Pacheco (Pecho) Vs Sandiganbayan

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

ODON PECHO, petitioner, vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE


PHILIPPINES, respondents.
G.R. No. 111399 November 14, 1994, EN BANC (DAVIDE, JR., J.)

FACTS:

 On or about March 16, 1989, ODON PECHO, a public officer being then
the Customs Guard, Miscellaneous Bonded Warehouse Division, Bureau
of Customs, taking advantage of his official position and conspiring
with JOSE CATRE representing himself to be a representative of
Eversun Commercial Trading of Cotabato City, pretend and feign to be
agents or representatives of Eversun Commercial Trading in the
importation of 5 x 20 foot containers STC agricultural disc blades and
irrigation water pumps
 They also engage, solicit and contract the services of one Constantino
Calica of Labatique, a CPA Customs Broker for the release of said
shipment and/or preparation of the necessary import entry with the
two (2) accused, furnishing, presenting and producing the necessary
shipping documents such as packing list, commercial invoice, bill of
lading and import entry declaration, which led and prompted said
Customs Broker to file BOC import entry with the computed taxes and
duties amounting to P53,164.00 declaring the shipment as five (5)
containers STC agricultural disc blades and irrigation water pumps.
 However, contrary to the entry declaration, the subject shipment
before its release, upon examination was found and/or discovered to
contain 300 units diesel engines and the correct taxes and duties is
P1,080,485.00, to the damage and prejudice of the government in the
amount of P1,027,321.00

 The investigating prosecutor  made the following certification in the


information:

“This is to certify that a preliminary investigation has been conducted


in this case; that there is a reasonable ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused
are probably guilty thereof.”

 They were charged with the violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and subsequently found by the
Second Division of the Sandiganbayan guilty as charged.
ISSUE:
 W/N the information filed by the prosecutor is insufficient for failing
failure to state therein that the accused was informed of the complaint
and of the evidence submitted against him and that he was given an
opportunity to submit controverting evidence.
HELD:

 NO, certification of the investigating Prosecutor in the information is


sufficient.
 When the Prosecutor stated under oath that, inter alia, "a preliminary
investigation has been conducted in this case," he gave the solemn
assurance that such preliminary investigation conformed with the
requirements set forth in Sections 3 and 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court.
 The absence of a certification as to the holding of a preliminary
investigation does not invalidate an information because such
certification is not an essential part of the information itself. Sec. 3 of
Rule 110 defines an information as nothing more than "an accusation
in writing charging a person with an offense subscribed by the fiscal
and filed with the court." Thus, it is obvious that such certification is
not an essential part of the information itself and its absence cannot
vitiate it as such (People vs.Marquez )

 If the absence of a certification would not even invalidate the


information, then its presence, although deficient because of some
missing clauses or phrases required under Section 4, Rule 112 of the
Rules of Court, can do nothing worse than the former.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED; however, the judgment of


the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 14844 is modified, and, as
modified, the petitioner is hereby declared guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the complex crime of attempted estafa through falsification of
official and commercial documents and, applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment penalty
ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY
of prision correccional medium as minimum to TEN (10) YEARS and
ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor maximum as maximum, with the
accessories thereof and to pay a fine of Two Thousand Pesos
(P2,000.00).

You might also like