WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is

hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Del Castillo

and Perez, JJ., concur. 

Petition denied.

Note.—While the sympathy of the law on social security

is toward the employees or their beneficiaries, it is
imperative to remember that such compassion must be
balanced by the equally vital interest of denying
undeserving claims for compensation benefits.  (Debaudin
vs. Social Security System, 533 SCRA 601 [2007])
——o0o——

G.R. No. 176819. January 26, 2011.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. ROBERT

P. BALAO, JOSEPHINE C. ANGSICO, VIRGILIO V.
DACALOS, and SANDIGANBAYAN, First Division,
respondents.

Criminal Procedure; Information; 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.—In Cabrera v.
Sandiganbayan, the Court held that 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.

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

566

566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Balao
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.
Certiorari.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Juancho L. Botor for respondents.

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a petition1 for certiorari under Rule 65 of the

Rules of Court. The petition challenges the 2 March 2007
Resolution2 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No.
26583.

The Facts

On 1 May 2001, Ombudsman Prosecutor II Raul V.

Cristoria filed with the Sandiganbayan an information3
dated 5 March 2001 against respondents Robert P. Balao
(Balao), Josephine C. Angsico (Angsico), Virgilio V. Dacalos
(Dacalos), Felicisimo F. Lazarte, Jr. (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 stated:

“The undersigned Ombudsman Prosecutor II of the Office of

the Ombudsman­Visayas, accuses ROBERT P. BALAO,
FELICISIMO F. LAZARTE, JR., VIRGILIO V. DACALOS,
JOSEPHINE C. ANGSICO, JOSEPHINE T. ESPINOSA, NOEL
A. LOBRIDO AND ARCEO C. CRUZ for VIOLATION OF
SECTION 3(e) of REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019, AS AMENDED
(THE ANTI­GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT),
committed as follows:
That in or about the month of March, 1992, at Bacolod
City, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 30­59.

2 Id., at pp. 60­66. Penned by Presiding Justice Teresita J. Leonardo de Castro,
with Associate Justices Diosdado M. Peralta and Alexander G. Gesmundo
concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 93­96.

567

VOL. 640, JANUARY 26, 2011 567

People vs. Balao
 the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above­named
accused, ROBERT P. BALAO, JOSEPHINE C. ANGSICO,
VIRGILIO V. DACALOS, FELICISIMO LAZARTE, JR.,
JOSEPHINE T. ESPINOSA, and NOEL H. LOBRIDO,
Public Officers, being the General Manager, Team Head,
Visayas Mgt. Office, Division Manager (Visayas), Manager,
RPD, Project Mgt. Officer A and Supervising Engineer,
respectively, of the National Housing Authority, Diliman,
Quezon City, in such capacity and committing the offense in
relation to office and while in the performance of their
official functions, conniving, confederating and mutually
helping with each other and with accused ARCEO C. CRUZ,
a private individual and General Manager of A.C. Cruz
Construction, with address at 7486 Bagtikan Street, Makati
City, with deliberate intent, with manifest partiality and
evident bad faith, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously cause to be paid to A.C. Construction public
funds in the amount of TWO HUNDRED THIRTY TWO
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT PESOS
and THIRTY FIVE CENTAVOS (P232,628.35)
PHILIPPINE CURRENCY, supposedly for the excavation
and roadfilling works on the Pahanocoy Sites and Services
Project in Bacolod City despite the fact that no such works
were undertaken by A.C. Construction as revealed by the
Special Audit conducted by the Commission on Audit, thus
accused public officials in the performance of their official
functions had given unwarranted benefits, advantage and
preference to accused Arceo C. Cruz and A.C. Construction
and themselves, to the damage and prejudice of the
government.”4

In its 22 May 2001 Order,5 the Sandiganbayan found the

5 March 2001 information inadequate. The Sandiganbayan
stated that:

“This morning the Court expressed its anxiety over the

inadequacy of the Information in that the participation of each of
the accused did not appear clear in the resolution, much less in
the Information.

