THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 160619, September 09, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), JESSIE CASTILLO, MELENCIO ARCIAGA AND EMERENCIANO ARCIAGA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
JARDELEZA, J.:
The purpose of an Information is to afford an accused his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. It is in pursuit of this purpose that the Rules of Court require that the Information allege the ultimate facts constituting the elements of the crime charged. Details that do not go into the core of the crime need not be included in the Information, but may be presented during trial. The rule that evidence must be presented to establish the existence of the elements of a crime to the point of moral certainty is only for purposes of conviction. It finds no application in the determination of whether or not an Information is sufficient to warrant the trial of an accused.
Xxx [Castillo] did not violate the DENR notice which was issued way back in 1998 yet, or before his actual assumption of office. Quite the contrary, while already a mayor, [Castillo], upon being informed of the notice, immediately took steps in resolving the municipality's aged-long garbage problem. True, the solution was a long-term one, but the end results were just the same, i.e., what was once a mountainous pile of trash covering a 2-hectare piece of property has been remarkably reduced and what was left was a considerable area used as a segregation and transfer station of garbage prior to their eventual dumping at the San Mateo landfill.After arraignment and pre-trial, Castillo, on August 21, 2001, filed with the Sandiganbayan a Motion to Dismiss or Terminate Proceedings.7 He argued that the case against him had been decriminalized by Section 37 of Republic Act No. 90038 and invoked the decision of the Court of Appeals absolving him of administrative liability. His motion was initially denied by the Sandiganbayan in a Resolution dated September 6, 2001.9
Doubtless, in finding [Castillo] guilty of simple misconduct and penalizing him therefor, the respondent Office of the Ombudsman, in clear abuse of discretion, ignored and did not take into account the foregoing reports, including no less the letter of commendation of [DENR] Secretary Cerilles.
It is thus unfortunate that even as [Castillo] had taken concrete steps to address a problem that was not of his own doing or tolerance but merely inherited by him, he was instead rewarded by an administrative penalty even as the very government agency (DENR) which issued the Notice of Violation commended him for his efforts. If this is not a travesty of justice, then We know not what it is.6
Going over the elements of the crime vis-a-vis the allegations of the information, the court agrees with the contention of movant that the allegations of the information fail to measure up to the requirements of the law. While the information charges Castillo with violation of Section 3[e] of R.A. 3019 for "giving unwarranted benefits to his co-accused Melencio and Emerenciano Arciaga, by allowing the operation of the dumpsite at Villa Esperanza, Molino, Bacoor, Cavite" and "thereby causing undue injury to the residents and students in the area who had to endure the stench, flies, rats and mosquitoes emanating from the dumpsite" the court notes the failure of the information to quantify the alleged unwarranted benefits supposedly given by movant to his co-accused as well as the undue injury caused to the residents and students of the area affected by the dumpsite.The Special Division15 also resolved, on November 3, 2003, to deny the motion for reconsideration subsequently filed by the People.
In the case of Alejandro vs. People, the Supreme Court had ruled that undue injury requires proof of actual injury or damage. Thus, in Llorente, it was held that undue injury in Sec. 3[e] cannot be presumed even after a wrong or a violation of a right has been established. Its existence must be proven as one of the elements of the crime. In fact, the causing of undue injury or the giving of unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence constitutes the very act punished under this section. Thus, it is required that the undue injury be specified, quantified and proven to the point of moral certainty.
Anent the allegation of unwarranted benefits given to the Arciagas, the court likewise notes the failure of the information to specify and quantify the same. Whereas the Ombudsman's resolution finding prima facie evidence against the herein accused made mention of the amount of P250.00 to P300.00 allegedly collected from each garbage truck from companies and factories allowed to dump garbage at the Villa Esperanza dumpsite, the same was not alleged in the information which charged Castillo with having given unwarranted benefits to his co-accused.14 (Emphasis supplied.)
Sec. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. - A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; 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.This Court, in Lazarte v. Sandiganbayan22 explained the two important purposes underlying the rule. First, it enables the accused to suitably prepare his defense.23 Second, it allows the accused, if found guilty, to plead his conviction in a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.24 Thus, this Court held that the true test in ascertaining the validity and sufficiency of an Information is "whether the crime is described in intelligible terms with such particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense charged."25cralawred
When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information.xxx
Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.(Emphasis supplied.)
