G.R. No. L-1136 : October 28, 1903
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. LINO DE CASTRO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant, Lino de Castro, was convicted of the crime of bribery by the Court of First Instance of Tayabas and sentenced to four months of arresto mayor, an indemnity of 1,000 pesos, and costs. The complaint alleged that, as municipal president of Pagbilao, he accepted gifts of money in consideration for permitting opium joints and gambling houses to operate. The defendant demurred to the complaint, arguing it failed to state a public offense, omitted essential details such as the date of the offense and the names of the bribe-givers, did not establish the court’s jurisdiction, and charged more than one offense. The trial court overruled the demurrer, leading to this appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint for insufficiency.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the case. The complaint was fatally defective for multiple reasons under the requirements of General Orders, No. 58:
1. It failed to allege the specific official duty the defendant, as municipal president, abstained from performing in exchange for the bribe. To constitute bribery under Articles 381 and 383 of the Penal Code, the complaint must state, for instance, that the municipal council had enacted ordinances against opium and gambling, and that the defendant, in consideration of a gift, failed to execute these ordinances or to hear and adjudicate violations thereof.
2. It did not allege that the offense was committed within the court’s jurisdiction (e.g., in Pagbilao, Tayabas).
3. It omitted the time of the offense’s commission, which, while the precise date is not always required, must at least be alleged to have occurred before the filing of the complaint.
4. It failed to state the names of the persons who gave the bribe and the kind or amount of the gift, facts necessary to inform the defendant of the charge against him.
5. It improperly charged two distinct offensespermitting opium joints and permitting gambling housesin a single complaint, contrary to the rule against duplicity.

The demurrer was well-taken on all these grounds. The trial court should have sustained it. Upon sustaining the demurrer, the court should then have either directed the amendment of the complaint or the filing of a new information if the facts could be properly alleged, or, if not, discharged the defendant. The case was remanded for the trial court to sustain the demurrer and proceed accordingly.