CRIMPRO PRELIM CASE POOL (AY 2020-21): Fiscal Zehan Loren Tocao | UM College of Legal Education

RULE 110 sufficiently allege all the essential elements required to violate
Prosecution of Offenses Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

1. AMANDO A. INOCENTES vs. PEOPLE OF THE Further, it said that it already determined the existence of probable
PHILIPPINES, HON. ROLAND B. JURADO, in his cause when it issued the warrant of arrest in its minute resolution
capacity as Chairperson, Sandiganbayan, Fifth dated May 10, 2012.
Division, HON. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, in
her capacity as OMBUDSMAN, as Complainant; In his motion for reconsideration, Inocentes reiterated the same
AND HON. FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA, OFFICE OF arguments he raised in his omnibus motion. In addition, he asserted
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG), in its capacity that the present case against him should be dismissed because the
as counsel for the People Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the estafa case against him for
G.R. No. 205963-64 (July 7, 2016) the same transactions.

FACTS: Petitioner Inocentes, together with four (4) others, was The Sandiganbayan remained unconvinced. On the contents of the
charged with violating Section 3(e) or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, affidavit, it agreed with the prosecution that these are matters of
as amended. defense that must stand scrutiny in a full-blown trial. With respect to
the dismissal of the estafa case against him, the Sandiganbayan said
That sometime on October 2001 Amando A. Inocentes, Celestino that the dismissal of that case does not necessarily result in the
Cabalitasan, Ma. Victoria Leonardo and Jerry Balagtas, all public dismissal of the present case because the same act may give rise to
officers, being the Branch Manager, Division Chief III, Property two (2) or more separate and distinct offenses.
Appraiser III, and Senior General Insurance Specialist, respectively,
of the Government Service Insurance System, Tarlac City Field To contest the denial of his motion for reconsideration, Inocentes
Office, processed and approved the housing loans of Four Hundred filed the present petition asserting, among others, that the quantum of
Ninety-One (491) borrowers of [Jose De Guzman]’s housing project evidence required to establish probable cause for purposes of holding
under the GSIS Bahay Ko Program, with a total amount of loans a person for trial and/or for the issuance of a warrant of arrest was not
amounting to Two Hundred Forty-One Million Fifty-Three Thousand met in this case. He argued that absent any allegation of his specific
Six Hundred Pesos (Php 241,053,600.00). These said acts or evidence linking him to the anomalous transactions, probable
borrowers/grantees were found to be not qualified recipients of the cause can hardly exist because it would be imprudent to insinuate that
housing loans and that were not under the territorial jurisdiction of Inocentes knew of the criminal design when all he did was only to
the Tarlac City Field Office of the GSIS. approve the housing loan applications. Obviously relying on his
subordinates, Inocentes claimed that he could not have conspired
The same acts were done by petitioner processing, approving and with them when he had no personal knowledge of any defect. He also
granting loans under the GSIS Bahay Ko Program to Fifty-Three (53) further argued that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over a
borrowers of [Jose De Guzman]’s land development project known as public employee such as him who has a salary grade less than 27.
Teresa Homes amounting to Fifty-Two Million and One Hundred
Seven Thousand Pesos (Php52,107,000.00), despite the knowledge of ISSUE:
the fact that the lots covered were intended for commercial purposes
and by causing the over-appraisal in the amount of Thirty-Three 1.
WON the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of
Million Two Hundred Forty Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Eight discretion in denying the motion to quash the information;
Pesos and Thirty-Six Centavos (Php33,242,848.36) of the land and 2. WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a public
buildings offered as collaterals, thus causing undue injury to the employee with a salary grade less than 27.
Government. RULING.

