Facts:
The grounds, as enumerated in Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
Before the Sandiganbayan, an information was filed charging Dumlao, La’o
and others with violation of Sec. 3 (g) of RA No. 3019 or Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
It was alleged in the said information that the respondents, who were
members of the GSIS Board of Trustees, entered into a contract of lease-
purchase with respondent La’o, a private person. The said contract
provided the concurrence of GSIS to sell La’o a property it had acquired,
consisting of land and building known as the Government Counsel Center
for P2 million on an installment with annual interest and amortization. La’o
was also authorized to sub-lease the ground floor of the said building
during the lease period, from which he collected yearly rentals in excess of
the yearly amortization, causing huge disadvantage to the government.
Considering the foregoing, Dumlao filed a motion to quash on the ground
that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense. He averred that the
prosecution’s main thrust against him was the alleged approval by the GSIS
Board of the said contract. He contended that it was never approved as the
signatures of his fellow respondents did not appear in the minutes of
meeting therefor, proving their non-participation therein. Additionally,
there was no board quorum during that time to push through with the
approval thereof. Hence, since the evidence of the prosecution was
insufficient, he should be deemed innocent.
The Sandiganbayan ruled in Dumlao’s favor, based on the said insufficiency
of evidence.
Issue:
Whether the insufficiency of evidence is a ground for motion to quash.
Held:
No.
Insufficiency of evidence is not one of the grounds of a Motion to Quash.
Criminal Procedure, are as follows:
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged;
(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the
accused;
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
(e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment
for various offenses is prescribed by law;
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
(h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal
excuse or justification; and
(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the
offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.
Insufficiency of evidence is a ground for dismissal of an action only after
the prosecution rests its case. Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides:
Sec. 23. Demurrer to evidence. After the prosecution rests its case, the
court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1)
on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be
heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or
without leave of court.
In the case under consideration, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case
against respondent for insufficiency of evidence, even without giving the
prosecution the opportunity to present its evidence. In so doing, it violated
the prosecution’s right to due process. It deprived the prosecution of its
opportunity to prosecute its case and to prove the accused’s culpability.
It was therefore erroneous for the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case
under the premises. Not only did it not consider the ground invoked by
respondent Dumlao; it even dismissed the case on a ground not raised by
him, and not at the appropriate time. The dismissal was thus without basis
and untimely.