12/3/2018 Mendoza-Ong vs Hon. Sandiganbayan : 146368-69 : October 23, 2003 : J.

Quisumbing : Second Division

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 146368­69. October 23, 2003]

MADELEINE  MENDOZA­ONG,  petitioner,  vs.  HON.  SANDIGANBAYAN  and

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:

[1]
This  special  civil  action  for  certiorari  assails  Sandiganbayan  Resolution   dated  May  8,  2000,
[2]
denying  petitioners  Motion  to  Quash   the  Information  in  Criminal  Case  No.  23848,  for  violation  of
[3] [4]
Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 3019,  as amended. Petitioner also impugns said courts Resolution  dated
November 9, 2000, denying her Motion for Reconsideration.
The facts of the case, as culled from the records, are as follows:
Sometime  in  February  1993,  the  Sangguniang  Bayan  of  Laoang,  Northern  Samar,  passed
[5]
Resolution No. 93­132,  authorizing the municipality to borrow heavy equipment from the Philippine
Armys  53rd  Engineering  Battalion,  to  be  utilized  in  the  improvement  of  Laoangs  Bus  Terminal.
Resolution No. 93­132 likewise mandated the municipal government to shoulder the expenses for fuel,
oil, and the subsistence allowances of the heavy equipment operators for the duration of the project.
Allegedly,  however,  the  borrowed  Army  equipment  was  diverted  by  the  petitioner,  who  was  then
[6]
the  town  mayor   of  Laoang,  to  develop  some  of  her  private  properties  in  Rawis,  Laoang,  Northern
Samar. A concerned citizen and ex­member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Laoang,  Juanito  G.  Poso,
[7]
Sr.,  filed  a  complaint  against  petitioner  and  nine  (9)  other  municipal  officers   with  the  Office  of  the
Ombudsman (OMB), Visayas, for violation of the Anti­Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Acting  on  the  complaint,  Graft  Investigation  Officer  Alfonso  S.  Sarmiento  of  the  OMB  ordered
herein  petitioner  and  her  co­accused  to  submit  their  respective  counter­affidavits  and  other
[8]
controverting  evidence.  Thereafter,  in  a  Resolution   dated  August  16,  1995,  investigator  Sarmiento
recommended  the  filing  of  the  appropriate  criminal  action  against  petitioner  for  violation  of  Sections
[9]
3(c) and (e) of R.A. 3019, as amended.  Despite strenuous opposition and objections by the defense,
on August 1, 1997, two informations were filed against her at the Sandiganbayan docketed as Criminal
Cases Nos. 23847 and 23848, to wit:

(1) Criminal Case No. 23847

That on or about 15 February 1993, or sometime thereafter, in the Municipality of Laoang, Northern Samar,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Madeleine Mendoza-Ong, a public
officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of Laoang, committing the crime herein charged in relation to, while in
the performance and taking advantage of her official functions, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
criminally, through manifest partiality and evident bad faith, cause undue injury to the Government and give
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to herself and spouses Mr. and Mrs. Chupo Lao when she, in the
discharge of her official or administrative functions, caused the improvement or development of her private land
in Barangay Rawis through the use of the equipment and resources of the Philippine Army, to the damage and
prejudice of the Government.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146368_69.htm 1/5
12/3/2018 Mendoza-Ong vs Hon. Sandiganbayan : 146368-69 : October 23, 2003 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division
[10]
CONTRARY TO LAW.

This, however, was amended on October 27, 1998, so that Criminal Case No. 23847 would read
as follows:

That on or about 15 February 1993, or sometime thereafter, in the Municipality of Laoang, Northern Samar,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Madeleine Mendoza-Ong, a public
officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of Laoang, committing the crime herein charged in relation to, while in
the performance and taking advantage of her official functions, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
criminally, through manifest partiality and evident bad faith, cause undue injury to the Government and give
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to her husband, Hector Ong, herself, and/or her family and to
spouses Mr. and Mrs. Chupo Lao when she, in the discharge of her official or administrative functions, caused
the improvement or development of a private land owned by her husband, Hector Ong, herself and/or her family
in Barangay Rawis through the use of the equipment and resources of the Philippine Army, to the damage and
prejudice of the Government.
[11]
CONTRARY TO LAW.

(2) Criminal Case No. 23848

That on or about 15 February 1993, or sometime thereafter, in the Municipality of Laoang, Northern Samar,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Madeleine Mendoza-Ong, a public
officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of Laoang, committing the crime herein charged in relation to, while in
the performance and taking advantage of her official functions, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
criminally, request or receive, directly or indirectly, a gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit in the
form of five (5) drums of diesel fuel, for herself or for another from the spouses Mr. and Mrs. Chupo Lao,
persons for whom accused Mendoza-Ong, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or
obtain, any Municipal Government permit or license anent the operation of the bus company, JB Lines, owned
by the aforenamed spouses, in consideration for the help given or to be given by the accused.
[12]
CONTRARY TO LAW.

