Do Not Constitute An Offense. The Fundamental Test

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
the signatures of Fabian Ver, Roman Cruz, Aber

HERMENEGILDO DUMLAO y CASTILIANO and Canlas and Jacobo Clave did not appear in the
EMILIO LA’O y GONZALES, respondents. minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 1982, he
said it was safe to conclude that these people did
not participate in the alleged approval of the Lease-
FACTS: The accused Hermenegildo C. Dumlao, Purchase Agreement. This being the case, he
Aber Canlas, Jacobo C. Clave, Roman A. Cruz, Jr., maintained that there was no quorum of the board
and Fabian C. Ver, members of the Board of to approve the supposed resolution authorizing the
Trustees of the Government Service Insurance sale of the GSIS property. There being no approval
System (GSIS) which is a government corporation, by the majority of the Board of Trustees, there can
while in the performance of their official functions be no resolution approving the Lease-Purchase
entered into a contract of lease-purchase with Agreement. The unapproved resolution, he added,
Emilio G. La’o, a private person whereby the GSIS proved his innocence. He further contended that
agreed to sell to said Emilio G. La’o, a GSIS the person to be charged should be Atty. Luis
acquired property consisting of three parcels of Javellana, who sold the subject property to
land with an area of 821 square meters together respondent La’o without the proper authority. He
with a 5-storey building situated at 1203 A. Mabini likewise wondered why he alone was charged
St., Ermita, Manila, known as the Government without including the other two signatories in the
Counsel Centre for the sum of P2,000,000.00 with minutes of the meeting held.
a down payment of P200,000.00 with the balance
payable in fifteen years at 12% interest per annum ISSUE: Whether or not Dumlao’s Motion to
compounded yearly, with a yearly amortization of Dismiss/Quash on the ground that the facts
P264,278.37 including principal and interest charged do not constitute an offense should be
granting Emilio G. La’o the right to sub-lease the granted.
ground floor for his own account during the period
of lease, from which he collected yearly rentals in HELD: No. The resolution of the Sandiganbayan in
excess of the yearly amortization which contract is granting the Motion to Dismiss/Quash of
manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the respondent Hermenegildo C. Dumlao, is hereby
government. reversed and set aside. The Sandiganbayan is
forthwith directed to set the case for the reception
An Amended Information was filed before the of evidence for the prosecution.
Sandiganbayan charging respondents Dumlao and
La’o, Aber P. Canlas, Jacobo C. Clave, Roman A. The ground raised by respondent Dumlao in his
Cruz, Jr. and Fabian C. Ver with violation of Section Motion to Quash/Dismiss is that the facts charged
3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, do not constitute an offense. The fundamental test
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt in determining the sufficiency of the material
Practices Act. When arraigned respondent Dumlao, averments of an information is whether the facts
with the assistance of counsel de parte, pleaded alleged therein, which are hypothetically admitted,
“not guilty” to the offense charged. As agreed upon would establish the essentials elements of the
by the prosecution and respondent Dumlao, a Joint crime defined by law. Evidence aliunde, or matters
Stipulation of Facts and Admission of Exhibits was extrinsic of the Information, are not be considered.
submitted to the court and on the basis thereof, the The elements of the crime under Section 3(g) of
court issued the Pre-Trial Order. Republic Act No. 3019 are as follows: (1) that the
accused is a public officer; (2) that he entered into
Respondent Dumlao filed a Motion to a contract or transaction on behalf of the
Dismiss/Quash on the ground that the facts government; and (3) that such contract or
charged do not constitute an offense. He stated transaction is grossly and manifestly
that the prosecution’s main thrust against him was disadvantageous to the government. After
the alleged approval by the Government Service examining the information, we find that the facts
Insurance System (GSIS) Board of Trustees — of alleged therein, if hypothetically admitted, will prove
which he was a member — of the Lease- Purchase all the elements of Section 3(g) as against
Agreement entered into by and among the GSIS, respondent Dumlao.
the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel
(OGCC) and respondent La’o. He argued that the It can be gathered from the resolution of the
allegedly approved Board Resolution was not in Sandiganbayan that it did consider the ground
fact approved by the GSIS Board of Trustees, invoked by Dumlao (that the facts charged do not
contrary to the allegations in the information. Since constitute an offense); otherwise, it could have
denied respondent Dumlao’s motion. From the
reasoning given by the Sandiganbayan, it is clear
that it dismissed the case because of insufficiency
of evidence. Insufficiency of evidence is not one of
the grounds of a Motion to Quash. The grounds, as
enumerated in Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, are as follows: (a)
That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction
over the offense charged; (c) That the court trying
the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the
accused; (d) That the officer who filed the
information had no authority to do so; (e) That it
does not conform substantially to the prescribed
form; (f) That more than one offense is charged
except when a single punishment for various
offenses is prescribed by law; (g) That the criminal
action or liability has been extinguished; (h) That it
contains averments which, if true, would constitute
a legal excuse or justification; and (i) That the
accused has been previously convicted or acquitted
of the offense charged, or the case against him was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent. Insufficiency of evidence is a
ground for dismissal of an action only after the
prosecution rests its case.

Do Not Constitute An Offense. The Fundamental Test

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Do Not Constitute An Offense. The Fundamental Test

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Do Not Constitute An Offense. The Fundamental Test

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

the signatures of Fabian Ver, Roman Cruz, Aber

You might also like