Disini vs Sandiganbayan
Section 2 of
G.R. Nos. 169823-24
September 11, 2013
Case Principle
An Information cannot be quashed if the Court has
jurisdiction to hear and determine the case, if the offense
has not yet prescribed, and if the Information is sufficient in
form and substance.
Facts
The Office of the Ombudsman filed two informations
charging Disini in the Sandiganbayan with corruption of
public officials, penalized under Article 212 in relation to
Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, and with a violation
of Section 4 (a) of Republic Act 3019 (R.A. No. 3019), also
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Therafter, Disini filed a motion to quash alleging that the
criminal actions had been extinguished by prescription, and
that the informations did not conform to the prescribed
form. The Prosecution opposed the motion to quash.
Later on, Disini voluntarily submitted himself for
arraignment to obtain the Sandiganbayan’s favorable action
on his motion for permission to travel abroad. He then
entered a plea of not guilty to both informations.
The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash. Disini
moved for reconsideration but the same was denied.
Hence, this petition.
Issue
Whether or not the motion to quash should be granted on
the grounds that (1) the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction,
(2) the offenses has prescribed, and (3) Information does not
conform substantially to the prescribed form.
Held
No, the motion to quash cannot be granted since the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, the offense has not yet
prescribed, and the Information substantially complied
with the prescribed form.
First ground
The motion cannot be quashed on the ground that the
Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction.
In fact, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case
pursuant to PD No. 1606 as amended. That Disini was a
private individual did not remove the offenses charged
from the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
E.O. No. 1, which tasked the PCGG with assisting the
President in “[t]he recovery of all ill-gotten wealth
accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his
immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close
associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad,
including the takeover or sequestration of all business
enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them,
during his administration, directly or through nominees, by
taking undue advantage of their public office and/or using
their powers, authority, influence, connections or
relationship,” expressly granted the authority of
the PCGG to recover ill-gotten wealth covered President
Marcos’ immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close
associates, without distinction as to their private or public
status.
Despite Disini’s being a private individual, and despite the
lack of any allegation of his being the co-principal,
accomplice or accessory of a public official in the
commission of the offenses charged.
Second ground
The motion to quash cannot be granted on the ground of
prescription since prescription did not yet set in.
The offense of corruption of public officials as well as
violation of RA 3019 prescribe in 15 years. Moreover,
prescription begins to run from the date of discovery of the
crime and shall only be interrupted upon the filing of
complaint or information in Court (Article 91, Revised
Penal Code).
In this case, prescription has not yet set in because it was
only five years elapsed from 1986, the time of the discovery
of the offenses charged, up to April 1991, the time of the
filing of the criminal complaints in the Office of the
Ombudsman.
Third ground
The motion to quash on the ground of insufficiency in form
and substance cannot be granted.
The fundamental test in determining whether a motion to
quash may be sustained based on this ground is whether
the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, will establish
the essential elements of the offense as defined in the law.
Extrinsic matters or evidence aliunde are not considered.
The test does not require absolute certainty as to the
presence of the elements of the offense; otherwise, there
would no longer be any need for the Prosecution to proceed
to trial.
In this case, the criminal cases against have sufficiently
complied with the requirements of Section 6, Rule 110 of
the Rules of Court. The elements for corruption of public
officials was sufficiently alleged in the information. This is
KMC – Criminal Procedure Digests 1
because the facts alleged in the information would establish
the elements of the the offense of corruption of public
officials. The sufficiency of the allegations in the
information charging the violation of Section 4 (a) of R.A.
No. 3019 is similarly upheld because the allegations in the
information charging the violation of Section 4 (a) of R.A.
No. 3019, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the
elements of the offense.
Ruling
Therefore, the motion to quash cannot be granted.
People v. Yparraguirre
Facts:
•                Accused-appellant Crispin Yparraguirre was
charged with the crime of rape.
•                The prosecution established that Rosita Bacaling
was a housemaid of appellant and his wife; that on or about
7:00 in the evening of July 6, 1990 at the spouses' room in
Panabo, Davao, Rosita was cooking porridge for the
spouses' two children, one aged four years old and the
other nine months old.  Accused-appellant arrived from
work and found the two children asleep.  He approached
Rosita and gave her a small white envelope said to contain
medicine for her skin disease.  Rosita was afflicted with
rashes on her thighs and stomach which she allegedly
contracted from one of the children.
