THE PEOPLE OP THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MAXIMINO PLAZA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Appeal by the State from an order of the Municipal Court of Butuan
City dismissing the information filed in Criminal Case No. 2721, as
against Maximino Plaza, on fihe ground that the facts alleged therein
do not constitute a criminal offense.

The aforesaid information charged Esperanza Abo de Lambayog with estafa, alleging:

“That on or about’the 6th day of October, 1954, in
the .city of Butuan, Philippines; and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable , Court, the said accused conspiring, cooperating together
and helping one another with accused Esperanza Ato de Lamibbyog and her
husband Gapistrano Lamboyog pretending and misrepresenting them selves
to be the sole and absolute owners of a real estate situated at Barrio
Ba-an, Butuan City, covered by Tax Declaration No. 3824 (9949 located
at Doot, Barrio Ba-an, Butuan City) more particularly described as
follows, to wit:

‘A parcel of agricultural
land bounded on the North by Jose Ato, on the East by Ba-an. River, on
the South by Pedro Plaza and oh the West By the Agusan River,
containing an area of 7413 square meters, more or less,’

When in fact and in truth the above-named accused knew that the said
land above described was already sold in a pacto de retro sale dated
July 21, 1953, and later on converted the same sale into an absolute’
sale on September 3, 19B8 in favor’ of Felipe F. Paular, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and-feloniously with intent to defraud said
Felipe F, Paular knowing that said property has been. previously sold
to the said Felipe F. Paular in the amount of P400.00, both accused
entered into agreement whereby the said property above-described was
sold by the accused. Ssperanza Ato de Lamboyog and her aforementioned
husband, to his co-accused Maximino Plaza and falsely represented the
same property to be free from encumbrance, to the damage and prejudice
of said Felipe F. Paular in the amount,of P400.00 excluding the
improvements thereon.

CONTRARY TO LAW: (Art. 316 of the Revised Penal Code).”

Defendant Plaza filed a motion to quash the information on ,the
grounds that (1) the facts charged do. not constitute an offense
insofar as he was concerned; (2) that the information charged more than
one offense; and (3) that the criminal liability had been extinguished
by prescription of the crime. The court found the first ground to  be
well taken and dismissed the information as against him. . Hence this
appeal.

A perusal of the information discloses that it charges the three,
defendants with “conspiring, cooperating together and helping one
another etc.” to commit.the pf-fense charged, while at the same time
another portion thereof would seem to imply that the Lamboyog spouses
falsely represented to their co-defendant, Maximino Plaza, that the
property they were selling to him was free from encumbrance allegation
justifying the, inference that Plaza did not know that the property he
was buying had been previously sold to the offended party, Felipe F.
Paular. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the real defect of
the information isxnot that the facts alleged therein da not constitute
a .punishable offense but that, its allegations, as to Plaza’s,
participation and possible guilty are vague:

But even assuming that the lower court was right in holding that the
facts, alleged in the information do not constitute a punishable
offense, as’ far as defendant Plaza was concerned, the Gase should not
have been dismissed with respect to him. Instead, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 7, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, the lower
court should have given the prosecution an opportunity to amend the
information. That under the provisions of said rule the trial court may
order the filing of another information or simply the amendment of the
one already filed is clearly in accordance with the settled rule in
this jurisdiction (U.S. vs. Muyo 2 Phil. 177; People vs. Tan, 48 Phil.
877, 880).

Wherefore, the order of. dismissal appealed from is hereby set aside
and the case is ordered remanded to the court of origin- for further
proceedings in accordance with this decision.

Bengzon, C.J. Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Begala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.