People v. Digoro
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: An information was filed charging Camolo Digoro alias Panondiongan, Hadji Solaiman Digoro, and Macasasab Dalomangcob with Counterfeiting of Treasury and Bank Notes under Article 166 of the Revised Penal Code. Amended informations were filed, and all accused pleaded not guilty. The case was provisionally dismissed with regard to Hadji Solaiman Digoro and Macasasab Dalomangcob, and an amended information was filed against Camolo Digoro alias Panondiongan, this time captioned "For: Illegal Possession of Counterfeit Treasury and Bank Notes." The amended information alleged that the accused did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with intent to possess, have in his possession, custody, and control various denominations of counterfeit treasury or bank notes. 2. Procedural History: The accused pleaded not guilty to the amended information. The trial court rendered a decision sentencing the accused to imprisonment. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the amended information did not charge an offense. The case was certified to the Supreme Court as it involved purely questions of law. 3. The Petition: The accused appealed the judgment of the trial court, contending that the amended information to which he pleaded guilty did not charge an offense.
Issue(s)
Whether the amended information charging illegal possession of counterfeit treasury and bank notes, alleging "intent to possess" but not "intent to use," sufficiently charges an offense under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether a plea of guilty to an information that does not charge an offense warrants a conviction.
Ruling
The judgment appealed is hereby set aside and the case is remanded for new prosecution under an appropriate and valid information. Costs de oficio.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the amended information sufficiently charges an offense: The Court held that possession of false treasury or bank notes alone, without anything more, is not a criminal offense. For it to constitute an offense under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code, the possession must be with intent to use the false treasury or bank notes. The information alleged possession with "intent to possess" instead of "intent to use." The Court found that such an allegation precludes a clear inference of intent to use, as intent to use entails intent to part with the possession. While the information stated that the accused possessed the notes "unlawfully and feloniously... Contrary to and in violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code," these were considered mere conclusions, not allegations of facts. Therefore, the information, as framed, charged no offense. On the issue of whether a plea of guilty to an information that does not charge an offense warrants a conviction: The Court reiterated that a plea of guilty is an admission only of the material allegations of the information, but not that the facts thus alleged constitute an offense. In this case, since the information did not allege facts constituting an offense, the plea of guilty thereto did not warrant a conviction. The Court cited People vs. Fortuno (73 Phil. 407) in support of this principle. Consequently, the judgment of conviction based on such a plea was set aside.
Main Doctrine
An information alleging possession of false treasury or bank notes without alleging intent to use the same, but only "intent to possess" them, charges no offense. A plea of guilty to such an information does not warrant conviction.