Local officials of Koronadal City, South Cotabato filed a letter-complaint with the Ombudsman charging the petitioner, among others, with violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019. The Ombudsman directed the petitioner, among others, to submit his counter-affidavit. Petitioner failed to file his counter affidavit despite of multiple extension. The Ombudsman filed the corresponding information with the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan promulgated the assailed resolution suspending the petitioner pendente lite. The petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in ordering his suspension despite the failure of the information to allege that the giving of unwarranted benefits and advantages by the petitioner was made through “manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.” He alleges that the phrases “evident bad faith” and “manifest partiality” actually refers not to him, but to his co-accused, rendering the information fatally defective.
Whether the information, charging the petitioner with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, is valid;
Yes, The test of the information’s sufficiency is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms and with such particularity with reasonable certainty so that the accused is duly informed of the offense charged. In particular, whether an information validly charges an offense depends on whether the material facts alleged in the complaint or information shall establish the essential elements of the offense charged as defined in the law. The raison d’etre of the requirement in the Rules is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense.