ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 143046. June 14, 2006]

LUIS L. CO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FIRST PRODUCERS HOLDING CORPORATION

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated JUNE 14, 2006

G.R. No. 143046 (Luis L. Co v. People of the Philippines and First Producers Holding Corporation)

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari [1] cralaw under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the January 26, 2000 Decision [2] cralaw and the April 17, 2000 Order [3] cralaw of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City (Branch 64), in Special Civil Case No. 99-1542 entitled "Luis L. Co v. People of the Philippines et al." The assailed Decision disposed as follows:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary injunction is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

"The Writ of Preliminary injunction issued by the Court on 09 September 1999 is hereby DISSOLVED." [4] cralaw

The assailed Order denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

The antecedent facts were summarized in the assailed Decision of the RTC, as follows:

"Petitioner Luis L. Co executed an Affidavit of Loss dated 26 April 1999 for the purpose of securing a new certificate of membership from Manila Polo Club, Inc. He stated among others that he is the owner of Manila Polo Club (MPC) Proprietary Membership Certificate No. 203 and that the same could not be found despite diligent search.

"On 28 February 1999, MPC Proprietary Membership Certificate No. 4454 was issued in lieu of Proprietary Membership Certificate No. 203 in the name of the Petitioner.

"On 23 May 1997, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City filed a criminal [I]nformation for Perjury against petitioner Luis L. Co before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati docketed as Criminal Case No. 216146. The case was raffled to [MeTC] Branch 64 whose [p]residing [j]udge is the [public] respondent, Judge Enrique M. Pascua.

"The [I]nformation reads as follows:

That on or about the 26th day of April 1994, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and [feloniously] and knowingly make untruthful statements by then and there executing an affidavit or a statement alleging that:

'I, Luis L. Co, I am the owner of one (1) share of stock of Manila Polo Club, Inc. Certificate No. 203 duly issued in his name on July 19, 1979;

'That the said certificate was kept by my former secretary in his office located at 415 Nueva Street, Binondo, Manila;

'When his said secretary resigned and left for abroad, she did not turn over the said certificate to him;

'After a diligent search in the files of his office, including those in his home, he could not locate the said certificate;

'He did not disposed (sic) of nor transferred (sic) the said certificate ever since he have (sic) acquired the same;

'He is executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing and to comply with requirements in order that a new certificate can be issued in his name by the Manila Polo Club, Inc. in lieu of the above-described lost one.'

"which statements are deliberate assertions of a falsehood made under oath before a Notary Public, Atty. Jose T. Constantino, docketed as No. 106, Page No. 2, Book No. III[,] Series of 1994, an officer authorized to administer oath, and which are statements upon material matters, accused knowing fully well that the same are not true and correct, the truth of the matter, being that the Manila Polo Club, Inc. Certificate No. 203 was then kept in the vault of First Producers Holding Corporation (formerly Producer's Bank and Philippine International Bank).

"Contrary to law.'

"x x xx x x���������������������������� x x x.

"On 03 March 1999, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. Private respondent filed an Opposition thereto on 13 April 1999.

"The Court a-quo denied the Motion for lack of merit on 24 May 1999.

"On 14 June 1999 petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of 24 May 1999, which was likewise DENIED on 24 June 1999." [5] cralaw

On August 26, 1999, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction at the RTC of Makati City (Branch 64). As earlier stated, RTC Branch 64 dismissed the Petition for lack of merit. Hence, this instant Petition. [6] cralaw

Petitioner avers that the Information filed against him was defective. He contends that the following elements of perjury must be clearly alleged in the information. First, that a statement was made under oath or an affidavit was executed upon a material matter. Second, that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer authorized to administer oath. Third, that there was a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood in the statement or affidavit. Fourth, that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law.

