G.R. No. L-22032; March 4, 1966
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff and appellee, vs. Camolo Digoro alias Panondiongan, defendant and appellant.

FACTS

An information for Counterfeiting under Article 166 of the Revised Penal Code was initially filed against Camolo Digoro and two others. The case was provisionally dismissed against the other two accused, and an amended information was filed solely against Camolo Digoro, now captioned “For: Illegal Possession of Counterfeit Treasury and Bank Notes” under Article 168. The amended information alleged that the accused willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, “with intent to possess,” had in his possession various counterfeit treasury and bank notes. The accused, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded guilty to this amended information. The trial court then rendered a decision convicting and sentencing him. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the appeal to the Supreme Court as it involved purely questions of law.

ISSUE

Whether the amended information to which the accused pleaded guilty charges a valid offense under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for new prosecution. The Court held that mere possession of false treasury or bank notes is not a crime under Article 168. For it to constitute an offense, the possession must be “with intent to use” said false notes. The amended information alleged only “intent to possess,” not “intent to use.” Allegations that the act was done “unlawfully and feloniously” and “in violation of Article 168” are mere conclusions of law, not factual allegations of intent to use. Since the information did not allege an essential element of the crime, it charged no offense. A plea of guilty to such an information is only an admission of the material facts as alleged, not an admission that those facts constitute a crime, and therefore does not warrant a conviction.