the Ombudsman took the stand that there was no damage involved, regardless of the amount of public funds used in the transactions.
The Sandiganbayan said this interpretation unnecessarily constricts its jurisdiction over cases against erring officials of the government so that even high-profile cases would fall through the holes and end up in RTCs, which was not the legislative intent.
“Clearly, while the goal of the legislature was to decongest the dockets of the Sandiganbayan and streamline. its jurisdiction, it could not have intended to unduly limit its jurisdiction to bribery cases under the Revised Penal Code, Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (first mode), and other cases where damage is an element of the offense,” the court pointed out.
It reminded the Ombudsman that confining the term “damage” within the concept of undue injury or “actual damage” would have “far-reaching implications not embraced by the statutory amendment” introduced in RA 10660.
“If the court should interpret bribery and damage in their technical sense or require that it be an element of the crime or offense …which is the interpretation proposed by the petitioner, then the proviso would necessarily divest the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over all cases involving violation of R.A. No. 3019, except the first mode of violating Section 3(e), provided that the damage or injury is more than One Million pesos,” the Sandiganbayan pointed out.
Likewise, it noted that cases involving forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties by public officials or employees, other crimes committed by public officials and employees mentioned in relation to their office, and Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) cases would likewise not fall within its jurisdiction.
“On the other hand, if the terms “damage” and “bribery” are to be interpreted in their plain, ordinary, or generic meaning instead of as technical terms or elements of crimes and offenses, a more reasonable and logical delineation on the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and the Regional Trial Court would emerge, befitting of the intent of the legislature to streamline the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to let it focus its resources on the “most significant cases filed against public officials,” the anti-graft court added.
