G.R. Nos. 217417 & 217914, August 07, 2023
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER-IN-INTERVENTION, VS. REYNALDO G. DAVID, ROBERTO V. ONGPIN, JOSEPHINE A. MANALO, MA. LOURDES A. TORRES, PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, ALEXANDER I. MAGNO, FLORO F. OLIVEROS, MIGUEL L. ROMERO, EDGARDO F. GARCIA, ARMANDO O. SAMIA, ROLANDO S.C. GERONIMO, PERLA S. SOLETA, JESUS S. GUEVARA II, CRESENCIANA R. BUNDOC, ARTURO C. BALITON, FRANKLIN M. VELARDE, JOSEPH N. PANGILINAN, NELSON P. MACATLANG, MARISSA S. CAYETANO, RENATO S. VELASCO, RAMON R. DURANO IV, BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO, JR., MA. TERESITA S. TOLENTINO, RODOLFO C. CEREZO, AND WARREN DE GUZMAN, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case stemmed from a Complaint-Affidavit filed by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) before the Office of the Ombudsman concerning the grant and release of two loans to Deltaventures Resources, Inc. (DVRI) in April and November 2009, aggregating PHP 660,000,000.00. DBP officials, including its President/Vice-Chairman, Chairman, Directors, and other key officers, were accused of conspiring with DVRI officials (Roberto V. Ongpin, Josephine A. Manalo, and Ma. Lourdes A. Torres) to grant these loans. DBP alleged the loans were behest, violated banking laws and DBP’s own policies, granted unwarranted waivers to favor Ongpin, and were extended despite DVRI’s doubtful capacity to repay, being undercapitalized with only PHP 625,000.00 paid-up capital. After preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict various respondents for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 in relation to the two loans and filed two corresponding Informations with the Sandiganbayan. The accused filed motions to quash/dismiss, primarily arguing the Informations were invalid for failing to allege the ultimate facts constituting the elements of the offense with sufficient definiteness. The Sandiganbayan granted the motions and dismissed the criminal cases, ruling that the Informations merely stated conclusions of law and did not allege specific acts of each accused showing conspiracy, evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or causing undue injury. The People and DBP filed the present petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error in dismissing the criminal cases on the ground that the Informations failed to allege facts constituting the offense of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 with sufficient definiteness.

RULING

Yes, the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions, and ordered the reinstatement of the criminal cases. The Court held that the Informations validly charged the offense. An information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense by statute, the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date of the offense, and the place where it was committed. The test of sufficiency is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms with such particularity as to apprise the accused of the offense charged and enable them to prepare a defense. The Informations in this case met this test. They specifically alleged the accused public officers, in conspiracy with private individuals, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally, with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, gave unwarranted benefits to DVRI by facilitating/granting the loans. They enumerated several factual bases, such as DVRI being undercapitalized, the loans being under-collateralized, DVRI not being a licensed securities dealer, the presence of corporate layering, extraordinary speed in processing, and the relationship between David and Ongpin. These were ultimate facts, not mere conclusions of law. The detailed allegations provided the accused with adequate information about the nature and cause of the accusation against them. The Sandiganbayan erred in requiring the Information to detail the specific overt acts of each conspirator; the particularity required for a complex conspiracy allegation applies to civil cases, not to the sufficiency of a criminal information. The presence of evident bad faith or manifest partiality is evidentiary in nature and need not be spelled out in minute detail in the Information. The arguments on the validity of the loan transactions and the existence of probable cause are matters of defense best ventilated during trial, not grounds for a motion to quash based on the insufficiency of the Information.