Torres v. Garchitorena
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Susana Realty, Incorporated (SRI) is the registered owner of two parcels of land in Noveleta, Cavite. Portions of these lands, adjacent to the sea, became submerged over time. In October 1997, Mayor Dionisio Torres, with Municipal Engineer Enrico Alvarez, initiated leveling and reclamation of the submerged portion for a relocation program for displaced squatters. Despite protests from SRI's caretaker and direct communication from SRI, including the presentation of titles and survey results, the Mayor proceeded with the reclamation, spending a significant amount and allowing squatters to occupy the area. This led to a civil case filed by SRI seeking to enjoin the reclamation and for damages, and subsequently, a criminal complaint against Torres and Alvarez for violation of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Procedural History: Following SRI's civil case and criminal complaint, the Ombudsman filed an Information with the Sandiganbayan against Torres and Alvarez for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. Concurrently, the Republic of the Philippines filed a separate civil case for reversion, asserting the subject property was part of the Manila Bay and thus public domain. Torres and Alvarez's attempts to suspend the criminal proceedings due to a prejudicial question in the reversion case were repeatedly denied by the Sandiganbayan. They also filed a motion to quash the Information, arguing the facts did not constitute the offense, which was also denied. The Sandiganbayan subsequently ordered their preventive suspension pendente lite. Prior attempts to challenge these rulings via certiorari were dismissed by the Supreme Court. The present petition seeks to nullify the Sandiganbayan's resolutions denying their motion to quash, denying their motion to suspend proceedings, and granting the prosecution's motion for preventive suspension. The Petition: Petitioners Dionisio L. Torres and Enrico M. Alvarez filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Sandiganbayan's resolutions. They argue that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying their motion to quash the Information, as the submerged property is allegedly foreshore land and thus public domain, negating the element of damage to SRI. They also contend that the Sandiganbayan erred in denying their motion to suspend proceedings due to the pending reversion case, which they claim presents a prejudicial question. Furthermore, they challenge the validity of their preventive suspension pendente lite, asserting there was no sufficient basis for it. They seek to nullify the Sandiganbayan's resolutions and prevent further proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to quash the Information. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to suspend proceedings due to a prejudicial question. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the suspension pendente lite of the petitioners. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the defenses raised by the petitioners are evidentiary matters.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan subject of the petition are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion to quash: The Court held that a motion to quash an information on the ground that the material averments do not constitute an offense is improper when the issue raised involves factual matters that require trial. The Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that the precise nature of the subject property (whether private or foreshore land) is a factual issue. The petitioners' claim that the submerged portion became part of the public domain due to natural phenomena, while a defense, cannot be resolved in a motion to quash. The Court reiterated that submerged land is not necessarily foreshore land, and until declared otherwise by a competent court, the titled property remains private. The petitioners' argument that SRI is not the owner and thus sustained no damage is also a matter of defense to be proven during trial. The Court noted that the petitioners had already been arraigned before filing the motion to quash, which further militated against its grant. On the denial of the motion to suspend proceedings due to a prejudicial question: The Court found the contention that the civil case for reversion constituted a prejudicial question to be without merit. Firstly, the civil case was filed after the criminal action, violating the rule that a prejudicial question requires the civil action to be instituted prior to the criminal action. Secondly, even if the civil case were decided in favor of the Republic, a judgment declaring the property as foreshore land would not necessarily determine the guilt or innocence of the petitioners. The titles of SRI were valid until declared null and void by a competent court, and the petitioners could not illegally deprive SRI of possession under the guise of reclamation. The Sandiganbayan correctly pointed out that SRI, as the registered owner at the time of the incident, had rights that public officers were duty-bound to respect. On the order of suspension pendente lite: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's ruling that the mandatory suspension of public officers under Section 13 of R.A. 3019 does not require a full-blown pre-suspension hearing to determine the strength of evidence or the gravity of the offense. The accused must be given a fair opportunity to challenge the proceedings, which was complied with through various pleadings. The Court reiterated that the purpose of the mandatory suspension is to prevent the accused from continuing in office and potentially influencing witnesses or records, and that no one is indispensable in public office. The petitioners were afforded due process and their suspension was a consequence of the valid information filed against them. On the ruling that defenses are evidentiary matters: The Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan that the petitioners' defenses, such as the property being foreshore land or SRI not sustaining damage, are factual issues that must be ventilated during the trial proper. These are matters of defense that require presentation of evidence and cannot be used to quash an information that, on its face, alleges facts constituting an offense. The hypothetical admission of facts in a motion to quash does not extend to resolving defenses that require proof.
Main Doctrine
A motion to quash an information on the ground that the material averments do not constitute an offense is improper if the issue raised involves factual matters that require trial. Furthermore, the pendency of a civil case for reversion does not automatically constitute a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of criminal proceedings, especially if the civil case was filed after the criminal action.