G.R. No. L-6130 February 26, 1954
PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, recurrente, vs. JUEZ CALUAG Y OTROS, recurridos.

FACTS

The case involves a petition for certiorari. The decisive question is whether private individuals, respondents Elizabeth R. Wilson and Gabriel K. Pascual, are criminally liable. According to the complaint, they conspired with four co-accused public officials (the Superintendent, Warehouseman, Auditor, and guard) of the North Base X, Engineering Depot 14 of the Surplus Property Commission in Quezon City. Through this conspiracy, they allegedly stole and appropriated public property valued at P100,745.33 by: (1) conspiring with the officials, (2) corrupting them through bribery, and (3) substantially altering an invoice issued in favor of one of them. The theory of respondents Wilson and Pascual, upheld by the lower court, is that these acts did not constitute any crime. Consequently, the Court of First Instance dismissed the case as to them, with costs de officio.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the private individuals, Wilson and Pascual, are criminally liable for the complex crime of conspiring with and bribing public officials to misappropriate public property, and for fraudulently altering an invoice.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The orders dated June 18 and September 23, 1952, were REVOKED, with costs against respondents Wilson and Pascual.
The Court held that the crime charged is a complex crime for which not only the accused officials but also all persons who participated in the manner indicated are criminally liable. Respondents Wilson and Pascual are principals (authors) of the crime committed under Articles 16, 17, 210, 212, and 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Conspiring with the officials who had custody of the properties makes the private individuals as responsible as the officials. Bribing the officials likewise makes the private individuals criminally liable to the same degree under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code. The fraudulent alteration of Wilson’s invoice to facilitate the removal of the 24 generators aggravates the penalty under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 4000.
The petition is not barred by the fact that the People could have appealed but did so out of time. The interim Fiscal received a telegram on June 30, 1952, instructing him to go to Bacolod to assist in another criminal case, and he returned to his office on July 7, 1952. While the absence of a timely appeal is ordinarily important, the requirement that there be a lack of jurisdiction, excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion prejudicing substantial rights is more paramount. The Supreme Court has granted the writ in numerous cases even where the proper remedy was appeal, or the appeal was filed out of time, or no appeal was filed.
The accused are not in jeopardy. Rule 113, Section 8 of the Rules of Court expressly states that an order sustaining a motion to quash does not bar another prosecution for the same offense unless the motion is based on grounds specified in subsections (f) and (h) of Section 2 of that rule. A motion to dismiss, which is a reiteration of one filed before pleading to the complaint, even if presented during the trial period but before the presentation of evidence, is of the same nature. The plea that the respondent judge granted more than what was prayed for in the motion is not valid; when one seeks to benefit from the excess, it is because it was desired.