The Sandiganbayan has affirmed its jurisdiction over the graft cases filed in the alleged anomalous purchases of P4.16 billion worth of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) kits for the Department of Health’s (DOH) response to the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.

There were three violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, filed against officials of the Procurement Service (PS)-Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and officers of Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corporation.

The three graft charges involved three transactions. The first was for the purchase of 41,400 units of BGI Real Time Fluorescent RT-PCR Kits worth P2,877,300,000 on June 8, 2020. The second was for 8,000 units of PCR Kit, BGI Real Time Fluorescent RT-PCR Kit worth P600,000,000 on April 22, 2020, and finally 2,000 units of A*Star Foundation Kit 2.0 worth P688,000,000 on April 22, 2020.

The officials charged are former PS-DBM undersecretary Christopher Lloyd A. Lao, Overall Deputy Ombudsman Warren Rex H. Liong, Director IV Christine Maria Lecaros Suntay, Procurement Management Officer V Webster Marmol Laurenana, Procurement Management Officer Paul Jasper Villanueva De Guzman, Procurement Management Officer VI Augusto Menchavez Ylagan, and Division Chief of Procurement Division VI Jasonmer Lagarto Uayan.

Pharmally's President and Director Twinkle Dargani, Treasurer and Secretary Mohit Dargani, Director Linconn Uy Ong, Director Justine Garado, Board Member Huang Tzu Yen, employee Krizzle Grace Ukkong Mago, and Financial Manager Lin Weixiong were also included in the charges.

The cases had been dismissed twice by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction -- first by RTC-Manila then next by RTC-Malolos.

RTC-Malolos, for its part, held that the cases were not among the "minor" ones which are to be tried by the regional trial courts especially since the amount involved was P4,165,300,000. It issued two separate orders -- the first one dismissing the cases without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and the second one denying the prosecution's motion for reconsideration.

The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, assailed the dismissal and argued that the RTC-Malolos evaded its duty to hear, try, and decide the cases.

The OMB filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Sandiganbayan and asked the anti-graft court to instruct RTC-Malolos to proceed with the trial of the three criminal cases.

The Sandiganbayan denied the OMB’s petition. It said that RTC-Malolos did not breach the line of grave abuse of discretion.

It said: "Rather, it correctly held that Republic Act No. 10660 does not require that damage must be an element of the crime for the Sandiganbayan to take cognizance of the cases. It also correctly held that the amounts involved are not mere incidents of the recital of the material facts of the cases but are illustrative of the gravity of the offense charged against the accused-respondents and of the damage caused to the government”

Thus, it ruled that “it is the Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over the crimes charged.”

The 43-page resolution was written by Chairperson Associate Justice Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta with the concurrence of Associate Justices Georgina D. Hidalgo and Zaldy V. Trespeses.