Case Summary (G.R. No. 55132)
Factual Background
The Director of Mines had issued a commercial lease permit to one Felix de Castro for exclusive quarrying rights at the Sumigar Quarry in Banaue, Ifugao. On complaint by Felix de Castro, an Information was filed in Criminal Case No. 316 charging the private respondents with the crime of Theft of Minerals for allegedly extracting, removing, and disposing of sand, gravel, stones and boulders from the Sumigar Quarry without a permit and against the permittee’s protests. The Information alleged that the accused acted in conspiracy, used force and intimidation to drive away the permittee and his laborers, and disposed of the aggregates pursuant to contracts with government contractors, to the prejudice of the permittee and to the amount of P40,592.38, besides royalty and damages.
Proceedings in the Court a quo
Private respondents filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that the facts charged did not constitute an offense under Rule 117, Sec. 2(a), Rules of Court. They supported their motion with three official receipts dated February 2, 1978, April 13, 1978, and April 27, 1978, showing payment of a “sand and gravel tax” to the Municipal Treasurer of Banaue, Ifugao. They also invoked LOI No. 243 as authorizing extraction for certain government purposes. The prosecutor opposed the motion, arguing that those receipts evidenced payment of municipal taxes under Provincial Ordinance No. 14 and did not substitute for permits required by the Bureau of Mines, and that LOI No. 243, as implemented, granted extraction rights only to government entities.
Trial Court Ruling and Grounds
On January 28, 1980, respondent HON. FRANCISCO MEN ABAD issued an Order quashing the Information. The judge held that violation of P.D. No. 463 amounted to an administrative violation and that the elements of theft under the Revised Penal Code (Article 308) were not present because malice was lacking; the judge treated the municipal tax receipts as showing government knowledge or participation and thus negating criminal intent. Reconsideration by the prosecutor was denied on July 18, 1980.
Nature of the Petition and Issue Presented
The prosecutor sought certiorari relief in the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge in quashing the Information. The pivotal legal question was whether, accepting the allegations of the Information as true for purposes of a motion to quash, those allegations established the essential elements of the offense defined in Section 78, P.D. No. 463, as amended by P.D. No. 1385, or whether extrinsic matters relied upon by the judge defeated criminal liability so as to justify dismissal without trial.
Applicable Law and Elements of the Offense
The Supreme Court identified the statutory elements of Theft of Minerals under Section 78, P.D. No. 463, as amended: (1) the accused extracted, removed and/or disposed of minerals; (2) such minerals belonged to the Government or were taken from mining claims leased, held or owned by others; and (3) the accused did not possess a mining lease, temporary permit, or other permit issued by the Secretary or Director under existing mining decrees, laws and regulations. The Court reiterated the settled rule under Rule 117, Sec. 2(a), Rules of Court and the precedent in People vs. Segovia, 103 Phil. 1162 (1958) that on a plea that the facts charged do not constitute an offense the court tests the sufficiency of the Information by assuming the veracity of its allegations and determining whether those allegations, if true, constitute the crime charged.
The Court’s Analysis of the Motion to Quash
The Supreme Court held that the Information, taken on its face, alleged all essential elements of Theft of Minerals. The Information specifically alleged unlawful extraction and removal of aggregates from a quarry covered by a commercial permit issued to another person and alleged lack of any permit in favor of the accused. The Court found that the respondent judge erred by considering the municipal tax receipts and other matters extrinsic to the Information in ruling on the Motion to Quash. Such matters go to defenses and factual disputes to be resolved at trial and cannot be considered in determining whether the Information sets forth the elements of the offense. The Court further observed that the municipal receipts showed payment of taxes under Provincial Ordinance No. 14 and did not constitute authority or a permit from the Bureau of Mines to extract minerals from a leased quarry. The Court rejected the judge’s reasoning that absence of malice defeated criminality, stating that under a specia
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 55132)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, Lagawe, Ifugao, filed the certiorari petition alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial judge.
- Hon. Francisco Men Abad, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Ifugao, was the respondent in the certiorari petition for quashing the Information in Criminal Case No. 316.
- The private respondents were Julius Robles and thirteen others who were the accused in the Information for "Theft of Minerals."
- The trial judge quashed the Information on 28 January 1980 and denied reconsideration on 18 July 1980, prompting the present petition.
Key Factual Allegations
- The Director of Mines issued a commercial lease permit to Felix de Castro for the Sumigar Quarry at Banaue, Ifugao prior to 27 March 1978.
- The Information alleged that from about March 27, 1978 and continuing through subsequent months the accused wilfully and feloniously extracted, removed, and disposed of sand, gravel, stones, and boulders from the Sumigar Quarry.
- The Information alleged that the accused acted without a permit of their own, with intent of gain, and to the prejudice of the permittee, Felix de Castro, in the amount of P40,592.38 plus royalty and damages.
- The accused presented three official receipts dated February 2, April 13, and April 27, 1978 for payment of sand and gravel taxes to the Municipal Treasurer of Banaue as part of their defense factual assertions.
Indictment and Charge
- The Information, filed on 31 May 1979 in Criminal Case No. 316, charged the accused with "Theft of Minerals" under Section 78 of P.D. No. 463, as amended by Section 23 of P.D. No. 1385.
- The Information alleged the essential elements of extraction, ownership by the government or another lessee, and absence of a mining lease or permit granted by the proper mining authorities.
- The Information particularized alleged means, conspiracy, use of force or intimidation, contractual dispositions with government and private entities, and the monetary extent of prejudice to the permittee.
Motions and Lower Court Orders
- The accused filed a Motion to Quash on the sole ground that the facts charged did not constitute an offense because they had paid municipal "sand and gravel tax" and relied on LOI No. 243 for permissive extraction.
- The prosecution opposed the Motion to Quash and argued that municipal tax payments did not substitute for permits issued by the Bureau of Mines and that LOI No. 243, as implemented, did not authorize private extraction within a leased quarry.
- The trial judge granted the Motion to Quash on 28 January 1980 on the grounds that violation of P.D. No. 463 was merely administrative and that malice was lacking as the taking was allegedly with government knowledge.
- The trial judge denied the prosecution's motion fo