G.R. Nos. 169823-24
September 11, 2013
Case Principle
An Information cannot be quashed if the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the case, if the offense has not yet prescribed, and if the Information is sufficient in form and substance.
Facts
The Office of the Ombudsman filed two informations charging Disini in the Sandiganbayan with corruption of public officials, penalized under Article 212 in relation to Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, and with a violation of Section 4 (a) of Republic Act 3019 (R.A. No. 3019), also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Therafter, Disini filed a motion to quash alleging that the criminal actions had been extinguished by prescription, and that the informations did not conform to the prescribed form. The Prosecution opposed the motion to quash.
Later on, Disini voluntarily submitted himself for arraignment to obtain the Sandiganbayan’s favorable action on his motion for permission to travel abroad. He then entered a plea of not guilty to both informations.
The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash. Disini moved for reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, this petition.
Issue
Whether or not the motion to quash should be granted on the grounds that (1) the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction, (2) the offenses has prescribed, and (3) Information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form.
Held
No, the motion to quash cannot be granted since the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, the offense has not yet prescribed, and the Information substantially complied with the prescribed form.
First ground
The motion cannot be quashed on the ground that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction.
In fact, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to PD No. 1606 as amended. That Disini was a private individual did not remove the offenses charged from the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Section 2 of E.O. No. 1, which tasked the PCGG with assisting the President in “[t]he recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the takeover or sequestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them, during his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of their public office and/or using their powers, authority, influence, connections or relationship,” expressly granted the authority of the PCGG to recover ill-gotten wealth covered President Marcos’ immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, without distinction as to their private or public status.
Despite Disini’s being a private individual, and despite the lack of any allegation of his being the co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public official in the commission of the offenses charged.
Second ground
The motion to quash cannot be granted on the ground of prescription since prescription did not yet set in.
The offense of corruption of public officials as well as violation of RA 3019 prescribe in 15 years. Moreover, prescription begins to run from the date of discovery of the crime and shall only be interrupted upon the filing of complaint or information in Court (Article 91, Revised Penal Code).
In this case, prescription has not yet set in because it was only five years elapsed from 1986, the time of the discovery of the offenses charged, up to April 1991, the time of the filing of the criminal complaints in the Office of the Ombudsman.
Third ground
The motion to quash on the ground of insufficiency in form and substance cannot be granted.
The fundamental test in determining whether a motion to quash may be sustained based on this ground is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, will establish the essential elements of the offense as defined in the law. Extrinsic matters or evidence aliunde are not considered. The test does not require absolute certainty as to the presence of the elements of the offense; otherwise, there would no longer be any need for the Prosecution to proceed to trial.
In this case, the criminal cases against have sufficiently complied with the requirements of Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. The elements for corruption of public officials was sufficiently alleged in the information. This is because the facts alleged in the information would establish the elements of the the offense of corruption of public officials. The sufficiency of the allegations in the information charging the violation of Section 4 (a) of R.A. No. 3019 is similarly upheld because the allegations in the information charging the violation of Section 4 (a) of R.A. No. 3019, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the elements of the offense.
Ruling
Therefore, the motion to quash cannot be granted.