_______________

4 Id., at pp. 93­94.

5 Id., at p. 97.

568

568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Balao
         In view hereof, Pros. Raymundo Julio A. Olaguer will be
given ten (10) days to review the records and to inform this Court
as to the course of action he proposes to take in order to enlighten
the Court and, if necessary, himself so that a proper Information
and a proper prosecution may be had before this Court.”6

On 4 August 2004, Assistant Special Prosecutor II

Julieta Zinnia A. Niduaza (Assistant Special Prosecutor
Niduaza) filed with the Sandiganbayan a memorandum7
dated 27 July 2004. In the memorandum, Assistant Special
Prosecutor Niduaza recommended that the 5 March 2001
information be maintained.
In their 17 September 2004 motion,8 Balao, Lazarte, Jr.,
Angsico, and Dacalos prayed for a reinvestigation of the
case. In its 27 March 2005 Resolution,9 the Sandiganbayan
granted the motion. The Sandiganbayan held that:

“The Court notes that the issue as to the participation of

accused­movants in the acts complained of in the Information, as
raised by the former First Division, appears not to have been
addressed by the prosecution in the Memorandum dated July 27,
2004 of the Office of the Ombudsman, Office of the Special
Prosecutor. In the said Memorandum, the prosecution found no
reason to disturb the findings of probable cause and recommended
that the Information be maintained.
x x x x
The former Chairman and Members of the First Division
expressed anxiety over the inadequacy of the x x x Information “in
that the participation of each of the accused did not appear clear
in the resolution, much less in the Information”. Considering that
the memorandum of the Ombudsman “recommended that the
Information filed in Criminal Case No. 26583 be maintained and
the prosecution of this case must proceed accordingly”, without
complying with the directive quoted above to clarify the
participation of each of

_______________

6 Id.
7 Id., at pp. 98­110.
8 Id., at pp. 111­122.
9 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 401­406.

569

VOL. 640, JANUARY 26, 2011 569

People vs. Balao
the accused, the Court finds merit in the accused­movants’ prayer
for reinvestigation.”10

On 1 June 2006, Assistant Special Prosecutor Niduaza

filed with the Sandiganbayan a memorandum11 dated 30
May 2006. In the memorandum, Assistant Special
Prosecutor Niduaza recommended that the 5 March 2001
information be maintained.
In his motion12 dated 2 October 2006, Lazarte, Jr.
prayed that the information be quashed. In their 4 October
2006 motion,13 Balao, Angsico, and Dacalos prayed that
their motion to quash the information be admitted. In
another motion,14 also dated 4 October 2006, Balao,
Angsico, and Dacalos prayed that the information be
quashed.

The Sandiganbayan’s Ruling

In its 2 March 2007 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan

denied Lazarte’s 2 October 2006 motion and granted Balao,
Angsico, and Dacalos’ 4 October 2006 motions. The
Sandiganbayan held that:

“The Court finds that the above Information and subsequent

memoranda submitted by the prosecution in support of the said
information, with respect to the accused­movants Balao, Angsico
and Dacalos, fail to satisfy the requirements of Section 6, Rule
110. The Information and the supporting memoranda, still fail to
state the acts or omissions of accused­movants Balao, Angsico and
Dacalos with sufficient particularity so as to enable them to make
a carefully considered plea to the charges against them.
It may be recalled that a reinvestigation of the case was
ordered by this Court because the prosecution failed to
satisfactorily

