People v. Balao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An information was filed against Robert P. Balao, Josephine C. Angsico, Virgilio V. Dacalos, Felicisimo F. Lazarte, Jr., Josephine T. Espinosa, Noel A. Lobrido, and Arceo C. Cruz for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019), as amended. The information alleged that the public officer accused, in conspiracy with a private individual, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously caused the payment of P232,628.35 to A.C. Cruz Construction for excavation and roadfilling works on the Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project, despite no such works being undertaken, thereby giving unwarranted benefits to the private contractor and themselves, to the damage and prejudice of the government. Procedural History: The Sandiganbayan, in a 22 May 2001 Order, found the information inadequate, stating that the participation of each accused was not clear. It directed the prosecution to clarify the matter. Subsequently, the Sandiganbayan granted the motion for reinvestigation filed by Balao, Lazarte, Jr., Angsico, and Dacalos, noting that the prosecution's memorandum did not address the court's directive to clarify the participation of each accused. After a reinvestigation, the prosecution filed another memorandum recommending that the information be maintained. However, in a 2 March 2007 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan denied Lazarte’s motion to quash but granted the motions of Balao, Angsico, and Dacalos, holding that the information, despite subsequent memoranda, failed to state their acts or omissions with sufficient particularity. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Ombudsman, filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the information against respondents Balao, Angsico, and Dacalos.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the information against respondents Robert P. Balao, Josephine C. Angsico, and Virgilio V. Dacalos for alleged insufficiency; and whether the information filed sufficiently charged the accused with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Court sets aside the 2 March 2007 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 26583 and orders that respondents Robert P. Balao, Josephine C. Angsico, and Virgilio V. Dacalos be reinstated as accused, that the hold departure order against them be reinstated, and that they be arrested or post a cash bond in sufficient amount.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the information and the elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019: The Court held that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the information. The Court reiterated its ruling in Lazarte, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, which involved the same information, and found it to be valid. The fundamental test in determining the adequacy of the averments in an information is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime. Matters extrinsic or evidence aliunde should not be considered. The information specifically alleged that the accused public officers committed the prohibited acts in relation to their office and in the performance of their official functions, causing undue injury to the Government by giving unwarranted benefits and advantage to a private contractor through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The information clearly stated the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the damage caused, and the manner of commission. The Court enumerated the essential elements of the offense under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, as amended: (1) that the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) that said public officers committed the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to their public positions; (3) that they caused undue injury to any party, whether the Government or a private party; (4) that such injury was caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and (5) that the public officers acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. The Court found that the allegations in the 5 March 2001 information, if hypothetically admitted, would establish all these essential elements. The information specified the roles of the accused public officers, the timeframe of the offense, the nature of the injury to the government, the unwarranted benefits conferred, and the presence of deliberate intent, manifest partiality, and evident bad faith.
Main Doctrine
An information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date of the commission of the offense, and the place where the offense was committed. The fundamental test in determining the adequacy of the averments in an information is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime. Matters extrinsic or evidence aliunde should not be considered.