On September 15, 1999, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash with the Sandiganbayan alleging in the
main that: (1) the informations especially in Criminal Case No. 23848, failed to allege facts constituting
an  offense;  (2)  that  the  officer  who  filed  the  information  has  no  authority  to  do  so;  and  (3)  that  the
accused was deprived of her right to due process and to the speedy disposition of cases against her.
On May 8, 2000, the Sandiganbayan  denied  petitioners  Motion  to  Quash.  Petitioner  duly  moved
for reconsideration but this was likewise denied by the Sandiganbayan in its order dated November 9,
2000.
Hence, the instant petition with assigned errors faulting respondent court as follows:

I. RESPONDENT COURT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF

JURISDICTION WHEN IT FAILED TO DISMISS THE INFORMATIONS FILED AGAINST PETITIONER
WHICH CLEARLY DO NOT ALLEGE SUFFICIENT FACTS CONSTITUTING THE OFFENSE HENCE
FAILING TO ALLEGE A PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST PETITIONER, ACCUSED THEREIN.

II. RESPONDENT COURT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED
PETITIONERS MOTION TO QUASH THE INFORMATIONS FILED BY AN OFFICER WHO HAS NO
AUTHORITY TO DO SO AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE HEAD OF THE PROSECUTION
DIVISION OF RESPONDENT COURT HAD RECOMMENDED THE DISMISSAL OF SAID CASES.

III. RESPONDENT COURT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO
DISMISS THE INFORMATIONS AGAINST ACCUSED WHO HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146368_69.htm 2/5
12/3/2018 Mendoza-Ong vs Hon. Sandiganbayan : 146368-69 : October 23, 2003 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division

AND SPEEDY DETERMINATION OF THE CASE IN CLEAR DISREGARD OF THIS HONORABLE

COURTS RULINGS THAT INORDINATE DELAY IN THE CONDUCT OF PRELIMINARY
[13]
INVESTIGATIONS WOULD WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE CASE.

Simply put, we find that the sole issue for resolution now is whether the Sandiganbayan  gravely
erred or gravely abused its discretion in denying the Motion to Quash filed by petitioner, particularly on
the ground that the information in Criminal Case No. 23848 does not constitute an offense. The other
assigned errors are, in our view, without sufficient merit and deserve no further consideration.
Petitioner  claims  that  in  a  criminal  prosecution  for  violation  of  Section  3(c)  of  R.A.  3019  as
amended, the law requires that the gift received should be manifestly excessive as defined by Section
2(c)  of  the  same Act.  She  adds  that  it  is  imperative  to  specify  the  exact  value  of  the  five  drums  of
diesel fuel allegedly received by Mayor Ong as public officer to determine whether such is manifestly
[14]
excessive under the circumstances.
The fundamental test of the viability of a motion to quash on the ground that the facts averred in
the information do not amount to an offense is whether the facts alleged would establish the essential
[15]
elements of the crime as defined by law. In this examination, matters aliunde are not considered.
Petitioner  is  charged  specifically  with  violation  of  Section  3(c)  of  Republic  Act  No.  3019,  as
amended. The pertinent portions of said law provide:

SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized
by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to
be unlawful:

(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for
himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or
obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be
given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.

Based  on  the  foregoing,  the  elements  of  the  offense  charged  in  the  assailed  information  are  as
follows: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) he has secured or obtained, or would secure or obtain,
for a person any government permit or license; (3) he directly or indirectly requested or received from
said person any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit for himself or for another; and (4)
he  requested  or  received  the  gift,  present  or  other  pecuniary  or  material  benefit  in  consideration  for
[16]
help given or to be given.
In the instant case, we find that the information in Crim. Case No. 23848 alleged that: (1) accused
Madeleine Mendoza­Ong,  a  public  officer,  being  then  the  Municipal  Mayor  of  Laoang, (2) committed
the  crime  charged  in  relation  to,  while  in  the  performance  and  taking  advantage  of  her  official
functions, (3) did request or receive directly or indirectly, a gift, present or other pecuniary or material
benefit in the form of five drums of diesel fuel, for herself or for another, from spouses Mr. and Mrs.
Chupo Lao, persons for whom accused Mendoza­Ong, (4) has secured or obtained, or will secure or
obtain, a Municipal Government permit or license anent the operation of the bus company, JB Lines,
owned  by  said  spouses,  in  consideration  for  help  given  or  to  be  given  by  the  accused.  After
considering  thoroughly  this  averment  as  formulated  by  the  prosecution,  we  are  not  prepared  to  say
that the impugned information omitted an element needed to adequately charge a violation of Section
3(c) of R.A. 3019.
Petitioner pleads that the pertinent statute must be read in its entirety. She argues that a provision
of R.A. 3019 such as Section 3(c) must be interpreted in light of all other provisions, particularly the
definition of receiving any gift, under Section 2(a) thereof, which reads as follows:

SEC. 2. Definition of terms.- As used in this Act, the term

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146368_69.htm 3/5
12/3/2018 Mendoza-Ong vs Hon. Sandiganbayan : 146368-69 : October 23, 2003 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division

(c) Receiving any gift includes the act of accepting directly or indirectly a gift from a person other than a
member of the public officers immediate family, in behalf of himself or of any member of his family or relative
within the fourth civil degree, either by consanguinity or affinity, even on the occasion of a family celebration or
national festivity like Christmas, if the value of the gift is under the circumstances manifestly excessive.