_______________

10  Id., at pp. 403­404.

11  Id., at pp. 434­457.
12  Rollo, pp. 146­155.
13  Id., at pp. 131­133.
14  Id., at pp. 134­145.

570

570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Balao

comply with an earlier directive of the former Chairperson and

Members of the first Division, after noting the inadequacy of the
information, to clarify the participation of each of the accused. In
ordering the reinvestigation, this Court noted the prosecution’s
July 27, 2004 Memorandum did not address the apprehensions of
the former Chairperson and Members of the First Division as to
the inadequacy of the allegations in the information.
This time, despite a reinvestigation, the prosecution’s
Memorandum dated May 30, 2006 still failed to specify the
participation of accused­movants Balao, Angsico and Dacalos. The
most recent findings of the prosecution still do not address the
deficiency found by the Court in the information. The prosecution
avers that pursuant to Section 3, Rule 117 of the rules of Court, in
determining the viability of a motion to quash based on the
ground of “facts charged in the information do not constitute an
offense,” the test must be whether or not the facts asseverated, if
hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of
the crime as defined by law. The prosecution contends that
matters aliunde should not be considered. However, in the instant
case, the Court has found the information itself to be inadequate,
as it does not satisfy the requirements of particularly alleging the
acts or omissions of the said accused­movants, which served as
the basis of the allegation of conspiracy between the
aforementioned accused­movants and the other accused, in the
commission of the offense charged in the information.
It appears from the prosecution’s May 30, 2006 Memorandum
that at the time material in this case, accused Roberto P. Balao
was the General Manager of the NHA; accused Josephine C.
Angsico, was the Team Head of the Visayas Management Office of
the NHA; accused Virgilio V. Dacalos, was the Division Manager
of the NHA’s Visayas Management Office and accused Felicisimo
F. Lazarte, Jr., was the Manager of the NHA’s Regional Project
Department. All four accused contend that they cannot be held
accountable as they are high­ranking officials based in Metro
Manila and that they relied solely on the recommendation of their
subordinates in affixing their signatures. The prosecution
concedes that high­ranking officials are not expected to personally
examine every single detail of a transaction. But in this particular
case, the general averment or conclusion of the prosecution in its
memorandum that the accused allegedly had foreknowledge of the
supposed anomalies and yet the accused did nothing to verify this,
does not sufficiently show the basis of the

571

VOL. 640, JANUARY 26, 2011 571

People vs. Balao

charge of conspiracy insofar as accused Balao, Angsico and

Dacalos are concerned.
 The prosecution’s May 30, 2006 Memorandum does not
describe how accused Balao, Angsingco [sic] and Dacalos may
have known or when they became aware of the alleged anomalies,
before they allegedly caused payment to the alleged errant
contractor. The said Memorandum states only that they failed to
enforce the contract against the alleged errant private contractor,
which is not even the act imputed against them in the
information.
The prosecution contends that the allegation of conspiracy is
sufficient, since there is no need to allege the individual acts of
the conspirators because the act of one is imputable to all. The
allegation of conspiracy in the information may be adequate if
there is no uncertainty in the acts or omissions imputed against
some of the accused and the findings of the prosecution, such as in
the case at bar. To allow accused Balao, Angsico and Lazarte [sic]
to be arraigned despite the seeming inadequacy of the instant
information as to their actual involvement in the offense charged,
which is not addressed by the mere allegation of conspiracy,
infringes on the constitutional right of the accused to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.
Among the accused­movants, the public officer whose
participation in the alleged offense is specifically mentioned in the
May 30, 2006 Memorandum is accused Felicisimo Lazarte, Jr., the
Chairman of the Inventory and Acceptance Committee (IAC),
which undertook the inventory and final quantification of the
accomplishment of A.C. Cruz Construction. The allegations of
Lazarte that the IAC, due to certain constraints, allegedly had to
rely on the reports of the field engineers and/or the Project Office
as to which materials were actually installed; and that he
supposedly affixed his signature to the IAC Physical Inventory
Report and Memorandum dated August 12, 1991 despite his not
being able to attend the actual inspection because he allegedly
saw that all the members of the Committee had already signed
are matters of defense which he can address in the course of the
trial. Hence, the quashal of the information with respect to
accused Lazarte is denied for lack of merit.”15

_______________

15  Id., at pp. 63­65.

572

572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Balao

Hence, the present petition. The People of the

Philippines, represented by the Office of the Ombudsman,
raises as issue that the “Sandiganbayan acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in dismissing the information in Criminal Case
No. 26583 which sufficiently charged repondents Balao,
Angsico and Dacalos of violating Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019, as
amended.”16 

The Court’s Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

In Lazarte, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,17  a case involving the
same information, the Court held that the 5 March 2001
information is valid. The Court held that:

