This case examines the validity of an Information—a formal criminal charge—alleging a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Supreme Court held that the Information sufficiently stated the elements of the offense, even without detailing the specific actions of each accused conspirator. It clarified that when conspiracy is a mode of committing a crime, the Information need not specify each conspirator’s actions, as the act of one is the act of all. This decision reinforces the principle that an Information must provide enough detail to allow the accused to prepare a defense, while also acknowledging that evidentiary matters are best addressed during trial.

Ghost Projects and Graft Charges: Can an Information be Too Vague?

The case arose from allegations of irregularities in the Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project in Bacolod City. Felicisimo F. Lazarte, Jr., along with other National Housing Authority (NHA) officials, was accused of violating Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The charge stemmed from the alleged unlawful payment of public funds to A.C. Cruz Construction for excavation and road filling works that were never actually performed. Lazarte, as manager of the Regional Projects Department and Chairman of the Inventory and Acceptance Committee, was implicated in the overpayment. He sought to quash the Information, arguing that it failed to specify his individual participation in the alleged conspiracy.

The Sandiganbayan, a special court for graft cases, denied Lazarte’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed this denial, emphasizing that the Information adequately alleged the essential elements of the crime. Central to the Court’s reasoning was the principle of conspiracy. Under Philippine law, conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to pursue it. The Information stated that Lazarte, in conspiracy with other officials and the contractor, acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith, giving unwarranted benefits to the contractor at the government’s expense.

The Supreme Court clarified the role of conspiracy in this context, differentiating between conspiracy as a crime itself and conspiracy as a mode of committing a crime. When conspiracy is the crime, all elements must be set forth in the charge. However, when conspiracy serves as a mode, less detail is required. In this case, conspiracy was alleged as the mode, therefore, a detailed breakdown of each conspirator’s specific actions was unnecessary. As long as the Information adequately conveys an agreement to commit the felony, with a unity of purpose and community of design among the accused, it is sufficient.

SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.–In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

x x x

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

The Court outlined the essential elements of a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019:

1. The accused is a public officer or private person charged in conspiracy with him;
2. Said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his official duties or in relation to his public position;
3. He causes undue injury to any party, whether the government or private party;
4. Such undue injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and
5. The public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

In summary, the Supreme Court found that the Information sufficiently alleged that Lazarte, as a public official, conspired with others to give unwarranted benefits to a private contractor, causing undue injury to the government through evident bad faith. While the specifics of individual actions were not detailed, the charge provided enough information for Lazarte to understand the nature of the accusation and prepare his defense. Details can be provided during trial.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Information filed against Lazarte sufficiently stated the elements of a violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, specifically regarding the allegation of conspiracy.
What is an Information in legal terms?	An Information is a formal accusation issued by a prosecutor, charging a person with a crime. It outlines the alleged facts and legal basis for the charges.
What is conspiracy in the context of this case?	Here, conspiracy is when two or more individuals agree to commit a felony, making all conspirators equally liable for the acts of others involved in the crime.
What are the elements of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019?	The elements include being a public officer, acting in official capacity, causing undue injury to a party, providing unwarranted benefits, and acting with manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence.
Did the Information have to detail each conspirator’s specific actions?	No, when conspiracy is alleged as the mode of committing the offense rather than a separate crime, the Information doesn’t need to specify the actions of each conspirator.
What was Lazarte’s main argument?	Lazarte argued that the Information was insufficient because it did not specify his individual participation in the alleged conspiracy, violating his right to be informed of the accusation against him.
Why did the Supreme Court reject Lazarte’s argument?	The Court found that the Information sufficiently alleged the essential elements of the crime, including conspiracy, and provided enough detail for Lazarte to understand the charges and prepare a defense.
What does this case say about the role of the Information?	The Information must be sufficient to allow a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged and enable the court to know the proper judgment.
What happens next in this case?	The case goes back to the Sandiganbayan and goes to trial.

This ruling clarifies the level of detail required in an Information when conspiracy is alleged as a mode of committing a crime. It strikes a balance between protecting the rights of the accused and allowing for effective prosecution of corruption cases. It reaffirms that the specifics of individual actions within a conspiracy are evidentiary matters best addressed during trial.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: FELICISIMO F. LAZARTE, JR. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 180122, March 13, 2009