REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBA YAN

Quezon City

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus-

MARIA JOSEFINAMENDOZA DELA CRUZ,

Accused.

Fifth Division

Case No. SB-19-CRM-0149(For: Violation of Sec. 3(e),R.A. No. 3019, amended)Case No. SB-19-CRM-01S0(For: Unlawful Appointment underArt. 244 of the RPCCase No. SB-19-CRM-01Sl(For: Violation of Sec. (e),R.A. No. 3019Case No. SB-19-CRM-01S2(For: Unlawful Appointment underArt. 244 of the RPC)

Present:LAGOS, J., Chairperson,MENDOZA-ARCEGA, andCORPUS-MANALAC, JJ.

Promulgated: ~october 01, lOIJ I

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

LAGOS, J.:

RESOLUTION

For the Court's consideration are accused Maria Josefina MendozaDela Cruz's four (4) separate, albeit identical, Motions to Quash! on eachthe above-captioned docket number, and an Omnibus Motion (1) To

1 Records, Vol. 2, Motion to Quash in SB-19-CRM-0149 on p. 43, SB-19-CRM-0150 on p. 54, SB-19-CRM-0151 on p. 69 and SB-19-CRM-152 on p. 80.

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. De/a Cruz.SB-J9-CRM-0149 to 0152Page 2 of6x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------xConsolidate these cases, and (2)To Defer the Filing of Pre-Trial BriefsPending Resolution of the Motions to Quash hereof, all dated September 13,2019. The prosecution filed its Consolidated Comment/Opposition' to theforegoing Motions to Quash on September 18, 2019.

First off, Rule XIII, Sec. 4(a), of the 2018 Revised Internal Rules ofthe Sandiganbayan, provides - "(a) Before Cases are Raffled. - If thepropriety of consolidation appears upon the filing of the cases concerned asdetermined by the Raffle Committee, all such cases shall be consolidated butconsidered individually except for purposes of the raffle determiningDivision caseload." These cases have already been consolidated and, thus,the herein motion to consolidate is considered moot. For future pleadings,one copy/original for the file bearing the above title and caption would besufficient, instead of filing one for each docket number. Separate or peculiarissues as to each docket, if any, need only be so designated, but discussed inthe same pleading.

As adverted to in the accused's Omnibus Motion, "[i]n the Motionsto Quash, the issues and arguments, the parties and subject matter, arethe same" / viz. :

QUASHAL PROPER

1.0 Nature of the Motion. The quashal relied upon is based onthe ground that the facts charged in the information do not constitute anoffense, to be succinct, we quote:

"Sec. 3. Grounds. - The accused may move toquash the complaint or information on any of thefollowing grounds:

"(a) THAT THE FACTS CHARGED DO NOTCONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE;" (Rule 117, Section 3 (a)Revised Rules of Court, capitalization and bold emphasisoursl

As grounds in support thereof, the accused avers:

A. IN VIOLATION OF THE ACCUSED'SCONSNTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE INFORMED, THEINFORMATION'S ACCUSATION THAT THE ACCUSED:

"I...]BY APPOINTING CABIGAO ... KNOWINGFULL Y WELL THAT CABIGAO DID NOT POSSESTHE REQUIRED EDUCATION[,] TRAINING AND

2 Records, Vol. 2, p. 943 ld., p. 6541d., pp. 44, 55,70 and 81

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Dela Cruz.SB-J9-CRM-0149 to 0152Page 3 of6x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

EXPERIENCE(,) QUALIFICATIONS FOR THESAID POSITION AS PRESCRIBED BY EXISTINGLAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS(.)"

FATALLY FAILS TO ALLEGE AMONG THE MYRIAD OFLEGAL MASS, WHAT SPECIFIC "EXISTING LAWS., RULES. ANDREGULATIONS. WHAT SPECIFIC PROVISION(S) THEREIN,SERVED AS BASIS FOR THE PROSECUTION'S CONCLUSION OFTHE APPOINTEE'S LACK OF QUALIFICATION,MARGINALIZING THE ABILITY OF THE ACCUSED TOPREPARE HER DEFENSE, THUS, WITHOUT THESPECIFICATION, THE INFORMATION CHARGES THE ACCUSEDWITH NO OFFENSE AND RENDERS THE INFORMATIONENTIREL Y VOID.

