· .

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBAYAN

QUEZON CITY

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OFPHILIPPINES,

THE CRIM CASE NO. SB-18-CRM-0350

Plaintiff,For: Malversation of PublicProperty

- versus-

EDWARDHAGEDORN,

SOLON Present:CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,Chairperson,FERNANDEZ, B. J. andFERNANDEZ, SJ., J.1

Accused.

Promulgated on:

~!1/~1[------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESOLUTION

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.:

For resolution is accused Edward S. Hagedorn's "OmnibusMotion to Quash Information, Hold In Abeyance Further Proceedingsand Recall of Warrant of Arrest"? dated June 25,2018.3

In his motion, accused-movant Hagedorn claims that the"subject rifles of the instant case were already surrendered andaccounted for even prior to the filing of the Information."4 Heasserts that that the Information should be quashed on the ground

e Order No. 262-2018 dated April 30, 2018 ~2 pp. 42-83, Vol. I, Record ~3 pp. 85-91, Vol. I, Record4 p. 43, Vol. I Record; p.2, Omnibus Motion

i

'. ~(V;.•.. .:

~

'; \

~,:~

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Hagedorn,SB-18-CRM-0350

- 2 -

x----------------------------------------------------x

that the facts charged do not constitute an offense because not allthe elements ofmalversation are present in this case.

Specifically,he argues that he is not an accountable officer forthe subject rifles>and there is no proof that he appropriated, took,or misappropriated the subject firearms." Citing the cases ofAgullov. Sandiganbayan,7 Madarang v. Barrdiganbayan," and Daan v.Sandiganbayan,9 he argues that the presumption of conversionunder paragraph 4 ofArticle 217 is overturned by evidence that thepublic fund or property was not utilized for personal use, gain orbenefit. In this case, he asserts that he did not convert the firearmsto his personal use. They were simply kept by his former personnelfor protection. 10

Lastly, he invokes good faith and asserts that he took theresponsibility upon himself to track down the whereabouts of thefirearms and made arrangements to secure and surrender the saidfirearms to the proper government authorities.t ' It took hisrepresentatives some time locating the subject rifles due tocircumstances beyond his control.t?

The prosecution filed an Opposition dated July 9, 2018.13Citing People v. Sandiganbayan,14 it argues that a motion to quashan Information on the ground that the facts charged do notconstitute an offense should be resolved on the basis of theallegations in the Information whose truth and veracity arehypothetically admitted. The question that must be answered iswhether such allegations are sufficient to establish the elements ofthe crime charged without considering matters aliunde. 15 Inproceeding to resolve the issue, courts must look into three matters:(1) what must be alleged in a valid Information; (2) what the

/?f\5 p. 44, Vol. I, Record; p. 3, Omnibus Motion

p. 45, Id; p. 4, id361 SCRA 556 (2001)355 SCRA 525, (2001)550 SCRA 233 (2008)p. 50, Vol. I, Recordp. 50-52, Vol. I, Recordp. 52, Vol. I, Recordpp. 85-91, Vol. I, Record770 SCRA 162 (2015)Id

,/} /! /

~, \--,'/{ .I

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Hagedorn,SB-18-CRM-0350

- 3 -

x----------------------------------------------------x

elements of the crime charged are; and (3) whether these elementsare sufficiently stated in the Information.te

On the first matter, it cites Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules ofCourt which reads:

Sec. 6. Sufficiencyof complaint or information. -A complaint or information is sufficient if it

states the name of the accused; the designation ofthe offense given by the statute; the acts oromissions complained of as constituting the offense;the name of the offended party; the approximate date ofthe commission of the offense; and the place where theoffense was committed.

When an offense is committed by more than oneperson, all of them shall be included in the complaint orinformation.

On the second matter, the prosecution identified the elementsof malversation of public property:

(a) That the offender be a public officer;(b) That he had the custody or control of funds or

property by reason of the duties of his office;(c) That those funds or property were public

funds or property for which he wasaccountable; and

(d) That he appropriated, took, misappropriated orconsented, or through abandonment ornegligence, permitted another person to takethem!"