•                Rosita opened the envelope and counted fifteen
(15) tablets inside.  As instructed by appellant, Rosita took
all the tablets.  A few minutes later, she felt weak and fell
down.  Suddenly, she realized that appellant was dragging
her to the spouses' bed.  She tried to get up but appellant
pushed her down the bed and pointed a hunting knife at
her neck.  He ordered Rosita not to move or he would kill
her.  skin disease from the children of appellant is not
•                Then he removed her clothes and went on top of
her.  He kissed her face, breasts, stomach and private parts
and then entered her.  Rosita cried out in pain but appellant
continued entering her.  After satisfying his lust, appellant
pulled out and punched Rosita in the stomach.  She lost
consciousness.
•                A few minutes later, Rosita woke up and saw
blood in her private parts.  She wiped the blood and
changed her clothes.  Seeing her awake, appellant
threatened to kill her should she report the incident to her
parents.  Appellant then left the house.
•                Rosita did not say a word about the
incident.  She continued serving the Yparraguirres for one
month before leaving them to return to her mother's house
in Barrio YYY.  Her mother found Rosita in a state of
shock.  She could not eat nor talk, neither could she
perform ordinary daily functions such as dressing
herself.  In short, Rosita became helpless.  She was brought
to the Municipal Health Officer by her mother for
examination.  suffered psychologically from the incident. Before the rape,
•                On August 22, 1990, the Municipal Health
Officer, Dr. Imelda T. Bendijo, interviewed the girl and
found her unresponsive and unable to talk.  She conducted
a physical examination and also found that:
-- normal vagina with old laceration found at 2:00
[position]; hymen not intact;
Internal examination -- admits one finger;
Advised for pregnancy test and for consultation by [sic]
psychiatrist.
x x x."
•                Upon the Municipal Health Officer's advice,
Rosita was confined at the Davao City Mental Hospital for
observation and treatment.  After a week of treatment,
Rosita began to talk and revealed that she was raped by
appellant.
•                Accused-appellant pled not guilty to the crime
charged.  He claimed that on the night of the alleged rape
he was selling fish at the public market.  Allegedly, he was
at the market at 4:00 in the morning, and worked straight
until 8:00 in the evening.  He never left the fish stall until
after 8:00 in the evening because of his many customers.
•                The trial court found accused-appellant guilty
and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.  It also ordered
him to indemnify Rosita P50,000.00 as moral damages and
pay P5,000.00 as attorney's fees,
Issues:
WON the court erred in holding Yparraguirre guilty solely
on the basis of Rosita’s testimony
NO.
•                The appeal has no merit.  After reviewing the
records, we find that the prosecution evidence, which rests
mainly on the testimony of Rosita, is credible, reliable and
trustworthy. Rosita testified in a straightforward,
spontaneous and candid manner and never wavered even
on cross-examination and rebuttal.  The inconsistencies in
her testimony are minor which tend to buttress, rather than
weaken, the conclusion that her testimony was not
contrived.
•                The question of whether Rosita contracted the
important.  The undisputed fact is that she was afflicted
with the disease and that appellant gave her tablets for
treatment of the disease.  Appellant's allegation that Rosita
should have fallen asleep for hours after ingesting the
tablets is speculative.  There is no evidence that the tablets
were sleeping tablets.  They, however, weakened Rosita
and prevented her from making any resistance to
appellant's lewd acts.  The delay in filing the complaint
does not in any way affect Rosita's credibility. She was
afraid of appellant's threat to her life.  The complaint was
filed three months after Rosita told her mother of the
incident, and three months is not too long a period to file a
complaint for rape.
•                Rosita was a seventeen-year old barrio lass and a
high school dropout.  She was also the breadwinner of the
family. It is hard to believe that Rosita would fabricate a
story of defloration, open herself to public trial and place
her family, who depended on her, in a very humiliating
and compromising situation for no reason at all. Rosita
she had been working for the Yparraguirres for two months
and the spouses actually found her to be a good worker.
When Rosita returned to her family, however, she lost her
speech and could not perform ordinary daily functions that
KMC – Criminal Procedure Digests 2
she had to seek psychiatric treatment.  Indeed, Rosita's
psychological condition could not have been the product of
ill-motive and fabrication.
WON the court erred in holding that witness Mary Ann
Yparraguirre went to the mother of the accused to negotiate
for the dropping of the case.
