REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBA YAN

QUEZON CITY

SPECIAL FIFTH DIVISION

***

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

- versus-

Criminal Case No.:SB-17-CRM-1762For: Violation of Sec. 3(e)R.A. No. 3019 as amended.

ENRICO R. ECHIVERRI, ET AL.,Accused.

)(--------------------------------------------)(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus-

Criminal Case No.:SB-17-CRM-1763For: Falsification of PublicDocument.

EDNA V. CENTENO ANDJESUSA C. GARCIA

Accused.Present:Lagos, b Chairperson,Mendoza -Arcega, andPahimna *, JJ.

Promulgated:January ~9, 101<6 J.dU

)(----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)(

RESOLUTION

MENDOZA-ARCEGA, J.:

This resolves the Motion to Quash'tiled by accused Enrico R. Echiverri(Echiverri), Edna V. Centeno (Centeno), and Jesusa Garcia (Garcia)(hereinafter, movants), praying for the quashal of the Informations filedagainst them, on the ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute the

• Sitting as Special Membe, pursuant '0 Administrative Order No. 345-2017. dated October 5. 2017. t1 Records, pages 225-262. ( ~

RESOLUTIONSB-17-CRM-1762-1763PEOPLE VS. ENRICO ECHIVERRI, ET AL.

offense charged. The plaintiff, in its Comment/Opposition' prays for the denialof the said motion for want of merit.

The ground for the quashal of the information is hinged on theDecision? of the Commission on Audit (COA) Commission Proper dated 15June 2017 lifting the Notice of Disallowance No. 13-001-100 (11 to 130) onthe payment of various projects covered by the Omnibus Term Loan (OTL)proceeds amounting to P979,057,182.64.Movants now allege that theOmbudsman's findings in its Resolution dated 16 September 2016 is nolonger binding as the COA's decision reversed the findings of its subordinateoffice on the nature and character of the alleged absence of priorauthorization."

In its Comment/Opposition, the prosecution asserts that the COAdecision has no binding force on this case and it does not form part of therecords of the preliminary investigation. Assuming, without admitting, thatthe said COA Decision forms part of the records of the case, the prosecutioncontends that the same is not sufficient to quash the information.'

The prosecution argues that the COA Decision relied upon by theaccused is a documentary evidence which could be offered and examinedduring the trial. Additionally, the facts alleged in the two (2) Informations areclear enough and do not suffer from any defect of infirmity contrary to themovants' claim."

Hence, this Court finds that the movants' contention is devoid of merit.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized in a number of casesthat a motion to quash an information is the mode by which an accused assailsthe validity of a criminal complaint or information filed against him forinsufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are apparent inthe face of the information." It is a hypothetical admission of the facts allegedin the information. The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of thematerial averments in an Information is whether or not the facts allegedtherein, which are hypothetically admitted, would establish the essentialelements of the crime defined by law. Evidence aliunde or matters extrinsicof the information are not to be considered."

A careful study of the questioned Information under Criminal Case No.1762 charging the movants with Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act

2 Records, pages 267-271. Ir3 Records, pages 249-262. L,I4 Records, page 230. ~ r5 Records, page 268. G61d.7 People vs. Odtuhan, G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013, citing Antone vs. Beronilla, G.R. No. 183824,December 8, 2010.8 People v. Balao, G.R. No. 176819, January 26,2011.

Page21S

RESOLUTIONSB-17-CRM-1762-1763PEOPLE VS. ENRICO ECHIVERRI, ET AL.

No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices, is appropriate;thus:

"That from the period May 3. 201 1, up to Decem ber 22, 2011, orsometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Caloocan, Philippines,and within this Honorable Court's jurisdiction, ENRICO REANTILLOECHIVERRI, Salary Grade (SG) 30, EDNA V. CENTENO. SG 27, andJESUSA C. GARCIA, SG 26, all public officers being then the Mayor. CityAccountant and City Budget Officer, respectively. of the City Governmentof Caloocan, while in the performance of their administrative andlor officialfunctions, conspiring with one another, acting with manifest partiality,evident bad faith and/or gross inexcusable negligence, did then and therewillfully and criminally cause undue injury to the government and giveunwarranted benefits. advantage or preference to P.B. Grey Construction(PBGC) represented by its Proprietor, Peter B. Grey, in the amount of atleast FOUR MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT THOUSANDEIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY TWO and 80/100 PESOS(PHP4,858,832.80) by awarding the project to, and entering into acontract with. PBGC for the Improvement of Roads and Drainage Systemat Phase 10, Pkg. 5, Bagong Silang, Brgy. 176, Caloocan City. and payingthe said amount of PhP4,858,832.80 under Disbursement Voucher (DV)No. 100-11-10-6029 dated October 19, 2011. without prior authorization

from the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Caloocan City, to the damage andprejudice of the government.