The subject Information filed against Castillo, on the other hand, reads to wit:
- The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
- He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and
- That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.26
That in or about 1998, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Bacoor, Province of Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Jessie B. Castillo, a public officer, being the incumbent Mayor of Bacoor, Cavite, while in the performance of his official and administrative function, acting in evident bad faith and manifest partiality, conspiring and confederating with accused Melencio A. Arciaga and Emerenciano A. Arciaga, caretakers of Villa Esperanza, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefits to his co-accused Melencio A. Arciaga and Emerenciano A. Arciaga, by allowing the operation of the dump site located at Villa Esperanza, Molino, Bacoor, Cavite, notwithstanding the fact that no Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) or any permit has been issued by the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), Department of Environment and Natural Resources to any person or entity for such purpose, and despite cease and desist orders issued by the DENR, thereby causing undue injury to the residents and students in the area who had to endure the stench, Hies, rats and mosquitoes emanating from the dumpsite.27 (Emphasis supplied.)Information filed against Castillo and his co-accused is sufficient
xxx the court deems it to be an exercise in futility to proceed to trial when the information that was filed failed to inform the accused of the quantity of injury caused by Castillo to the residents of Villa Esperanza and the amount of unwarranted benefits given to the Arciagas as a result of the operation of the dumpsite. Such failure is fatal to the prosecution's cause considering that the public prosecutor is barred from presenting evidence on a matter not alleged in the information. Otherwise, if the prosecution would be allowed to present evidence to quantify the element of undue injury or unwarranted benefits, the same would violate the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.28 (Emphasis supplied.)We disagree.
Sec. 4. Amendment of complaint or information. - If the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information which can be cured by amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made.When a motion to quash is filed challenging the validity and sufficiency of an Information, and the defect may be cured by amendment, courts must deny the motion to quash and order the prosecution to file an amended Information.31 Generally, a defect pertaining to the failure of an Information to charge facts constituting an offense is one that may be corrected by an amendment.32 In such instances, courts are mandated not to automatically quash the Information; rather, it should grant the prosecution the opportunity to cure the defect through an amendment.33 This rule allows a case to proceed without undue delay. By allowing the defect to be cured by simple amendment, unnecessary appeals based on technical grounds, which only result to prolonging the proceedings, are avoided.
If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. The motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or information still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment. (Emphasis supplied.)
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional Members per Raffle dated September 2, 2015 in view of the recusal of Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. and Diosdado M. Peralta due to relation to a party and prior action in the Sandiganbayan, respectively.
** Designated as Acting Member in view of the leave of absence of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per Special Order No. 2084 dated June 29, 2015.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, with Associate Justices Narciso S. Nario, Nicodemo T. Ferrer, Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada, and Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr., rollo, pp. 68-75.
2 Penned by Associate Justices Rodolfo G. Palattao, with Associate Justices Gregory S. Ong, Norberto Y. Geraldez, Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada, and Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr., rollo, pp. 101-108.
3 Otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended.
4Rollo, pp. 119-121.
5Id. at 248-273.
6Id. at 270-271.
7 Resolution dated September 6, 2001, rollo, p. 122.
8 Otherwise known as the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000.
9Rollo, pp. 122-124.
10Id. at 125.
11 G.R. No. 122166, March 11, 1998, 287 SCRA 382.
12 Administrative Order No. 278-2001 dated October 30, 2001. This Special Division of Five was composed of the following Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan: Narciso S. Nario, Rodolfo G. Palattao, Nicodemo T. Ferrer, Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada and Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. Resolution dated November 3, 2003, rollo, p. 68.
13 Associate Justices Palattao, Nario and Cortez-Estrada voted to grant Castillo's motion, with dissents from Justices Ferrer and Villaruz, Jr., rollo, p. 75.
14Rollo, pp. 72-73.
15 This Special Division of Five was now composed of the following Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan: Rodolfo G. Palattao, Gregory S. Ong, Norberto Y. Geraldez, Ma Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada and Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. Associate Justices Palattao, Ong and Cortez-Estrada voted to deny the People's motion. Associate Justices Geraldez and Villaruz dissented, rollo, 108.
16People v. Arnault, 92 Phil. 252 (1952).
17 Rules of Court, Rule 117, Sec. 1.
18Los Baños v. Pedro, G.R. No. 173588, April 22, 2009, 586 SCRA 303.
19Cruz, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83754, February 18, 1991, 194 SCRA 145.
20People v. De la Rosa, G.R. No. L-34112, June 25, 1980, 98 SCRA 190.
21Go v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 178429, October 23, 2009, 604 SCRA 322 citing People v. Romualdez, G.R. No. 166510, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 492.
22 G.R. No. 180122, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 431.
23Id. at 446.
24Id.
25Id.
26Uriarte v. People, G.R. No. 169251, December 20, 2006, 511 SCRA 471, 486, citing Santos v. People, G.R. No. 161877, March 23, 2006, 485 SCRA 185, 194; Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 162314-17, October 25, 2004, 441 SCRA 377, 386; and Jacinto v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 84571, October 2, 1989, 178 SCRA 254, 259.
27Rollo, pp. 119-120.
28Id. at 74.
29 See Lazarte v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180122, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 431; People v. Romualdez, G.R. No. 166510, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 492; Go v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 178429, October 23, 2009, 604 SCRA 322.
30Supra note 11 at 399.
31People v. Andrade, G.R. No. 187000, November 24, 2014; People v. Talao Perez, 98 Phil. 764 (1956).
32People v. Andrade, supra.
33Id.
34Id.