GR L 18819; (March, 1963) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18819. March 30, 1963. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MAXIMINO PLAZA, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The prosecution filed an information for estafa against Esperanza Ato de Lamboyog, Capistrano Lamboyog, and Maximino Plaza. It alleged that on October 6, 1954, in Butuan City, the accused conspired to defraud Felipe F. Paular. The Lamboyog spouses, pretending to be the sole owners of a parcel of land, sold it to their co-accused, Maximino Plaza, for P400.00. The information stated the accused knew this land had already been absolutely sold to Paular on September 3, 1953, yet they falsely represented it as free from encumbrance to Plaza, causing damage to Paular.
Defendant Plaza filed a motion to quash the information, primarily arguing the alleged facts did not constitute an offense against him. The Municipal Court of Butuan City agreed with this first ground, finding the information insufficient to charge Plaza with a crime, and consequently dismissed the case as against him. The State appealed this order of dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Municipal Court erred in dismissing the information against Plaza on the ground that the facts alleged do not constitute an offense, instead of allowing its amendment.
RULING
Yes, the Municipal Court erred. The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case. The Court analyzed the information and found its real defect was not a failure to allege an offense but vagueness and inconsistency regarding Plaza’s role. One portion alleged all three accused conspired to defraud Paular, while another portion implied the Lamboyog spouses made false representations to Plaza himself, suggesting he might have been unaware of the prior sale to Paular. This ambiguity made the allegations vague as to Plaza’s participation and criminal intent, not inherently non-punishable.
Even assuming the lower court’s view was correct that the facts did not constitute an offense against Plaza, dismissal was still improper. Under Section 7, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court (now Section 4, Rule 117), if a motion to quash is granted based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the court must give the prosecution an opportunity to correct the defect by filing a new information or amending the existing one. The court cannot immediately dismiss the case with prejudice. This procedure is settled jurisprudence, ensuring the State can rectify formal deficiencies in the information to serve the ends of justice. The lower court therefore committed a reversible error by not affording the prosecution this opportunity to amend.