PP Vs Balao

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.
FACTS:
Ombudsman Prosecutor II Raul V. Cristoria filed with the Sandiganbayan an information against respondents for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(e) of REPUBLIC ACT NO.
3019, AS AMENDED (THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT), IT WAS COMMITED THRU THE CONNIVANCE OF THE RESPONDENTS AND a private individual
and General Manager of A.C. Cruz Construction for causing to be paid to A.C. Construction public funds in the amount 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 by A.C. Construction as revealed by
the Special Audit conducted by the Commission on Audit. However, the Sandiganbayan found the information inadequate expressing that the participation of each of
the accused did not appear clear in the resolution, much less in the Information. A reinvestigation of the case was ordered by the Sandiganbayan. Assistant Special
Prosecutor Niduaza) filed with the Sandiganbayan a memorandum which recommended that information be maintained.
In a motion to Sandiganbayan, Balao, Lazarte, Jr., Angsico, and Dacalos prayed for a reinvestigation of the case. The said motion was granted noting that the issue as to
the participation of accused-movants in the acts complained of in the Information were not complied.
Subsequently, a motion for quashal of their information, dated 2 October 2006 by, Lazarte, Jr and 4 October 2006 by Balao, Angsico, and Dacalos were filed respectively.
The Sandiganbayan’s Ruling:
The Sandiganbayan denied Lazarte’s 2 October 2006 motion for lack of merit and granted Balao, Angsico, and Dacalos’ 4 October 2006 motions.
The Sandiganbayan’s finds that the above Information and subsequent memoranda submitted by the prosecution in support of the said information, with respect to
the accused-movants 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 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.
It may be recalled that a reinvestigation of the case was ordered by this Court because the prosecution failed to satisfactorily 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.
Hence, an instant petition was filed with the SC.
Issue:
Whether or not 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
RULING:
YES, Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion.
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.
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, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxxx
(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
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 Authority; (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."

PP Vs Balao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PP Vs Balao

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

PP Vs Balao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

176819 January 26, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

The Sandiganbayan’s Ruling:

Hence, an instant petition was filed with the SC.

YES, Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion.

Section 3(e) of RA 3019, as amended, states:

You might also like