PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN
on the ground that the same does not charge an offense. He
FACTS:
Jessie Castillo was elected mayor of Bacoor, Cavite in the May
1998 elections. An Information was filed against him charging
him with violation nof Section 3e of RA 3019 in relation to the
alleged illegal operation of the Villa Esperanza dumpsite in
Molino. According to the Information, while in the performance
of his official functions as Mayor, gave unwarranted benefits to
his co-accused by allowing one Emerenciano Arciaga to
eoperate the Villa Esperanza dumpsite without the requisite
Environmental Compliance Certificate and permit from the
Environmental Management Bureau.
An admin complaint for Simple Misconduct had previously been
filed againt Castillo in relation to the illegal operation of the
dumpsite. The Office of the Ombudsman found Castillo guilty
of the admin charge and suspended him for one month and
money day.
The Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the Office of the
Ombudsman and ordered the dismissal of the admin complaint,
holding the Castillo did not violate the DENR notice which was
issued back in 1998, before his assumption of office.
Castillo filed a Motion to Dismiss or Terminate Proceedings
with the Sandiganbayan and argued that the case against him
had been decriminalized by RA 9003 and invoked the CA’s
decision absolving him of administrative liability.
The Sandiganbayan denied this.
Castillo filed a Supplemental Motion to Quash the Information
claimed that a public officer may only be held liable for violation
of Section 3e of RA 3019 if he caused undue injury to the
government or a private person. He contended that the undue
injury must not only be mentioned in the Information, but its
extent must be specified – that the claim of undue injury must be
specified, quantified, and proven to the point of moral certainty.
A special division of five Sandiganbayan justices granted
Castillo’s supplemental motion. It held that while the
information charges Castillo with violation of Section 3e of RA
3019 for “giving unwarranted benefits” to his co-accused and
thereby causing undue injury to the residents and students in the
area, who had to endure the stench, the court notes the failure of
the information to quantify the alleged unwarranted benefits as
well as the undue injury caused. It denied the People’s motion
for reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an Information alleging the grant of unwarranted
benefits and existence of undue injury must state the precise
amount of the alleged benefit and prove the alleged injury to the
point of moral certainty?
RULING:
If an information is insufficient, the accused in a criminal case
file a motion to have the Information against him quashed and/or
dismissed before he enters his plea. A motion to quash (its period
is before the arraignment and the presentation of the parties’
evidence) challenges the efficacy of an Information and compels
the court to determine whether the Information suffices to
require an accused to endure a trial. An insufficient Information
cannot be the basis of any valid conviction. The court should
drop the case immediately and save an accused from a useless
trial.
A motion to quash on the ground that the facts do not constitute
an offense should be resolved on the basis of the allegations in
the Information whose truth and veracity are hypothetically
admitted. The question is whether such allegations are sufficient
to establish the elements of the crime charged without
considering matters aliunde. The court must look into three
matters: what must be alleged in a valid Information, what the
elements of the crime charged are, and whether these elements
are sufficiently stated. The true test in ascertaining the validity
and sufficiency of an Information is whether the crime is
described in intelligible terms with such particularity as to
apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense
charged.
When a motion to quash is filed challenging the validity of an
Information, and the defect may be cured by amendment instead,
the courts must deny the motion to quash and order the
prosecution to file an amended Information. Generally, a defect
regarding the failure of an information to state the facts
constituting an offense may be cured by amendment. This rule
allows a case to proceed without undue delay. By allowing
defects to be cured by simple amendment, unnecessary appeals
based on technical grounds, which only delay proceedings, are
avoided,
Lazarte v Sandiganbayan explains the two purposes of the rule:
to enable to the accused to suitably prepare his defense and to
allow the accused, if found guilty, to plead his conviction in a
subsequent prosecution.
As long as the ultimate facts constituting the offense have been
alleged, an Information charging a violation of Section 3e of RA
3019 need no specifically state the exact amount of the
unwarranted ebnefits and the undue injury caused to the point of
moral certainty. The Information need only state the ultimate
facts constituting the offense and not the finer details of why and
how the crime was done.
Castillo is charged with violating Section 3e of RA 3019. Its
elements are that the accused must be a public officer
discharging admin, judicial, or official functions, must have
acted with manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross inexcusable
negligence, and that his action caused any undue injury to any
party, including the government, or giving any party, including
the government, unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference
in the discharge of his functions.
The subject Information specifically mentioned “… while in the
performance of his official functions, acting in evident bad faith
and manifest partiality… give unwarranted benefits to his co-
accused… thereby causing undue injury to the residents and the
students in the area.”
The foregoing Information sufficiently alleged the essential
elements. The details required by the Sandiganbayan (the
specific peso amount received by the Arciagas) are matters of
evidence best raised during trial. They need not be stated in the
Information. For merely informing the accused of the crime
charged, the allegation on the existence of unwarranted
benefits and undue injury suffices.
The Sandiganbayan applies Llorente, but is mistaken. In that
case, the court ruled that the undue injury, which must be
specified, quantified, and proven to the point of moral certainty,
must be established by the prosecution during the trial and not
when the Information is filed. If it be required that it be stated in
the Information, then it would require the prosecution to include
all the relevant evidence in the Information and to present such
even before the arraignment. The accused would be required to
face the evidence as soon as the Information is filed, which
would run counter the essence of a motion to quash as a remedy
before the accused proceeds to trial.