On May 10, 2012, the Sandiganbayan issued a minute resolution 1. NO. On the contention that the informations did not detail
finding probable cause and ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest Inocentes’ individual participation in the conspiracy, we have
against all the accused. To avoid incarceration, Inocentes underscored before the fact that under our law conspiracy should be
immediately posted bail. understood on two levels, i.e., a mode of committing a crime or a
crime in itself.
On July 10, 2012, Inocentes filed an omnibus motion (1) for judicial
determination of probable cause; (2) to quash the informations filed In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, we explained that when conspiracy is
against him; and (3) to dismiss the case for violating his right to the charged as a crime, the act of conspiring and all the elements and all
speedy disposition of this case (omnibus motion). the elements must be set forth in the information, but when it is not
and conspiracy is considered as a mode of committing the crime,
After the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) filed its opposition there is less necessity of reciting its particularities in the information
and Inocentes filed his reply, the Sandiganbayan issued the first because conspiracy is not the gravamen of the offense, to wit:
assailed resolution. The Sandiganbayan maintained its jurisdiction
over the case because Section 4 of P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. To reiterate, when conspiracy is charged as a crime, the act of
No. 8249,9 specifically includes managers of GOCCs – whose conspiring and all the elements of said crime must be set forth in the
position may not fall under Salary Grade 27 or higher – who complaint or information.
violate R.A. No. 3019. It also ruled that the informations in this case
Abeto, Atup, Fernandez, Jayme, Macadine, Rapisura 1
 CRIMPRO PRELIM CASE POOL (AY 2020-21): Fiscal Zehan Loren Tocao | UM College of Legal Education

The requirements on sufficiency of allegations are different when We have clarified the provision of law defining the jurisdiction of
conspiracy is not charged as a crime in itself but only as the mode of the Sandiganbayan by explaining that the Sandiganbayan
committing the crime as in the case at bar. There is less necessity of maintains its jurisdiction over those officials specifically
reciting its particularities in the information because conspiracy is not enumerated in (a) to (g) of Section 4(1) of P.D. No. 1606, as
the gravamen of the offense charged. The conspiracy is significant amended, regardless of their salary grades.
only because it changes the criminal liability of all the accused in the
conspiracy and makes them answerable as co-principals regardless of Simply put, those that are classified as Salary Grade 26 and below
the degree of their participation in the crime. The liabilities of the may still fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, provided
conspirators are collective and each participant will be equally they hold the positions enumerated by the law. In this category, it is
responsible for the acts of others, for the act of one is the act of all. the position held, not the salary grade, which determines the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
In People v. Quitlong, we ruled how conspiracy as the mode of
committing the offense should be alleged in the information, viz: Furthermore, as the Sandiganbayan correctly held, even low-level
management positions fall under the jurisdiction of the
A conspiracy indictment need not, of course, aver all the components Sandiganbayan. We settled this point in Lazarte v. Sandiganbayan
of conspiracy or allege all the details thereof, like the part that each of and Geduspan v. People.
the parties therein have performed, the evidence proving the common
design or the facts connecting all the accused with one another in the
web of conspiracy. Neither is it necessary to describe conspiracy with
the same degree of particularity required in describing a substantive
offense. It is enough that the indictment contains a statement of facts
relied upon to be constitutive of the offense in ordinary and concise
language, with as much certainty as the nature of the case will admit,
in a manner that can enable a person of common understanding to
know what is intended, and with such precision that the accused may
plead his acquittal or conviction to a subsequent indictment based on
the same facts.

Again, following the stream of our own jurisprudence, it is enough to

allege conspiracy as a mode in the commission of an offense in either
of the following manner: (1) by use of the word, "conspire," or its
derivatives or synonyms, such as confederate, connive, collude, etc;
or (2) by allegations basic facts constituting the conspiracy in a
manner that a person of common understanding would know what is
intended, and with such precision as would enable the accused to
competently enter a plea to a subsequent indictment based on the
same facts.

With these guidelines in mind, Inocentes’ challenge with respect to

the informations filed against him necessarily fails as we could
gather that he is one of those GSIS officials who conspired in
approving the anomalous transactions.

Accordingly, the informations filed against Inocentes in this case

are valid because they adequately provide the material
allegations to apprise him of the nature and cause of the charge.

2. YES. On the issue on jurisdiction, it is of no moment that

Inocentes does not occupy a position with a salary grade of 27 since
he was the branch manager of the GSIS’ field office in Tarlac
City, a government-owned or –controlled corporation, at the time
of the commission of the offense, which position falls within the
coverage of the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.

The applicable law provides that violations of R.A. No. 3019

committed by presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or -controlled corporations, and state universities
shall be within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Sandganbayan.

Abeto, Atup, Fernandez, Jayme, Macadine, Rapisura 2