Petitioner claims that the third element was not satisfactorily alleged. He argues that the prosecution did not dispute his ownership of MPC Proprietary Membership Certificate No. 203. He says that there was also a failure to allege specifically that he knew that private respondent had kept the subject membership certificate in its vault. He asserts that these omissions constitute an implied admission of his ownership of the membership certificate and his lack of knowledge as to its whereabouts at the time that he executed the questioned Affidavit of Loss.

Private respondent and the Office of the Solicitor General, in their Comments dated September 29, 2000 [7] cralaw and January 23, 2001, [8] cralaw respectively, maintain that the subject Information sufficiently alleged the acts constituting the crime of perjury. They emphasize that the defects imputed by petitioner to the Information are matters of defense best addressed during trial.

On April 20, 2001, petitioner filed a Consolidated Reply reiterating the arguments in his Petition.

The Petition must fail.

The denial of a motion to quash the information is an interlocutory order, which is not subject to an appeal; as a rule, neither is it subject to certiorati. [9] cralaw It is settled that a special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail such a denial. The remedy available to petitioner after the denial of his Motion to Quash is to proceed with the trial of the case, without prejudice to his right to raise the question on appeal, if final judgment is rendered against him. [10] cralaw Certiorari will be considered an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order only when the court issues the order of denial without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; as well as when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. [11] cralaw None of these circumstances is present in this case.

We agree with the trial court that the Information is sufficient in substance. There is a fundamental test in determining the viability of a motion to quash an information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense: whether the facts averred, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime defined in the law. [12] cralaw In this examination, matters aliunde are not considered. [13] cralaw The court may consider facts or circumstances extraneous to the information or complaint, if those facts are admitted by the prosecution or not denied by it. [14] cralaw This exception, however, does not apply to this case, as the prosecution has opposed the Motion to Quash and insisted that petitioner had full knowledge of the whereabouts of the subject membership certificate.

Also, an information must only recite ultimate facts; the reasons may be proved during the trial. [15] cralaw In the present case, the allegation of facts adequately meets the essential elements of the crime charged. Given the foregoing discussions, we find that the Order denying the Motion to Quash was neither a patent error nor attended by grave abuse of discretion. Also available to petitioner was an appeal that would afford him an adequate and expeditious relief.

WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error committed by the Regional Trial Court (Branch 64), the instant petition is DENIED . Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRlQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Dated May 12, 2000; rollo , pp. 3-14.

[2] cralaw Annex "A" of Petition, id. at 17-22. Penned by Judge Delia H. Panganiban.

[3] cralaw Annex "U" of Petition, id. at 104.

[4] cralaw RTC Decision, p. 6; id. at 22.

[5] cralaw Id. at 17-19.

[6] cralaw To resolve old cases, the Court created the Committee on Zero Backlog of Cases on January 26, 2006. Consequently, the Court resolved to prioritize the adjudication of long-pending cases by redistributing them among all the justices. This case is being decided pursuant to that project.

[7] cralaw Rollo , pp 109-128.

[8] cralaw Id. at 237-250.

[9] cralaw DBP v. La Campana Development Corp., 448 SCRA 384, January 17, 2005; Raro v. Sandiganbayan , 390 Phil. 917, July 14, 2000 (citing Qui�on v. Sandiganbayan , 338 Phil. 290, April 18,1997).

[10] cralaw Madarang v. CA, 463 SCRA 318, July 14, 2005; Sasot v. People, 462 SCRA 138, June 29, 2005.

[11] cralaw DBP v. La Campana Development Corp., supra; Madarang v. CA, supra.

[12] cralaw Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan , 441 SCRA 377, October 25, 2004; Valencia v. Sandiganbayan , 433 SCRA 88, June 29, 2004; Domingo v. Sandiganbayan , 379 Phil. 708, January 20, 2000.

[13] cralaw Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan , supra; Valencia v. Sandiganbayan , supra.

[14] cralaw Torres v. Garchitorena , 442 Phil 765, December 27, 2002.

[15] cralaw Valencia v. Sandiganbayan , supra.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com