Scribd
Upload
46 views1 page

Miguel V Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 172035 Facts

Miguel v Sandiganbayan concerns a petitioner who was charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for the consultancy services he provided for a proposed public market project. The petitioner argued that the information filed against him was invalid for failing to allege that the unwarranted benefits were given through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the information was valid as it sufficiently stated the acts and circumstances of the offense in ordinary and concise language to enable the petitioner to prepare his defense.

Uploaded by

somonetohelp
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
46 views1 page

Miguel V Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 172035 Facts

Miguel v Sandiganbayan concerns a petitioner who was charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for the consultancy services he provided for a proposed public market project. The petitioner argued that the information filed against him was invalid for failing to allege that the unwarranted benefits were given through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the information was valid as it sufficiently stated the acts and circumstances of the offense in ordinary and concise language to enable the petitioner to prepare his defense.

Uploaded by

somonetohelp
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Miguel v Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 172035

Facts:
Vice Mayor and other local officials of Koronadal City, South Cotabato filed a
letter-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman charging the petitioner with
violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, in connection with the consultancy services
for the architectural aspect, the engineering design, and the construction supervision
and management of the proposed Koronadal City public market (project).
The petitioner was arraigned; he pleaded not guilty in both criminal cases.
The OSP filed a Motion to Suspend [the petitioner] Pendente Lite. The petitioner filed
his "Vigorous Opposition" based on the "obvious and fatal defect of the [i]nformation"
in failing to allege that the giving of unwarranted benefits and advantages was done
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
The Sandiganbayan promulgated the assailed resolution suspending the
petitioner pendente lite.
The petitioner moved for reconsideration of his suspension order and demanded
for a pre-suspension hearing. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion, prompting him to
file this certiorari petition to challenge the validity of his suspension order.

Issue: Whether or not the information, charging the petitioner with violation of Section
3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, is valid.

Ruling: Yes, The information for violation of R.A. No. 3019 is valid.
Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules) requires,
inter alia, that the information shall state the designation of the offense given by the
statute and the acts or omissions imputed which constitute the offense charged.
Additionally, the Rules requires that these acts or omissions and its attendant
circumstances "must be stated in ordinary and concise language" and "in terms
sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being
charged x x x and for the court to pronounce judgment."
The test of the information’s sufficiency is whether the crime is described in
intelligible terms and with such particularity with reasonable certainty so that the
accused is duly informed of the offense charged. In particular, whether an information
validly charges an offense depends on whether the material facts alleged in the
complaint or information shall establish the essential elements of the offense charged as
defined in the law. The raison d’etre of the requirement in the Rules is to enable the
accused to suitably prepare his defense.

You might also like