G.R. No. 248652 , June 19, 2024.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO M. TALAUE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Antonio M. Talaue, along with Efren C. Guiyab and Florante A. Galasinao, was charged with violation of Section 52(g) in relation to Section 6(b) of Republic Act No. 8291 (GSIS Act of 1997). The Information alleged that on or about March 1, 2006, in Sto. Tomas, Isabela, the accused, as Municipal Mayor, Municipal Treasurer, and Municipal Accountant, respectively, willfully failed to remit GSIS premium contributions of municipal employees amounting to PHP 22,436,546.10 for the period January 1997 to January 2004. The Sandiganbayan, in a Decision dated March 15, 2019, acquitted Galasinao but convicted Talaue. It sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 3 to 5 years imprisonment, a PHP 20,000 fine, and absolute perpetual disqualification from public office. Talaue’s motion for reconsideration was denied. He appealed to the Supreme Court, which initially denied his appeal in a Decision dated January 12, 2021. Talaue then filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplement thereto, which are the subjects of this Resolution.

ISSUE

The core issue for resolution is whether the Motion for Reconsideration should be granted, primarily on the ground that the Information failed to allege the specific period of non-remittance with sufficient definiteness, thereby violating Talaue’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the Motion for Reconsideration. The Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE its January 12, 2021 Decision and the Sandiganbayan’s March 15, 2019 Decision and July 19, 2019 Resolution. Accused-appellant Antonio M. Talaue was ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt, with the cause of such doubt being the violation of his constitutional right to due process.
The Court held that the Information was constitutionally infirm. While it alleged the aggregate amount of unremitted premiums (PHP 22,436,546.10) and a broad period (January 1997 to January 2004), it failed to specify the exact month(s) and year(s) when the legal duty to remit arose and was allegedly breached. The phrase “on or about 01 March 2006, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto” was deemed too vague and indefinite. An accused cannot properly prepare a defense when the charge does not specify the time of the commission of the offense with sufficient particularity. The conversion of the obligation into a loan via a 2008 Memorandum of Agreement did not extinguish criminal liability, but this substantive issue could not be reached because the procedural defect in the Information was fatal. The acquittal is based on reasonable doubt arising from the denial of due process, and is without prejudice to the filing of a proper information.