Facts

• On August 12, 1991 Felicisimo F. Lazarte, Jr., Department Manager of the National Housing Authority and Chairman of the Inventory and Acceptance Committee (IAC), signed the IAC Physical Inventory Report and Memoranda despite not attending the actual physical inspection — allegedly because "he allegedly saw that all the members of the Committee had already signed," and he chose to rely on the field engineers and the Project Office.
• A COA Special Audit of the Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project in Bacolod City revealed that no excavation and roadfilling works were actually undertaken by the contractor, A.C. Cruz Construction.
• The Ombudsman filed an Information with the Sandiganbayan, Criminal Case No. 26583, charging Lazarte, Espinosa (Project Management Officer A) and Lobrido (Supervising Engineer) — in conspiracy with Arceo C. Cruz, a private individual and General Manager of the contractor — with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019§, over the payment of ₱232,628.35 in public funds for works never done.
• A prosecution Memorandum of July 27, 2004 detailed the accused's participation; a second Memorandum of May 30, 2006 failed to specify the individual participation of co-accused Balao, Angsico and Dacalos.
• Lazarte moved to quash, asserting that the facts charged do not constitute an offence, that the Information failed to conform to the prescribed form, and that his right to be informed was violated for want of any statement of his individual participation in the conspiracy.
• On March 2, 2007 the Sandiganbayan (First Division) denied his motion, his claims of reliance on field reports and non-attendance being "matters of defense which he can address in the course of the trial" — but quashed the Information as to Balao, Angsico and Dacalos, whose participation the second Memorandum had not specified. The same order that saved the Information against him killed it against three others.
• Reconsideration was denied, the Sandiganbayan finding the two Memoranda showed Lazarte's participation with sufficient particularity.
• He brought Rule 65 certiorari. Decided En Banc, March 13, 2009.

Issue

Ruling

"The Court is not persuaded. The Court affirms the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan."

Ratio

• The Court first restated the procedural rule about the remedy. "[T]he denial of a motion to quash is not correctible by certiorari"; when such a motion is denied "the remedy is not a petition for certiorari but for petitioners to go to trial without prejudice to reiterating the special defenses invoked in their motion to quash." Remedial measures against interlocutory orders "are frowned upon and often dismissed," to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single court.
• It then applied the Section 6 checklist — name of the accused, designation of the offence by statute, the acts or omissions constituting it, name of the offended party, approximate date, and place — read with Section 9's requirement of ordinary and concise language sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged.
• Two tests, and the decision states both. On a motion to quash for failure to charge an offence: "The fundamental test … is whether or not the facts asseverated, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime defined in law. Matters aliunde will not be considered." On the sufficiency of the Information itself: "The test is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms with such particularity as to apprise 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." The digest previously added "strictly" and a clause about the accused being presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts; neither is in this decision.
• The ultimate-facts / evidentiary-details line does the work (Domingo v. Sandiganbayan): The specific individual acts of the petitioner (such as how he signed the report, his reliance on field engineers, and his failure to personally inspect the … site) are purely evidentiary details and matters of defense. To require them would force the premature disclosure of its evidence prior to trial.
• The Court then verified the elements were all charged: that the three were public officers of the NHA; that they acted with manifest partiality or evident bad faith in conspiracy with a private individual; and that they caused damage to the government and gave unwarranted benefits to the contractor by paying ₱232,628.35 for works never undertaken.
• The residual-validity point closes it: the dismissal as to three co-accused did not render the Information unintelligible, since it sufficiently alleged the elements of the crime and the conspiracy between the remaining accused.

Doctrine

• The test is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms with such particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense charged.
• Ultimate facts, not evidentiary details: the individual participation of each co-conspirator is an evidentiary matter of defence, not an ultimate fact, and its omission does not make the Information defective.
• The hypothetical admission rule: where the ground is that the facts charged do not constitute an offence under Section 3(a), Rule 117§, the question is "whether or not the facts asseverated, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime defined in law." "Matters aliunde will not be considered."
• Jurisdiction attaches at filing and is not lost by the later dismissal of charges against higher-ranking co-accused.

• Certiorari does lie against such a denial in one situation — "[i]f the court, in denying the motion to dismiss or motion to quash acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, then certiorari or prohibition lies"; otherwise the accused must go to trial and appeal.
• The hypothetical-admission rule is ground-specific: it governs a motion to quash for failure to charge an offence, and does not displace the rule that facts aliunde may be shown where the ground is prescription or double jeopardy — see Garcia v. CA.
• Note the internal contrast the same order supplies: the Sandiganbayan quashed as to Balao, Angsico and Dacalos precisely because the record did not particularise their participation, while sustaining the charge against Lazarte — so the holding is not that conspiracy allegations never need specificity, but that the Information's ultimate facts sufficed as to him.
• And a defendant cannot quash by pleading his defences — reliance on subordinates, absence from the inspection, lack of knowledge of the falsity — all of which are subject to the evaluation of evidence during the trial proper.
• Read with Bacasmas and Gallego: three Section 3(e) cases, one test, and the same refusal to quash graft indictments on pleading technicalities.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Facts

