G.R. No. 125534 . October 13, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division), ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO, JOSE A. UNSON+, JAIME C. DACANAY, JOHN DOE, PETER DOE, and WILLIAM DOE, respondents.

FACTS

On October 27, 1986, the Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor filed an information with the Sandiganbayan charging Roberto S. Benedicto, Jose A. Unson, Jaime C. Dacanay, and others (John Doe, Peter Doe, William Doe) with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The information alleged that from December 1983 to March 1984, the accused, as public officers of the National Sugar Trading Corporation (NASUTRA), conspired to import raw sugar without prior authority, with a total landed cost of over P1.4 billion, without paying customs duties and sales taxes totaling approximately P693 million, and dumped the sugar into the domestic market, causing undue injury to the government and public interest by forcing local sugar prices down and coercing sugar producers/traders. Accused Roberto S. Benedicto filed a motion to quash the information on September 27, 1993, on grounds including that the information did not charge an offense. On March 7, 1994, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a resolution dismissing the information against Benedicto. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied on July 10, 1996. Hence, the prosecution filed this special civil action for certiorari to set aside the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the information filed against Roberto S. Benedicto charges the offense punishable under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , as amended.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, agreeing with the Sandiganbayan that the information does not charge the offense punishable under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . The Court took judicial notice that NASUTRA was a government agency authorized to import raw sugar free from taxes and duties. Consequently, the non-payment of such taxes and duties—which were not due—could not have caused actual injury to the government, an essential element of the offense charged. Lacking this essential element of actual damage, the information fails to charge a violation of R.A. No. 3019 , Section 3(e). The Court resolved only this issue, finding it dispositive of the case.