It then presented the following table!" to show that all theelements of malversation are "clearly spelled out" in the subjectInformation:

ELEMENTS OFMALVERSATION OF PUBLIC

FUNDS OR PROPERTY

ALLEGATIONS IN THEINFORMATION RECITING THEULTIMATE FACTS

~I

~ ;to16

17

18

IdLegrama v. Sandiganbayan, 672 SCRA270 (2012)pp. 87-88, Vol. I, Record; pp. 3-4, Opposition

,- ., ri'

<:

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Hagedorn,SB-18-CRM -0350)C----------------------------------------------------)C

-4 -

CONSTITUTINGELEMENTSMALVERSATIONPROPERTY

THEOF

OF PUBLIC

That the offender be a public I "accused EDWARD SOLONofficer. HAGEDORN, a high-ranking

public officerbeing then the CityMayorof Puerto Princesa"

That he had the custody orcontrol of funds or property byreason of the duties of his office.

"who by reason of his duties andposition was accountable andhad custody of the fourteen (14)Armalite rifles, valued atPhP490,OOO.OO"

That those funds or property I "all public properties placedwere public funds or property for under his control and care"which he was accountable.

That he appropriated, took,misappropriated or consented, orthrough abandonment ornegligence, permitted anotherperson to take them.

"did then and there willfully,unlawfully and feloniouslyappropriate, take,misappropriate or consent orpermit another person to take forhis own personal use and benefitthe said rifles by failing to returnthe same, and after his term asCity Mayor, to the prejudice anddamage of the government."

The prosecution also argues that the accused-movant failed tomention how the allegations in the Information do not constitutethe offense of malversation of public property."? According to theprosecution, the accused-movant's arguments are evidentiary innature, which are best left for trial.s? Lastly, the prosecution claimsthat granting arguendo that the accused-movant had surrenderedthe subject firearms, the return thereof did not extinguish hiscriminalliability.21 ~

}<!\J/11

,---' /1, ~t,

19 p. 88, Vol. I, RecordIdp. 89, Vol. I, Record

2021

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Hagedorn,SB-18-CRM-0350x----------------------------------------------------x

- 5 -

THE COURT'S RULING

The Court finds the subject motion bereft of merit.

First. Albeit the subject motion is anchored on Section 3 (a) ofRule 117 of the Rules of Court.s? a perusal thereof shows that thearguments presented by the accused-movant relate to the allegedabsence of the elements of malversation in this case which is whollyinconsistent with the ground cited. On this score alone, the presentmotion should be dismissed for being a prohibited motion under theRevised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases.t» Thepertinent provision of the said guidelines reads:

(b) Prohibited Motions. - Prohibited motions shall bedenied outright before the scheduled arraignment withoutneed of comment and/or opposition.

xxx

iv. Motion to quash information when the ground is notone of those stated in Sec. 3, Rule 117.

Second. Even without relying on the said guidelines, it issettled that a motion to quash on the ground that the facts chargeddo not constitute an offense should be resolved on the basis of theallegations in the Information whose truth and veracity arehypothetically admitted.>' The question that must be answered iswhether such allegations are sufficient to establish the elements ofthe crime charged without considering matters aliunde.P>

A review of the Information in this case as well as theprosecution's aptly presented table clearly shows no defect in thesubject Information to warrant a quashal thereof. Indeed, the Court

/722 Sec. 3. Grounds - The accused may move to quash the complaint or information k-1..on any of the following grounds: ;- 0

(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;Xxx

23

24

25

A.M. No. 15-06-10-SCPeople v, Sandiganbayan, G.R. NO. 160619,2015Id

Ayf:,

).......; ',,.

..,~.~~.'"

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Hagedorn,SB-18-CRM-0350x----------------------------------------------------x

- 6 -

finds that the Information sufficiently alleges all the elements ofmalversation under Article 217 of the RPC.

Third. It is settled that the presence or absence of theelements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter ofdefense that may be best passed upon after a full-blown trial on themerits. 26 Considering that the accused-movant's arguments allrelate to evidentiary matters that will no doubt constitute hisaffirmative defenses, the Court will refrain from addressing thesame at this early stage in the proceedings.

Fourth. The accused-movant's invocation of good faith andvoluntary return of the firearms in issue is a matter of defensewhich is best ventilated during trial.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES accused-movant Edward S.Hagedorn's "Omnibus Motion to Quash Information, Hold InAbeyance Further Proceedings and Recall of Warrant of Arrest Motionto Dismiss" for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Metro Manila

~;a;~E-TMlO)Presiding .JusticeChairperson

WE CONCUR:

TO R. FERNANDEZsJociate Justice

~A'N~T:F~~EZt C:,/ Associate Justice

26 People v. Yecyec, 739 SCRA719 (2014), citing Go v. Fifth Division.Sandiganbayan, 549 Phil. 783, 804 (2007)