GR L 6835; (March, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6835; March 30, 1954
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FAUSTO YADAO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
An information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against defendants-appellees for an alleged violation of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 145. The information alleged that the defendants, conspiring together, willfully did “offer to assist one Floverto Jazmin in the prosecution and expeditious approval of his legitimate claim of $2,207 for benefits under the laws of the United States administered in the Philippines by the United States Veterans Administration, and as consideration for which, said accused directly solicited and/or charged said Floverto Jazmin as fee or compensation the sum of P800 which is in excess of the lawful charge of P20 in any one claim.” The trial judge upheld a motion to quash the information on the ground that the facts charged did not constitute a public offense. The prosecution appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the information filed against the defendants sufficiently describes a violation of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 145.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision quashing the information. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 145 punishes: (a) any person assisting a claimant who shall solicit a fee exceeding twenty pesos; (b) any person assisting a claimant who shall attempt to solicit such an excessive fee; and (c) any person assisting a claimant who shall collect his fee before the claim is paid. In all instances, the person must be one “assisting” the claimant. The information merely alleged that the defendants “offer[ed] to assist” the claimant, not that they actually assisted or were assisting him. One who offers to assist but does not assist is not included within the penal prohibition, which must be strictly construed against the government. While there may have been an attempt to commit the offense, the statute does not expressly punish attempts, and the provisions of the Penal Code on attempts do not apply. The Court distinguished the case from Sanchez vs. U.S., as the U.S. statute construed therein did not contain the qualifying phrase “assisting a claimant.” The decision was affirmed without costs.