Petitioner contends that pursuant to her reading of the above provision, the value of the alleged
gift  must  be  specified  in  the  information.  But  note  that  Section  2(c)  abovecited  mentions  a  situation
where (1) the value of the gift is manifestly excessive; (2) from a person who is not a member of the
public  officers  immediate  family;  and  (3)  even  on  the  occasion  of  a  family  celebration  or  national
festivity.
In contrast, Section 3 (c) earlier quoted in the present case applies regardless of whether the gifts
value  is  manifestly  excessive  or  not,  and  regardless  of  the  occasion. What  is  important  here,  in  our
view, is whether the gift is received in consideration for help given or to be given by the public officer.
The  value  of  the  gift  is  not  mentioned  at  all  as  an  essential  element  of  the  offense  charged  under
Section 3 (c), and there appears no need to require the prosecution to specify such value in order to
comply with the requirements of showing a prima facie case.
Evidently  the  legislature  is  aware  that  in  implementing  R.A.  3019,  it  will  be  precedents  that  will
[17]
guide the court on the issue of what is or what is not manifestly excessive.
In sum, we are constrained to rule that respondent court did not commit grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, much less did it gravely err, in denying petitioners motion to
quash  the  information  filed  against  her  in  Criminal  Case  No.  23848. This  ruling,  however,  is  without
prejudice to the actual merits of this criminal case as may be shown during trial before the court a quo.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan
in Criminal Case No. 23848 are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Austria­Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.

[1]
 Rollo, pp. 30­35.
[2]
 Records, Vol. II, pp. 480­503.
[3]
 The Anti­Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
[4]
 Rollo, pp. 36­37.
[5]
 Id. at 181­182.

RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING LT. COL. EDUARDO J. LENA, CSC (CE) PA OF THE 53RD ENGINEERING BATTALION,
PA,  TO  LEND  ONE  GRADER,  PAY  LOADER  AND  A  DUMP  TRUCK  TO  THE  MUNICIPAL  GOVERNMENT  OF
LAOANG,  NORTHERN  SAMAR  TO  BE  USED  FOR  THE  IMPROVEMENT  OF  THE  BUS  TERMINAL  IN
BARANGAY RAWIS, LAOANG, THIS PROVINCE.

RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, to respectfully request Lt. Col. Eduardo J. Lena CSC (CE) PA of the 53rd Engineering
Battalion,  PA,  to  lend  one  grader,  pay  loader  and  a  dump  truck  to  the  municipal  government  of  Laoang,  this
province to be used for the improvement of the bus terminal area in Barangay Rawis, this municipality.
FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that  the  municipal  government  shall  likewise  shoulder  the  expenses  for  fuel  and  oil  and  the
subsistence of the heavy equipment operators while the improvement of said area is still in operation.
[6]
 Later, Governor of Northern Samar. See Records, Vol. II, p. 480.
[7]
 Vice Mayor Remus S. Dulay and Municipal Councilors Diosdado D. Ong, Democrito V. Aquino, Emilio T. Giray, Fred P.
Deananeas, Francisco A. Tang, Jose B. Bautista, Eddie Cerbito, Concepcin E. Lipata.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146368_69.htm 4/5
12/3/2018 Mendoza-Ong vs Hon. Sandiganbayan : 146368-69 : October 23, 2003 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division
[8]
 Rollo, pp. 40­44.
[9]
 Id. at 44.
[10]
 Records, Vol. I, p. 1.
[11]
 Records, Vol. I, p. 372.
[12]
 Records, Vol. II, p. 421.
[13]
 Rollo, pp. 8­9.
[14]
 Id. at 11­12. See also Memorandum for the Petitioner, p. 9.
[15]
 Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 109376, 20 January 2000, 322 SCRA 655, 664.
[16]
 Tecson v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 123045, 16 November 1999, 318 SCRA 80, 90.
[17]
 See Senate Proceedings in regard to R.A. 3019:
It is impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule on what value or amount will be construed as manifestly excessive. Thus
the judiciary will be guided by the precedents established in bribery cases on amounts that are considered of such
insignificant  and  small  value  so  that  they  may  be  considered  as  ordinary  token  of  gratitude  and  friendship.  3
SENATE RECORD 248 (1960).
What is excessive or manifestly excessive is relative. The circumstances of person and of social position have to be taken
into  account  in  determining  whether  the  gift  is  actually  excessive  and  also  the  fact  of  whether  it  might  influence
action one way or another on the part of a public official. There is no definite amount. 3 SENATE RECORD 258­
259 (1960).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/146368_69.htm 5/5