Case Digest (G.R. No. 55132)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 55132)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Hon. Francisco Men Abad, et al., G.R. No. 55132, August 30, 1988, Supreme Court Second Division, Melencio‑Herrera, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner is the People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, Lagawe, Ifugao; the respondent judge is Hon. Francisco Men Abad, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Ifugao; the private respondents are Julius Robles and thirteen co‑accused.
Prior to March 27, 1978, the Director of Mines issued a commercial lease permit to Felix de Castro giving him exclusive rights to quarry, extract and carry away sand and gravel from the Sumigar Quarry in Banaue, Ifugao. On complaint of de Castro, an Information (Criminal Case No. 316) was filed in the Court of First Instance of Ifugao, charging private respondents with the crime of “Theft of Minerals” under Section 78 of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended by Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1385. The Information, filed 31 May 1979, alleged that between March and September 1978 the accused, conspiring together and without permit, extracted and disposed of sand and gravel from the leased quarry, procuring proceeds from several contracts, causing damage and loss (alleged value P40,592.38, besides royalty and damages).
The accused filed a Motion to Quash under Rule 117, Sec. 2(a), arguing that the facts charged do not constitute an offense because they had paid “sand and gravel tax” to the Municipal Treasurer of Banaue (three official receipts dated February 2, April 13 and April 27, 1978) and relied on LOI No. 243 (claimed to permit extraction within leased areas for government infrastructure). Petitioner opposed, contending that municipal tax receipts are not permits issued by the Bureau of Mines and that LOI No. 243 (as implemented by Mines Administrative Order MRD‑16) authorizes extraction only by government entities, not private persons.
On 28 January 1980 the respondent Judge granted the Motion to Quash, ruling that violation of P.D. No. 463 was an administrative matter and that the crime of theft under the Revised Penal Code was not committed because malice was lacking. Reconsideration was denied on 18 July 1980. Petitioner then filed a certiorari petition in the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion by the respondent Judge, seeking annulment of the quashal and reinstatement of the Information.
Issues:
- Did the respondent Judge commit grave abuse of discretion by granting the Motion to Quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense?
- On the substantive question, do the allegations in the Information, if hypothetically admitted, establish the elements of the offense of "Theft of Minerals" under Section 78, P.D. No. 463, as amended?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)