G.R. No. 146368-69; October 23, 2003
MADELEINE MENDOZA-ONG, petitioner, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Madeleine Mendoza-Ong, then the Municipal Mayor of Laoang, Northern Samar, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with two counts of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019). The charges stemmed from the alleged diversion of heavy equipment borrowed by the municipality from the Philippine Army for a public terminal project to instead develop her private properties. In Criminal Case No. 23848, the specific Information alleged that she “did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally, request or receive, directly or indirectly, a gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit in the form of five (5) drums of diesel fuel” from a bus company owner, in consideration for help given regarding a government permit.
Ong filed a Motion to Quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 23848, arguing primarily that it failed to allege facts constituting an offense under Section 3(c) of R.A. 3019. She contended that the fuel, allegedly owned by the municipality per a Sangguniang Bayan resolution, could not be considered a “gift” received from a private party. The Sandiganbayan denied her motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 23848 for allegedly failing to state an offense.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion, as the Information validly charged an offense under Section 3(c) of R.A. 3019. The legal logic is grounded in the sufficiency of an Information, which only requires allegations stating every single element of the offense charged with definiteness and certainty. The Information in question alleged all the elements: that the accused is a public officer; that she requested or received a gift (five drums of diesel fuel); that the gift was for herself or for another; and that the gift was given by a person for whom she had secured or would secure a government permit or license.
The Court ruled that petitioner’s argument—that the diesel fuel was municipal property and thus could not be a “gift” from a private party—involves a factual determination that is a matter of defense, which must be ventilated during a full trial on the merits and not in a motion to quash. A motion to quash based on the ground that the facts alleged do not constitute an offense hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations in the Information. At this stage, the court’s inquiry is limited to the four corners of the Information. Whether the fuel was indeed owned by the municipality and whether it constituted a “gift” are evidentiary matters to be proven during trial. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan correctly denied the motion to quash, as the Information on its face adequately charged a violation of the law.