B. ALONG THE SAME VEIN, UNDER ARTICLE 5 OFTHE NEW CIVIL CODE, THE PROSECUTION'S VIOLATIONOF THE ACCUSED'S RIGHT TO BE INFORMED: (1) UNDERTHE CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS SELF-EXECUTING INREGARDS TO THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND (2)UNDER RULE 115, SECTION 1 (b) WHICH HAS THE FORCEAND EFFECT OF LAW (SHIO]I v. HARVEY, 43 PHIL. 333;CONLU v. CA, 106 PHIL 904) MAKES THE PROSECUTION'SACT OF FILING NON CONFORMING INFORMATION, IPSOFACTO VOID. (emphasis in the original)

According to the accused, "without the phrase 'as prescribed byexisting laws, rules and regulations,' there is nothing in the informationthat will show 'Cabigao [accused's appointee] did not possess the requirededucation, training and experience(,) qualification for the position,' in whichcase, the Information would charge no crime at all."s That phrase is found inall the Informations herein. She continues, "Since the rule is that the accusedcannot be convicted of an offense not charged or included in theInformation is based upon this right to be informed of the nature and causeof the offense.t" It is not so. It is clear as day that the offenses chargedherein are for violations of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 and Article 244 of theRevised Penal Code for lack of qualification of the appointee.

Sticking to her point, the accused claims, " ... [A]nd since theInformation's phrase 'prescribed by existing laws, rules andregulations" is not understandably specified, the accused rightfullybewails that this marginalizes, nay decimates, her right to be informed of theaccusations against her, specially so, since she is not a lawyer, for she wouldbe blindly arguing, even with a lawyer who would[,] likewise, be hardput.:" She deplores that "[p]lacing the accused in a quandary where to locateall these 'Iaws, rules and regulations'[i] circulars and memoranda, from the

5 Id., p. 46; emphasis omitted; bold type supplied.6 Id., citations omitted; bold type supplie.7 Ibid; emphasis in the original.

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Dela Cruz.SB-J9-CRM-0149 to 0152Page 4 0/6x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

whole mass of laws, which should [be] linked to the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 would not only be harrowing to one unlearned in thelaw - and to compel her to do what is impossible would be a frighteningopprobrium which, it is submitted, further denies the accused, heropportunity to be heard, which is the essential foundation of due processof law. This violates Art Ill, Section 14 (1) of the fundamental law .... 8"

(emphasis in the original)

In response, the Prosecution in its Consolidated Comment/Oppositionasserts that, as regards the Informations in SB-19-CRM-0 149 & 0151, theInformations "contain specific allegations of facts and circumstancesnecessary to constitute a violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft andCorrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019). Upon a cursory reading of the respectiveInformations, accused-movant is readily apprised of the acts and/oromissions imputed to her.,,9 More importantly, among other things:

xxx

10. In the present case[ s], there is no dispute that the accused, asthe Postmaster General of the Philippine Postal Service Corporation(PHILPOST), gave unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference whenshe appointed Esther Cabigao twice - as Director III on 01 September2011 and as Department Manager III on 29 November 2013. In bothinstances, the Civil Service Commission invalidated the appointmentsof Cabigao for violating CSC Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 40series of 1998, CSC MC No. 13 dated 04 May 2011, CSC MC No. 16series of 2005, and CSC Resolution No. 11-00472 dated 08 April 2011,respectively. (emphasis supplied)

xxx

13. On the other hand, the Informations in SB-19-CRM -0150&0152 contain specific allegations of facts and circumstances necessary toconstitute violation of Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code. Similarly, acursory reading of the respective Informations, accused-movant is readilyapprised of the acts and/or omissions imputed to her.

xxx

16. As stated earlier, there is no dispute that the accused, as thePostmaster General of the PHILPOST, unlawfully appointed EstherCabigao twice - as Director III on 01 September 2011 and, then again, asDepartment Manager III on 29 November 2013. In both instances, theCivil Service invalidated the appointments of Cabigao for lack ofqualification under the above-mentioned CSC Memorandum Circulars andResolution, respectively.