CONTRARY TO LAW."

To uphold the indictment of the movants, it is necessary to refer to thelaw defining the offense charged. Thus, the provision under Section 3(e) ofRA 3019 specifically provides:

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts oromissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, thefollowing shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and arehereby declared to be unlawful:

xxxx(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, orgiving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preferencein the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions throughmanifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Thisprovision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or governmentcorporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or otherconcessions.

xxxx

To be liable under the aforementioned crime charged, the followingelements must be present:

1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,judicial or official functions;

2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith orinexcusable negligence; and

g 3 I 5

~

RESOLUTION58-17 -CRM-1762-1763PEOPLE VS. ENRICO ECHIVERRI, ET AL.

3. That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including thegovernment, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits,advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions."

A perusal of the averments in the Information concludes that the factsand circumstances alleged therein are sufficient to constitute the offense~ .

charged.

Likewise, it is proper to examine the accusatory portion of CriminalCase No. 1763 charging accused Centeno and Gat'cia with Falsification ofPublic Document under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code,thus:

"That on May 3, 2011, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto. inthe City of Caloocan, Philippines, and within this Honorable Court'sjurisdiction, EDNA V. CENTENO, Salary Grade (SG) 27. and JESUSA C.GARCIA, SG 26, not public officer, being then the City Accountant and theCity Budget Officer, respectively. of the City Govemment of Caloocan,while in the performance of the administrative and/or official functions,conspiring with one another, and taking advantage of their official positions,did then and there. willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously. make falsestatements in a narration of facts, the truth of which they are legallybound to disclose, by certifying in a public document denominated asAllotment and Obligation Slip (ALOBS) No. 100-11-05-2151 dated May3, 2011 on obligation of allotment, ami the existence of appropriationrespectively.for the Improvement of Roads and Drainage System at Phase10. Pkg. 5, Bagong Silang, Brgy. ) 76, Caloocan City in the amount ofSEVEN MILLION NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR THOUSANDNINE HUNDRED TWENTY PESOS (PhP7.984,920.00) more or less,when in truth and in fact, both the accused very well knew, that there wasneither a specific appropriation nor a prior authorization from theSangguniang Panlungsod for the said project. to the prejudice of publicinterest.

CONTRARY TO LAW."

Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code for the crime ofFalsification of Public Documents provides:

"Alt. )71. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer. employee, or notarywho, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document bycommitting any of the following acts:

xxx.

4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts."

The elements of the said offense are as follows:

9 Consigna vs. People, G.R. No. 175750-51, April 2, 2014.

1. That the offender is a public officer, employee or notary public;

Page 415

RESOLUTIONSB-17-CRM-1762-1763PEOPLE VS. ENRICO ECHIVERRI, ET AL.

'1 That he takes advantage of his official position;3. That he falsifies a document by-

xxx.(d) making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.

To be liable for sub-paragraph (d) the following elements mustconcur:

1) That the offender makes in a document statements in a narration offacts:

2) That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the factsnarrated by him;

3) That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and4) That the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with

the wrongful intent of injuring a third person.

Therefore, the questioned Information is sufficient to charge accused-movants Centeno and Garcia for Falsification of Public Documents as all theaforementioned elements are properly alleged therein.

Finally, We find no justifiable reason to sustain the prayer for quashalof the informations for matters of defense cannot be raised in a motion toquash." This Court holds that these cases do not warrant any deviation of thesettled rule that a motion to quash is a hypothetical admission of the factsalleged therein and any evidence contrary thereto can only be presented as amatter of defense during trial.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Quash dated 13November 2017 filed by accused Enrico R. Echiverri, Edna V. Centeno, andJesusa C. Garcia, through counsel, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

A-ARCEGA

WE CONCUR:

,. .~AGOS

Chairperson

10 Antone vs. Beronilla, G.R. No. 183824, December 8, 2010.

P e 5 I 5