“The Court finds that the Information in this case

alleges the essential elements of violation of Section 3(e) of
R.A. No. 3019. The Information specifically alleges that
petitioner, Espinosa and Lobrido are public officers being then the
Department Manager, Project Management Officer A and
Supervising Engineer of the NHA respectively; in such capacity
and committing the offense in relation to the office and while in
the performance of their official functions connived, confederated
and mutually helped each other and with accused Arceo C. Cruz,
with deliberate intent through manifest partiality and evident
bad faith gave unwarranted benefits to the latter, A.C. Cruz
Construction and to themselves, to the damage and prejudice of
the government. The felonious act consisted of causing to be paid
to A.C. Cruz Construction public funds in the amount of
P232,628.35 supposedly for excavation and road filling works on
the Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project in Bacolod City despite
the fact that no such works were undertaken by said construction
company as revealed by the Special Audit conducted by COA.”18 
(Emphasis supplied)

_______________

16  Id., at p. 36.

17  G.R. No. 180122, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 431.
18  Id., at p. 447.

573

VOL. 640, JANUARY 26, 2011 573

People vs. Balao

Sections 6 and 8, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court state,

respectively:
 “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.
When the offense is committed by more than one person, all of
them shall be included in the complaint or information.
SEC. 8. Designation of the offense.—The complaint or
information shall state the designation of the offense given by the
statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and
specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is
no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the
section or subsection of the statute punishing it.”

In quashing the 5 March 2001 information, the

Sandiganbayan held that the information “fail to satisfy
the requirements of Section 6, Rule 110. The Information
x  x  x still fail to state the acts or omissions of accused­
movants Balao, Angsico and Dacalos with sufficient
particularity so as to enable them to make a carefully
considered plea to the charges against them.”
The Court disagrees. In Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan,19 
the Court held that 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.20 
Section 3(e) of RA 3019, as amended, states:

“SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.—In addition to

acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing
law,

_______________

19  484 Phil. 350; 441 SCRA 377 (2004).

20  Id., at p. 359; p. 385.

574

574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Balao

the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public

officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
x x x x
 (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.”

In Dela Chica v. Sandiganbayan,21  the Court

enumerated the essential elements of Section 3(e) of RA
3019, as amended. The Court held that:

“In a number of cases, the elements of this offense have been broken
down as follows:
(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 inexusable negligence.”22

Clearly, the allegations in the 5 March 2001

information, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the
essential elements of the crime. The information stated
that (1) Balao, Lazarte, Jr., Angsico, and Dacalos were the
general manager, team head of the Visayas Management
Office, and Visayas division manager, respectively, of the
National Housing Au­

_______________

21  462 Phil. 712; 417 SCRA 242 (2003).

22  Id., at p. 720; p. 247.

575

VOL. 640, JANUARY 26, 2011 575

People vs. Balao

thority; (2) they committed the prohibited acts “in or about

the month of March, 1992,” “while in the performance of
their official functions”; (3) they caused undue injury to the
Government in the amount of P232,628.35, “supposedly for
 the excavation and roadfilling works on the Pahanocoy
Sites and Services Project in Bacolod City despite the fact
that no such works were undertaken”; (4) they gave
“unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to
accused Arceo C. Cruz and A.C. Construction and
themselves”; and (5) they acted “with deliberate intent,
with manifest partiality and evident bad faith.”
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition. The
Court SETS ASIDE the 2 March 2007 Resolution of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 26583 and orders
that (1) respondents Robert P. Balao, Josephine C. Angsico,
and Virgilio V. Dacalos be reinstated as accused in
Criminal Case No. 26583; (2) the hold departure order
against them be reinstated; and (3) they be arrested or they
post a cash bond in sufficient amount.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr.,** Nachura, Abad and Mendoza, JJ.,

concur.

Petition granted, resolution set aside.

Note.—The requirement of alleging the elements of a

crime in the information is to inform the accused of the
nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to
suitably prepare his defense. The presumption is that the
accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense. (People vs. Lindo, 627 SCRA 519
[2010])
——o0o——

_______________

**  Designated additional member per Raffle dated 21 June 2010.

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.