Facts:
Elan Recreation, Inc. filed criminal
and administrative complaints against Mayor Ramon Talaga Jr. The complaints
"alleged that petitioner, in his capacity as mayor of the City of Lucena,
had unlawfully granted favors to a third party with respect to the operation of
bingo games in the city, to the damage and prejudice of the complainants".
The administrative case was
dismissed but the criminal charges were retained and filed by the Office of the
Special Prosecutor. Three informations were filed against Talaga Jr. in
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or R.A. 3019. Later, only
one of the informations was retained which alleges that Talaga Jr. gave
"unwarranted benefits to Jose Sy Bang by approving an ordinance granting
to Sy Bang a local franchise to operate bingo games in the city". The
prosecution moved for the petitioner's preventive suspension for ninety (90)
days in accordance with Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019. The Sandiganbayan granted
the motion. The petitioner, then, filed the present Petition for Certiorari
with an urgent application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
and/or preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner contends, among other things, that the information do not constitute
an offense. He claims that under R.A. No. 3019, the law which he allegedly
violated, the information must allege that the acts in question "caused
injury to any party, whether the government or private party."
Issue: Whether or not the information
filed against the petitioner is complete and constitutes the offense to which
he is being charged of.
Held: Yes. Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019,
under which petitioner is charged, provides:
Section 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:
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 charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other concessions.
Contrary to the argument of
petitioner, the law does not require that the information must allege that the
acts in question "caused injury to any party, whether the government or
private party." The presence of the word "or" clearly shows that
there are two acts which can be prosecuted under Section 3: First, causing any
undue injury to any party, including the government, and, Second, giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantages or preference. Moreover, in
Quibal v. Sandiganbayan,30 the Court ruled that violation of Section 3 (e) of
R.A. No. 3019 requires proof of the following facts:
1. His action caused undue injury to the Government or any private party, or
gave any party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to such
parties.
Section
9, Rule 110, Rules of Court provides the guideline for the determination of the
validity or sufficiency of allegations in an information, to wit:
SECTION 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.
The test is whether the crime is
described in intelligible terms with such particularity as to appraise the
accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense charged. The raison d'etre
of the rule is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense.
Based on the foregoing test, the
Information sufficiently apprises petitioner of the charges against him. The
Information charged the petitioner of evident bad faith and manifest partiality
when as Mayor of Lucena City, petitioner, in conspiracy with the City Council,
gave unwarranted benefits to Jose Sy Bang. Moreover, it states the specific act
which constituted the giving of unwarranted benefits, namely, granting unto the
said Jose Sy Bang a local franchise to operate a bingo business in Lucena City
in violation of existing laws. These allegations are clear enough for a layman
to understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment