Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

HERMENEGILDO DUMLAO

GR No. 168918, March 2, 2009

Facts: The Government Service Insurance Systems (GSIS) owns parcel of land. In
one of the meetings of the members of the GSIS Board of Trustees (Board),
including Mr. Dumlao, the Board authorized its Management to enter into a
Lease-Purchase Agreement (Agreement) with certain individual.

After the investigation by the Ombudsman on said Agreement, it filed an


information before the Sandiganbayan charging, among others, Mr. Dumlao
for violating Republic Act No. 3019 as the Agreement is disadvantageous to
the government. Mr. Dumlao filed a Motion to Quash against the information.
For him, the facts stated therein do not constitute the offense since there
was no quorum in the members of the Board when the Resolution was
issued rendering the Agreement non-existing. For the People, the
Ombudsman claims that the case should proceed to trial for the prosecution
to present their case.

The Sandiganbayan granted the Motion for other the reason that the
evidence is not sufficient.

Issue: Whether the grant of the Motion by the Sandiganbayan is proper

Held: No. Under Section 3 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure (Rules), the grounds to quash the information are:

(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.

Meanwhile, one of the reasons for the dismissal of the case after
presentation of evidence by the prosecution is insufficiency of evidence.

Here, the dismissal of the case is not proper. The Sandiganbayan used to
dismiss the information with reason not provided under the Section 3. The
trial court utilized the ground not raised by Mr. Dumlao, and in an
inappropriate time and context.

In effect, the Sandiganbayan prevent the prosecution of its opportunity to


prove Mr. Dumlaos culpability.