Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 399 views

    Miguel v. Sandiganbayan - Gozon

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    The Sandiganbayan denied Fernando Miguel's motion to quash criminal charges against him for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Miguel claimed the information filed against him was defective for failing to allege he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's ruling, finding the information sufficiently alleged the elements of the offense by stating Miguel acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality in giving unwarranted benefits to private individuals. While the information's language may have been ambiguous, Miguel's remedy was to seek a bill of particulars, not quashal of the information.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Miguel v. Sandiganbayan - Gozon

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    399 views1 page
    The Sandiganbayan denied Fernando Miguel's motion to quash criminal charges against him for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Miguel claimed the information filed against him was defective for failing to allege he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's ruling, finding the information sufficiently alleged the elements of the offense by stating Miguel acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality in giving unwarranted benefits to private individuals. While the information's language may have been ambiguous, Miguel's remedy was to seek a bill of particulars, not quashal of the information.

    Original Title

    Miguel v. Sandiganbayan –⁠ Gozon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Sandiganbayan denied Fernando Miguel's motion to quash criminal charges against him for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Miguel claimed the information filed against him was defective for failing to allege he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's ruling, finding the information sufficiently alleged the elements of the offense by stating Miguel acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality in giving unwarranted benefits to private individuals. While the information's language may have been ambiguous, Miguel's remedy was to seek a bill of particulars, not quashal of the information.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    399 views1 page

    Miguel v. Sandiganbayan - Gozon

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    The Sandiganbayan denied Fernando Miguel's motion to quash criminal charges against him for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Miguel claimed the information filed against him was defective for failing to allege he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's ruling, finding the information sufficiently alleged the elements of the offense by stating Miguel acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality in giving unwarranted benefits to private individuals. While the information's language may have been ambiguous, Miguel's remedy was to seek a bill of particulars, not quashal of the information.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    FERNANDO Q. MIGUEL v.

    SANDIGANBAYAN
    G.R. No. 172035, July 4, 2012 (SECOND DIVISION)
    BRION, J.

    FACTS: A letter-complaint was filed with the Ombudsman charging Miguel with violation
    of RA 3019. The Ombudsman directed Miguel to submit his counter-affidavit. The
    Ombudsman found probable cause against Miguel and some private individuals for
    violation of RA 3019 and against Miguel alone for Falsification of Public Document [Art.
    171(4), RPC]. Subsequently, the Ombudsman filed Informations with the Sandiganbayan.
    Miguel moved for a reinvestigation, which the Sandiganbayan granted. Despite the
    extension period asked and given multiple times, Miguel failed to file his counter-affidavit,
    prompting Prosec. Ruiz to declare that Miguel had waived his right to submit
    countervailing evidence.

    After several extensions sought and granted, Miguel filed a Motion to Quash and/or
    Reinvestigation for the criminal cases against him. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion
    because of the pending OSP reinvestigation. Miguel was arraigned and pleaded not guilty
    in both criminal cases. The OSP filed a Motion to Suspend Miguel Pendente Lite. Miguel
    filed his Opposition based on the “obvious and fatal defect of the information” in failing to
    allege that the giving of unwarranted benefits and advantages was done through manifest
    partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. A resolution was promulgated,
    suspending Miguel from his position as City Mayor for 90 days. Miguel moved for
    reconsideration of his suspension order and demanded for a pre-suspension hearing. The
    Sandiganbayan denied his motion, prompting him to file this petition to challenge the
    validity of his suspension order.

    ISSUE: Whether the information charging Miguel with violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 is
    valid.

    HELD: YES. In deference to the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the


    nature and the cause of the accusation against him, Sec. 6, Rule 110 requires 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 require
    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 and for the court to pronounce judgment." A reading of
    the information clearly reveals that the phrase "acting with evident bad faith and manifest
    partiality" was merely a continuation of the prior allegation of the acts of Miguel, and that
    he ultimately acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality in giving unwarranted
    benefits and advantages to his co-accused private individuals. Given the supposed
    ambiguity of the subject being qualified by the phrase "acting with evident bad faith and
    manifest partiality," the remedy of Miguel, if at all, is merely to move for a bill of
    particulars and not for the quashal of an information which sufficiently alleges the
    elements of the offense charged.

    You might also like