8 Id., p. 47

9 Id., p. 96; underscoring supplied.

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Dela Cruz.SB-J9-CRM-0149100152Page 5 of6x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

19. On the threshold issue on whether or not the accused-movantwas denied her constitutional right to be informed of the basis of thecharges against her and violated Article 5 of the Civil Code, she cannotfeign ignorance of the legal basis of the charges against her because shewas even the one who appealed the disapproval of the CSC-NCR dated 09January 2012 of the temporary appointment of Cabigao for the Director IIIposition. xxx

xxx

21. Furthermore, accused-movant participated during thepreliminary investigation by filing counter-affidavit dated 11 November2016. She even sought reconsideration of the Resolution dated 08 January2018 by the Office of the Ombudsman. Evidently. accused-movant isaware of the factual and legal background of the cases filed against her.(underscoring supplied)

22. Finally, the assertions of the accused-movant in her subjectMotions are evidentiary in nature which is best addressed at a full-blowntrial on the merits. Corollary, matters of evidence are not subject ofcriminal information, and therefore, need not be averred. 10

To cut to the chase, Section 1, Rule 117, of the Rules of Court,dictates that "[a]t anytime before entering his [or her] plea, the accused maymove to quash the complaint or information." (underscoring supplied) Here,the accused was arraigned on September 13,2019, wherein after voluntarilywaiving the reading of the Informations and with the assistance of counsel,she pleaded not guilty to the charges. On even date, the accused filed theinstant motions. It appears that the motions were filed and received at the s"Division of the Sandiganbayan (Clerk's Office) atl 0:50 o'clock in themorning - it seems by design, immediately after the arraignment. Thus,readily in her Preliminary Note, Motion to Quash, the accused cited Suy v.People of the Philippines, (G.R. No. L5278, February 17, 1953) "on thepoint of 'quashal after arraignment' .... ,,11 The ground relied upon by theaccused in her Motions to Quash is indeed one of the grounds mentioned inSec. 9, Rule 117 which is allowed after arraignment and not deemed waivedif not raised prior thereto, specifically on the ground under paragraph (a) ofSec. 3 of the same rule, i.e., "(a) that the facts charged do not charge anoffense."

Relevantly, Sec. 4, Rule 117, provides:

SEC. 4. Amendment of Complaint or information. - If the motionto quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or informationwhich can be cured by amendment, the court shall order that anamendment be made. (underscoring supplied)

10 Id., pp. 97-22

11 Id., pp. 43, 54, 69, and 80; emphasis supplied.

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Dela Cruz.SB-19-CRM-0149 to 0152Page 60f6x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do notconstitute an offense, the prosecution shall be given by the court anopportunity to correct the defect by amendment. The motion shall begranted if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the complaintor information still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment.(emphasis supplied)

In People vs. Andrade (2014),12 the High Court held, "If the defect inthe information is curable by amendment, the motion to quash shall bedenied and the prosecution shall be ordered to file an amended information.Generally, the fact that the allegations in the information do notconstitute an offense, or that the information does not conformsubstantially to the prescribed form, are defects curable byamendment .... When there is any doubt about the sufficiency of thecomplaint or information, the court should direct its amendment or that anew information be filed, and save the necessity of appealing the case ontechnical grounds when the complaint might easily be amended." As in thepresent cases, all the respondents in Andrade "had pleaded 'Not Guilty' tothe crime charged during their arraignment .... and the case [had been] set forpre-trial and trial xxx." 13 (emphasis supplied)

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the accused's Motions toQuash are DENIED. The prosecution is given ten (10) days from receipt ofthis Resolution to file amended informations, taking into consideration theaccused's Motions to Quash.

SO ORDERED.

~~AGOSAssociate Justice

Chairperson

WE CONCUR:

ORPUS-MANALACiate Justice

OZA-ARCEGA

12 G.R. No. 187000, November 24,201413 Id.