• August 12, 1991: Petitioner Felicisimo F. Lazarte, Jr., acting in his capacity as Department Manager of the National Housing Authority (NHA) and Chairman of the Inventory and Acceptance Committee (IAC), affixed his signature to the IAC Physical Inventory Report and Memoranda despite his inability to attend the actual physical inspection. Lazarte allegedly signed the report because he saw that all the members of the Committee had already signed, and he chose to rely on the reports of the field engineers and the Project Office.
• Subsequent to August 12, 1991 (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): The Commission on Audit (COA) conducted a Special Audit on the Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project in Bacolod City, which revealed that no excavation and roadfilling works were actually undertaken by the contractor, A.C. Cruz Construction.
• Subsequent to the Special Audit (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): The Office of the Ombudsman filed an Information before the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 26583, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Robert P. Balao, et al.", charging petitioner Lazarte, Espinosa (Project Management Officer A), and Lobrido (Supervising Engineer) of the NHA, in conspiracy with Arceo C. Cruz (private individual and General Manager of A.C. Cruz Construction), with a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019§.
• July 27, 2004: During the preliminary investigation and reinvestigation process, the prosecution prepared a Memorandum detailing the participation of the accused.
• May 30, 2006: The prosecution issued a second Memorandum. This memorandum failed to specify the individual participation of co-accused Robert P. Balao, Angsico, and Dacalos in the alleged conspiracy, rendering the conspiracy allegation against them inadequate.
• Subsequent to May 30, 2006 (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): Lazarte filed a Motion to Quash the Information before the Sandiganbayan, asserting that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, that the Information failed to conform to the prescribed form, and that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation was violated.
• March 2, 2007: The First Division of the Sandiganbayan issued the first assailed Resolution denying Lazarte's Motion to Quash, holding that his claims of reliance on field reports and lack of personal attendance at the inspection were matters of defense which he can address in the course of the trial. The Sandiganbayan, however, quashed the Information as to co-accused Balao, Angsico, and Dacalos because the May 30, 2006 Memorandum failed to specify their participation to show conspiracy.
• Subsequent to March 2, 2007 (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): Lazarte filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Sandiganbayan.
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): The Sandiganbayan issued its second assailed Resolution denying Lazarte's Motion for Reconsideration, reaffirming the sufficiency of the Information and finding that the July 27, 2004 and May 30, 2006 Memoranda showed Lazarte's participation with sufficient particularity.
• Subsequent Date (Exact Date NOT IN RECORD): Lazarte filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure before the Supreme Court, ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the Sandiganbayan.
• March 13, 2009: The Supreme Court En Banc promulgated its Decision denying the Petition for Certiorari and affirming the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.

Arguments of the Parties

• Insufficiency of the Information: Petitioner argued that the Information filed before the Sandiganbayan failed to sufficiently aver the essential elements of the crime charged because it did not specify the individual, specific participation of each of the accused in the alleged conspiracy, thereby violating his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• Unintelligibility of Residual Allegations: He contended that the residual averments in the Information were rendered unintelligible and vague after the Sandiganbayan dismissed the charges against some of his co-accused (such as Balao, Angsico, and Dacalos).
• Irregular Supplementation: Petitioner claimed that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion by utilizing the prosecution's Memoranda dated July 27, 2004, and May 30, 2006, to supplement the inherent inadequacies and omissions of the Information.
• Failure to Constitute an Offense: He asserted that the facts charged in the Information do not constitute an offense because no damage or injury was caused to any party or to the government.
• Divestment of Jurisdiction: He argued that the Sandiganbayan lost jurisdiction over him upon the dismissal of the charges against his high-ranking co-accused because the remaining accused are public officers whose salary grade is below Salary Grade 27.

• Rule on Ultimate Facts: The prosecution argued that under the doctrines in Domingo v. Sandiganbayan and Ingco v. Sandiganbayan, an Information only needs to allege "ultimate facts" constituting the offense. The finer details and the reasons why are evidentiary matters to be proven during trial.
• Hypothetical Admission: The respondent maintained that in determining the viability of a motion to quash§ on the ground of failure to state an offense, the test is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, establish the elements of the crime without considering matters aliunde.
• Continuity of Jurisdiction: The prosecution asserted that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the petitioner because jurisdiction is determined at the inception of the filing of the Information based on the allegations, and subsequent dismissals of co-accused do not strip the court of jurisdiction.

• Signature and Payment: It is uncontroverted that petitioner Lazarte signed the Physical Inventory Report and Memoranda dated August 12, 1991, as Chairman of the IAC, and that public funds in the amount of ₱232,628.35 were paid to A.C. Cruz Construction.
• Absence of Works: Both parties recognize that a Special Audit was conducted by the COA which concluded that no excavation and roadfilling works were actually undertaken on the Bacolod project.

