View full case

MADELEINE MENDOZA-ONG v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

In February 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Laoang, Northern Samar authorized the municipality to borrow heavy equipment from the Philippine Army for the improvement of Laoang's Bus Terminal. The municipal government would shoulder the expenses for fuel, oil, and subsistence allowances of the heavy equipment operators. However, it was alleged that the borrowed Army equipment was diverted by the petitioner, who was then the town mayor, to develop her private properties. A complaint was filed against the petitioner and other municipal officers for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Office of the Ombudsman ordered them to submit their counter-affidavits. The investigator recommended the filing of criminal charges against the petitioner. Two informations were filed against her at the Sandiganbayan, alleging that she caused undue injury to the government and gave unwarranted benefits to herself and her family. Another charge was that she received diesel fuel as a gift in exchange for her help in securing permits. The petitioner filed a Motion to Quash, which was denied by the Sandiganbayan. A Motion for Reconsideration was also denied. This led the petitioner to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the informations failed to allege facts constituting an offense

  2. Whether the officer who filed the information had authority to do so

  3. Whether the accused was deprived of her right to due process and the speedy disposition of cases against her

RULING:

  1. The Court finds that the informations filed against the petitioner sufficiently alleged facts constituting an offense. The allegations in the informations clearly state the acts committed by the petitioner that constitute a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

  2. The Court rules that the officer who filed the information had the authority to do so. The investigator from the Office of the Ombudsman ordered the petitioner and her co-accused to submit their counter-affidavits and other evidence. The investigator's recommendation to file a criminal action against the petitioner indicates that he had the authority to initiate such action.

  3. The Court finds no merit in the petitioner's claim that she was deprived of her right to due process and the speedy disposition of cases against her. The records show that the petitioner had the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and other evidence. She was also given ample time to present her case before the Sandiganbayan. Thus, her rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases were not violated.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Informations must allege facts constituting an offense in order to be valid.

  • The officer who files an information must have the authority to do so.

  • The accused has the right to due process and a speedy disposition of cases.