People vs. Dumlao b. No. Grounds for Motion to Dismiss/Quash are limited to those enumerated in Sec.

3, Rule
G.R. No. 168918 117 of the RRCP
March 2, 2009
Ratio
Doctrine
The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the material averments of an information is The elements of the crime under Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 are as follows: (1) that the
whether the facts alleged therein, which are hypothetically admitted, would establish the essentials accused is a public officer; (2) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the
elements of the crime defined by law. Evidence aliunde, or matters extrinsic of the Information, are not government; and (3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the
be considered. government.

Facts
An information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging respondents Dumlao, La’o and others with
violation of the Section 3(g) of R.A. no. 3019 or Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The information
alleged that the respondent-members of the Board of Trustees of GSIS entered into a contract of lease-
purchase with respondent La’o, a private person whereby GSIS agreed to sell to La’o, a GSIS-acquired
property consisting of a land and building known as the Government Counsel Centre for P2 Million on
an instalment basis with annual interest and amortization and grant La’o the right to sub-lease the
ground floor during the period of lease, from which he collected yearly rentals in excess of the yearly
amortization causing gross disadvantage to the government.
The ground raised by Dumlao in his Motion to Quash/Dismiss is that the facts charged do not constitute
an offense. And after examining the information, we find that the facts alleged therein, if hypothetically
admitted, will prove all the elements of Section 3(g) as against respondent Dumlao. Therefore, the
motion to quash should not have been granted.
It can also be gathered from the resolution of the Sandiganbayan that it did not consider the ground
invoked by Dumlao (that the facts charged do not constitute an offense); otherwise, it could have denied
respondent Dumlao’s motion. From the reasoning given by the Sandiganbayan, it is clear that it
dismissed the case because of insufficiency of evidence.

During arraignment, Dumlao pleaded not guilty, and as agreed by prosecution and respondents, a Joint
Stipulation of Facts and Admission of Exhibits was submitted to the court. The Joint Stipulation admitted
additional facts: (1) 3 members of the Board, Dumlao being one of them, signed the Minutes; (2) 7
members of the Board were present during the board meeting; and (3) the documentary evidence of
was authentic and duly executed. It was further decided for the pre-trial to be terminated limiting the
course of the subsequent trial to “matters not disposed of... unless modified by the court.”
Dumlao filed a Motion to Dismiss/Quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense. He stated that the prosecution’s main thrust against him was the alleged approval by the GSIS
Board of the Lease-Purchase Agreement. He argued that the Resolution was not in fact approved by
the GSIS Board. Since the signatures of fellow respondents did not appear in the minutes of the
meeting, these people did not participate in the Lease-Purchase Agreement. There was no quorum of
the board; thus no resolution approving the Agreement. Since the resolution was not approved, he was
innocent. He added that the person liable was Atty. Javellana who actually executed the contract.
According to Sec. 3, Rule 117 of RRCP, insufficiency of evidence is not one of the grounds of a Motion
to Quash. It is only a ground for dismissal of an action only after the prosecution rests its case as
provided in Sec. 23, Rule 119 of RRCP on demurrer to evidence.
In the case at bar, Sandiganbayan dismissed the case against respondent for insufficiency of evidence,
even without giving the prosecution the opportunity to present its evidence. In so doing, it violated the
prosecution’s right to due process. It deprived the prosecution of its opportunity to prosecute its case
and to prove the accused’s culpability.
It was therefore erroneous for the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case under the premises. Not only did
it not consider the ground invoked by respondent Dumlao; it even dismissed the case on a ground not
raised by him, and not at the appropriate time. The dismissal was thus without basis and untimely.

Sandiganbayan ruled in favor of Dumlao. It found that the minutes shows that the Board failed to
approve the Lease-Purchase Agreement in question. As evidenced by the Joint Stipulation, of the 7
members, only 3 signed. It did not validly pass a resolution because at least a majority of 4 votes were
required. Therefore prosecution had no cause of action against Dumlao.

Hence, this petition for certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court.

Issue
1. WON court erred in dismissing case after pre-trial and before prosecution could formally
present its evidence
a. WON facts charged in the information actually constitute an offense
b. WON insufficiency of evidence is a ground for Motion to Dismiss

Held
1. Yes. The petition is granted. Resolution of Sandiganbayan is reversed and set aside.
Sandiganbayan is ordered for reception of evidence of prosecution.
a. Yes. Facts in the information contained elements of the crime charged.