Sandiganbayan Motion

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SANDIGANBAYAN
QUEZON CITY
FIFTH DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
Criminal Case Nos. SB-II-
CRM-915
-versus- For: Violation of Section 3 (g) of
Republic Act No. 3019
LUKE PERALTA
Accused.
MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION
Accused Luke Peralta (“Mr. Peralta”), by counsel, respectfully

moves to quash the Information dated 30 January 2020 for the
following:
1. The Information for RA 3019 charges Accused Luke

Peralta with a violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 or
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (“RA 3019”), as amended,
allegedly committed.
2. In Chua v. Court of Appeals and People, the Supreme Court

explained that an Information must allege all the elements necessary
to constitute an offense or to state a cause of action as failure to do so
will constitute a ground for the other party to file a motion to quash
the said information.
3. The said factual allegations, even if hypothetically

admitted to be true, do not constitute elements of the two crimes
charged.
4. It is important to distinguish and/or separate the legal

conclusions from the factual allegations contained in the
Information.
1
5. Having been merely culled from the wordings of RA
3019, the allegations in the Information are mere legal conclusions.
6. Thus, in Soriquez v. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court

held that the following elements must concur in order to be held
liable for a violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019:
a. the accused is a public officer discharging

administrative, judicial or official functions;
b. he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident

bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and
c. his action has caused undue injury to any party,

including the government, or has given any party
any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference
in the discharge of his functions.
7. In other words, for an Information which charges a

violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 to be valid, it is essential that it
contain allegations which show that a public officer either caused any
undue injury to any party or gave any private party any
unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official administrative or judicial functions. In any event, any act
alleged to be committed must be shown to be committed either
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence.
8. It is insufficient for an Information to merely repeat the

wordings of a law allegedly violated or to merely allege bare
conclusions of law, so as to be considered as having alleged facts
constitutive of an offense. It is well settled that it is the specific
factual allegations in the information which should be considered,
and not mere allegations of legal conclusions. Thus, in Adaza v.
Sandiganbayan, it was held that:
“It does not thus suffice to merely allege in the

information that the crime charged was committed by
the offender in relation to his office or that he took
advantage of his position as these are conclusions of law.
The specific factual allegations in the information that
2
would indicate the close intimacy between the discharge
of the offender’s official duties and the commission of the
offense charged, in order to qualify the crime as having
been committed in relation to public office, are
controlling.”1
9. In order to be held liable as having committed an act

under Section 3(g) of RA 3019 through manifest partiality, it must be
shown that the accused had a clear, notorious or plain inclination or
predilection to favor one side rather than the other. 2 Here, there is no
allegation that among the bidders that participated in the conduct of
the procurement process Accused Peralta gave unjustified preference
to one, some or all of them. In the same vein, there is no allegation,
much less iota of proof that would show that Accused Peralta was
leaning in favor of Hailey Peralta
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Accused Peralta respectfully prays that the

Information dated 30 January 2020 for violation of Section 3 (g) of RA
3019 and be QUASHED.
Accused Peralta respectfully prays for such further or other

relief as may be deemed just or equitable.
Quezon City, Philippines, this 5th day of February 2020.
TEVES LAW AND ASSOCIATES

Counsel for Hailey Peralta
Old Manila, Quezon City, Metro Manila
Telephone No. (02) 897-6543
[email protected]
By:
ATTY. CAMILLE TEVES

PTR No. 54321; 1/10/2020; Manila City
IBP No. 65432; 1/10/2020; Manila City
1
Ibid., at 474.
2
Reyes v. Atienza, G.R. No. 152243, 23 September 2005, 407 SCRA
670.
3
Roll No. 12345
MCLE Compliance No. 678356; (01/10/2020)
[email protected]
NOTICE OF HEARING
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Ombudsman Building, Agham Road,
North Triangle, Diliman, Quezon City
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

5th Floor, Sandiganbayan Building
Quezon City
PHIL DUNPHY
Private Complainant
New Manila, Quezon City, Metro Manila
ATTY. Monica Geller

Counsel for Private Complainant
Quirino Hwy, Novaliches, Quezon City, Metro Manila
Please take notice that the foregoing MOTION TO QUASH

INFORMATION will be submitted for the consideration and
approval of the Honorable Court on February 5 at 8 in the morning.
ATTY. CAMILLE TEVES
Copy furnished:
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Ombudsman Building, Agham Road,
North Triangle, Diliman, Quezon City
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

5th Floor, Sandiganbayan Building
Quezon City
4
PHIL DUNPHY
Private Complainant
New Manila, Quezon City, Metro Manila
ATTY. Monica Geller

Counsel for Private Complainant
Quirino Hwy, Novaliches, Quezon City, Metro Manila

Sandiganbayan Motion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sandiganbayan Motion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

Accused Luke Peralta (“Mr. Peralta”), by counsel, respectfully

1. The Information for RA 3019 charges Accused Luke

2. In Chua v. Court of Appeals and People, the Supreme Court

3. The said factual allegations, even if hypothetically

4. It is important to distinguish and/or separate the legal

6. Thus, in Soriquez v. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court

a. the accused is a public officer discharging

b. he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident

c. his action has caused undue injury to any party,

7. In other words, for an Information which charges a

8. It is insufficient for an Information to merely repeat the

“It does not thus suffice to merely allege in the

9. In order to be held liable as having committed an act

WHEREFORE, Accused Peralta respectfully prays that the

Accused Peralta respectfully prays for such further or other

Quezon City, Philippines, this 5th day of February 2020.

TEVES LAW AND ASSOCIATES

ATTY. CAMILLE TEVES

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

ATTY. Monica Geller

Please take notice that the foregoing MOTION TO QUASH

ATTY. CAMILLE TEVES

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

ATTY. Monica Geller

You might also like