Issue

1. Whether the Sandiganbayan lost its jurisdiction over the petitioner (whose salary grade is below Salary Grade 27) upon the dismissal of the charges against his high-ranking co-accused.
2. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in referencing the prosecution's reinvestigation Memoranda dated July 27, 2004, and May 30, 2006, in its resolutions denying the motion to quash.

Ruling

• MAIN ISSUE: YES. The Supreme Court En Banc held that the Information is valid and sufficient under Sections 6 and 9 of Rule 110§. The Information particularly alleged the ultimate facts constituting the essential elements of the offense. The specific individual participation of each co-conspirator is an evidentiary detail that is a matter of defense to be threshed out during the trial proper, and its omission does not render the Information defective.
• SECONDARY ISSUE 1: NO. Case law dictates that jurisdiction over criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the Information at the time of filing, and once jurisdiction attaches, it is not lost by the subsequent dismissal of charges against high-ranking co-accused.
• SECONDARY ISSUE 2: NO. The Supreme Court found the Sandiganbayan’s explanation adequate. The Sandiganbayan did not use the Memoranda to cure a defective Information — on this point the Court found its explanation adequate — but rather verified that while the conspiracy allegations as to Balao, Angsico, and Dacalos were inadequate (resulting in the quashal of the charges against them), the Information and supporting documents sufficiently and particularly detailed Lazarte's specific role in the commission of the offense.

"The Court is not persuaded. The Court affirms the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan."

(Note: The formal "SO ORDERED" and cost declarations are NOT IN RECORD).

Ratio

1. Certiorari Not the Proper Remedy for Interlocutory Orders: The Court re-established the fundamental procedural rule that the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not correctible by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65§. The remedy of the accused is to go to trial, enter his plea, and if convicted, raise the issue on appeal. Certification under Rule 65 only lies in exceptional circumstances where the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
2. Sufficiency Requisites under Rule 110§: The Court applied Section 6, Rule 110§, which dictates that an Information is sufficient if it states: (a) the name of the accused; (b) the designation of the offense by statute; (c) the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; (d) the name of the offended party; (e) the approximate date of the commission; and (f) the place where the offense was committed. Under Section 9, Rule 110§, the Information must state these acts or omissions in ordinary and concise language sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged.
3. The Test of Sufficiency: "The test is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms with such particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense charged." Its raison d'etre "is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense"; another purpose is to enable him, if convicted, to plead his conviction in a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. The decision does not say the requirement exists "strictly" for that purpose, nor that the accused is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts.
4. Ultimate Facts vs. Evidentiary Details: Drawing from Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, the Court held that the Information is only required to allege "ultimate facts" constituting the offense. The specific individual acts of the petitioner (such as how he signed the report, his reliance on field engineers, and his failure to personally inspect the Bacolod project site) are purely evidentiary details and matters of defense. To require the prosecution to specify these details would force the premature disclosure of its evidence prior to trial, which runs counter to the nature and purpose of an Information.
5. Indispensability of elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019§: The Court verified that the Information successfully charged all the essential elements of the offense: (a) that the petitioner, Espinosa, and Lobrido were public officers of the NHA; (b) that they acted with manifest partiality or evident bad faith in conspiracy with Arceo C. Cruz, a private individual; and (c) that they caused damage to the government and gave unwarranted benefits to A.C. Cruz Construction by paying public funds in the amount of ₱232,628.35 for works that were never undertaken. This factual recital is sufficient to charge the offense.
6. Residual Validity of the Information: The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the dismissal of charges against some of his co-accused (Balao, Angsico, and Dacalos) rendered the Information unintelligible. The Court ruled that because the Information sufficiently alleged the elements of the crime and the conspiracy between the remaining accused (Lazarte, Espinosa, Lobrido, and Cruz), the Information remained valid and legally sufficient as to them.

Doctrine

• The Lazarte Sufficiency Test: Verbatim:

  "The test is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms with such particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense charged."

• The Hypothetical Admission Rule: When a motion to quash is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense under Section 3(a), Rule 117§, the court must resolve the motion solely based on the allegations in the Information, whose truth and veracity are hypothetically admitted. Matters aliunde or evidentiary defenses cannot be considered.

• Certiorari Exception for Interlocutory Denials: While a denial of a motion to quash is generally interlocutory and non-appealable, certiorari or prohibition under Rule 65 will lie if the court, in denying the motion to quash, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
• Inadmissibility of Evidentiary Defense at Motion to Quash Stage: A defendant cannot seek the quashal of an Information by presenting his substantive defenses (such as lack of intent, reliance on subordinates, or lack of actual knowledge of falsity) prior to trial, as these are subject to the evaluation of evidence during the trial proper.

Separate Opinions