•                NO
•                Anent the second assigned error, there is
evidence that after Rosita revealed the rape to her mother,
appellant's wife, Mary Ann Yparraguirre, offered the
victim's mother, Merlyn Bacaling, fifteen thousand pesos
(P15,000.00) to dissuade her from filing the
complaint.  When Merlyn refused, Mary Ann increased the
offer to twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00).  Still
Merlyn refused to accept it.[16] As pointed out by
appellant, no criminal complaint had been filed at the time
the compromise offer was made. Nevertheless, the rape
incident was already known to appellant's wife.  Mary Ann
herself testified that Merlyn told her about it on November
3, 1990, the day when Mary Ann first offered the money.
•                An offer to compromise does not require that a
criminal complaint be first filed before the offer can be
received in evidence against the offeror. What is required is
that after committing the crime, the accused or his
representative makes an offer to compromise and such offer
is proved.
•                The positive identification of accused-appellant
as the rapist prevails over his defense of alibi. It was not
physically impossible for appellant to have been at the
scene of the crime.  The public market was merely a ten-
minute walk from their rented room and during work
breaks, appellant would sometimes go home to bring food
to his children.
People of the Philippines vs. Edgardo Dimaano
G.R. No. 168168, September 14, 2005
FACTS:
On January 26, 1996, Maricar Dimaano charged her father,
Edgardo Dimaano with two (2) counts of rape and one (1)
count of attempted rape in the following complaints:
1) Criminal Case No. 96-125 – The accused had carnal
knowledge of his daughter who was a minor of 10 years of
age
2) Criminal Case No. 96-150 – The accused had carnal
knowledge of his daughter who was a minor of 12 years of
age
3) Criminal Case No. 96-151 – The accused attempted to
rape his daughter but he was not able to complete the act
due to the timely arrival of the complainant’s mother.
ISSUE:
1. on Sufficiency of Complaint –  WON complaint for
attempted rape in Criminal Case No. 96-151 (quoted below)
is sufficient.
“That on or about the 1st day of January 1996, in the
Municipality of Paraaque, Metro Manila, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, try and attempt to rape one Maricar Dimaano y
Victoria, thus commencing the commission of the crime of Rape,
directly by overt acts, but nevertheless did not perform all the
acts of execution which would produce it, as a consequence by
reason of cause other than his spontaneous desistance that is due
to the timely arrival of the complainant’s mother”.
RULING:
1. The complaint failed to allege the elements of the crime
charged. Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides that, for complaint or
information to be sufficient, it must state the name of the
accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute;
the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate
time of the commission of the offense, and the place
wherein the offense was committed. What is controlling is
not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the
offense charged or the particular law or part thereof
allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law
made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime
charged and the particular facts therein recited. Every
element of the offense must be stated in the information or
complaint. The above-cited complaint does not allege
specific acts or omission constituting the elements of the
crime of rape.
NOTES:
 Rape, elements and penalty
ART. 335. When and how rape is
committed. – Rape is committed by
having carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years
of age or is demented.
The crime of rape shall be punished by
reclusion perpetua. The death penalty
shall also be imposed if the crime of rape
is committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18)
years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative
by consanguinity or affinity within the
third civil degree, or the common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim.
 The gravamen of the offense of rape is
sexual congress with a woman by force
and without consent. If the woman is
under 12 years of age, proof of force and
consent becomes immaterial not only
because force is not an element of
statutory rape, but the absence of a free
consent is presumed. Conviction will
therefore lie, provided sexual intercourse
is proven. But if the woman is 12 years of
age or over at the time she was violated,
sexual intercourse must be proven and
also that it was done through force,
violence, intimidation or threat.
 In incestuous rape of a minor, actual force
or intimidation need not even be
employed where the overpowering moral
influence of appellant, who is private
complainant’s father, would suffice. The
KMC – Criminal Procedure Digests 3
 moral and physical dominion of the father
is sufficient to cow the victim into
submission to his beastly desires.
 A criminal offense is an outrage to the
sovereign State and to the State belongs
the power to prosecute and punish crimes.
 An affidavit of desistance is not a ground
for the dismissal of an action, once it has
been instituted in court. A private
complainant loses the right or absolute
privilege to decide whether the rape
charge should proceed, because the case
was already filed and must therefore
continue to be heard by the trial court.

KMC – Criminal Procedure Digests 4