Case Digest (G.R. No. 41903)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Court of First Instance of Quezon, Br. V, Mauban, Quezon; Ramon S. Reyes alias "Caping", Guillermo Untalan, Natalio Alvarez and Wilfredo Saliendra, G.R. No. L-41903, June 10, 1992, Supreme Court Third Division, Romero, J., writing for the Court.Private respondents Ramon S. Reyes (alias "Caping"), Guillermo Untalan, Natalio Alvarez and Wilfredo Saliendra were charged by the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon in Criminal Case No. 380, Court of First Instance of Quezon, Branch V, with qualified theft under Presidential Decree No. 330. The information, filed August 5, 1975 in the name of the People of the Philippines, alleged that on April 16, 1974 the accused, conspiring together, entered a public forest zone under lease to Aluk Logging Corporation/Operation and cut and carried away two lauan trees worth P1,920, to the damage and prejudice of said Aluk Logging Corporation/Operation.
The respondents were arraigned on September 17, 1975 and pleaded not guilty. They thereafter moved to quash the information, asserting (1) the facts charged did not constitute qualified theft because there was no proper offended party — Aluk Logging Corporation was neither a timber lessee nor licensee; (2) the alleged owner, Arsenio Lukang, lacked a timber license; and (3) the information failed to describe the situs of the offense with particularity and misidentified Reyes, who claimed timber license rights.
The Provincial Fiscal opposed the motion to quash on September 29, 1975, arguing the information was sufficient in form and substance, that the naming of the true offended party was a matter of defense and evidence, and asking permission to amend the information to correct the alleged typographical error by replacing "Corporation" with "Operation." The respondents filed a reply on October 9, 1975 reiterating their grounds.
On October 24, 1975, the respondent trial judge (Judge Delia P. Medina) granted the motion to quash, holding the information failed to conform substantially to the prescribed form (citing Sec. 3(d), Rule 117 and Sec. 11, Rule 110 of the Old Rules). The court treated the prosecutor's admission that the State, not Aluk Logging, was the offended party as fatal variance; it also observed that Aluk Logging was not a duly re...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the failure of an information to allege the State as offended party render the information fatally defective under the Rules of Criminal Procedure?
- Was the trial court justified in quashing the information for qualified theft on account of the alleged misnaming of the offended party and r...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)