THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (petitioner) v. HON.

FRANCISCO DE LA ROSA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of

Rizal, Branch VII, Pasay City; and BERTI HILDEGARD EDERY (respondent)
J. De Castro
June 25, 1980
G.R. No. L-34112
Doctrine
As a general proposition, a motion to quash on the ground that the allegations of the information do not constitute the offense
charged, or any offense for that matter, should be resolved on the basis alone of said allegations whose truth and veracity are
hypothetically admitted. However, additional facts not alleged in the information, but admitted or not denied by the
prosecution may be invoked in support of the motion to quash.
Summary
Respondent Edery is charged with a violation of the Tariff and Customs Code for not declaring her possession of 28 gold bars
upon entry to the Philippines in the Manila International Airport. An Information and an Amended Information was filed by
the Prosecution. Edery, through counsel, filed a Motion to Quash Information claiming that the stipulation of facts in the said
Information does not constitute the offense charged. Petitioner opposed such claim. Respondent Court granted the motion
saying that both the Information and Amended Information did not state facts which constitute the offense charged. SC
agreed with the Respondent Court. While it is true that a hearing on a motion to quash should be resolved on the basis of the
allegations on the Information, if certain facts are admitted on the hearing which are not opposed by the prosecution, then it
can be used as a basis on ruling about the appropriateness of granting the sought after motion to quash. Petition denied.
Facts
Berti Hildegard Edery is charged with a violation of Sec. 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code (R.A. No. 1937)
when she allegedly brought in the Phil 28 gold bars with corresponding markings in the Manila International Airport
in Pasay City on Oct. 8, 1968. In the information, it is stated that Edery committed the act by means of false
statements (oral and written) and other omissions and that Edery managed to enter the country by placing the gold
bars in pockets of a vest cleverly concealed on her person. It further states that Edery did not lawfully passed
through the customhouse of the said airport for the purpose of avoiding declaration to the customs authorities of the
gold bars which are subject to duties, taxes, and other charges.
An amended information is filed by prosecution which further claims that: (1) Price of the 28 gold bars is
approximately P209,126.40, (2) Edery denied carrying valuable and taxable items, and (3) Edery did not indicate in
the Baggage Declaration and Enrty Form that she has with her 28 gold bars.
Edery (through counsel) filed a Motion to Quash on the ground that the said information contained facts which did
not constitute the offense charged. Such motion was opposed by petitioner.
Judge Francisco De la Rosa issued an order questioning both the Information and the Amended Information. It ruled
that the 28 gold bars are not imported articles and Ederys conduct lacks the intent to import.
Petitioner filed an MR which was opposed by Edery. On another date, petitioner filed a Motion to Reopen
Consideration of Motion to Quash which prays for the permission of allowing them to present additional evidence in
the interest of justice.
Respondent Judge issued an order granting the Motion to Reopen Consideration but confirming the previous ruling
(that the Information and Amended Information did not state facts which constitute the offense charged).
Ratio/Issues

I.

Whether or not the respondent court committed a reversible error in issuing the order affirming the previous
issuance of quashing the information. (NO)
(1) See Doctrine. Based on the records, it can be seen that the State Prosecutor admitted certain facts and
participated in the hearing where both parties presented documentary and testimonial evidence. After that, the
respondent court made a finding that the Amended Information (based on the admitted facts) did not constitute
an offense.
a. SC cited the respondent courts ruling in saying that it is Sec 61, Rule 117 of the ROC which applies in
this case. In the Motion to Quash, the counsel of the accused put the issue in fact that the non-immigrant
status of Edery placed her beyond the operation of Sec 3602 of R.A. 1937. The counsel presented several
annexes in support of his claim.
b. For the prosecutions part, he met squarely the issue raised by counsel for accused concerning whether or
not, by the non-immigrant status of accused, she could avail herself of the provisions of Executive Order
No. 408. Furthermore, the State Prosecutor made certain admissions pertinent to the issue raised
whether accused, in view of her non-immigrant entry status could invoke the provisions of Executive
Order No. 408.
c. A reading of the Order of this of February 12, 1969, granting the Motion to Quash of accused, will show
that upon the issue raised and upon the evidence, admission, and arguments of both parties, the resolved
the issue. The State Prosecutor and counsel for the accused presented not only documentary pieces
of evidence, but even testimonial evidence.
(2) The Court ruled that in the hearing on a motion to quash, when it is predicated on the ground that the
allegations of the information do not charge an offense, facts which have been brought out by evidence
presented by both parties destroy the prima facie truth accorded to the allegations of the information on
its hypothetical admission.
a. As implicit as the nature of the ground of the motion to quash, it would be pure technicality for the
court to close its eyes to said facts and still give due course to the prosecution of the case already shown
to be weak even to support possible conviction, and hold the accused to what would clearly appear to be a

1 Sec. 6. Trial of issues arising on a motion to quash. The motion to quash shall be heard immediately on its being made unless, for good cause,
the court postpones the hearing. All issues, whether of law or fact, which arise on a motion to quash shall be tried by the court.

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

merely vexatious and expensive trial, on her part, and a wasteful expense of precious time on the part of
the court, as well as of the prosecution.
The Court claims that the petitioner cannot dispute the facts and admission brought out through the presentation
of evidence which is used by the judge in reaching his conclusion about the Quashal of the Information. The
facts include: (1) E.O. No. 408s goal of encouraging international tourism, (2) Government offices and
agencies are ordered to suspend their forms which are required of foreign tourists to accomplish upon entry to
the country, (3) Custom Memo Circular No. 130-67 implementing the aforementioned E.O. stating that foreign
tourist shall not be subject to customs examination, (4) Edery had a confirmed booking from Manila to
Taipeh which the scheduled departure is on the following day, and (5) Edery was admitted as a tourist under
E.O. No. 408 and other pertinent issuances without being required to apply or have a Phil Transit Visa and
that since she is allowed to debark and re-embark after a stay of 72 hours, she was exempted from both
customs declaration and examination.
a. Because of E.O. No. 408 and the implementing rules, the allegations in the Amended Information
become immaterial for being not a requirement under the said rules. The declaration, statements and
omissions are mere superfluities insofar as accused is concerned.
b. The forms were suspended and need not be accomplished by the said accused. The forms so
suspended include whatever form would be required to be accomplished or to be issued by the Central
Bank by way of a license or written permission as mentioned in the Certification of Declarant on the
reverse side of which is an enumeration where written permission from proper authority is required.
The enumeration does not include gold bars.
Petitioner contends that accused should have left the gold bars at MIA under customs custody, if she had no
intention of leaving them here, to be picked up by accused upon the departure from this country.
a. Court asserted that there is no indication that that accused was advised of the availability such an
option and that nowhere in the information states that she refused to comply with the advice and offer of
such facility.
Petitioner also contends that Edery is not a bona fide tourist contemplated under Executive Order No. 408
which is entitled to exemptions and facilitations, but a transiting tourist. Such an assertion thereby makes a
distinction between a "bona fide tourist" and a "transiting tourist."
a. SC ruled that E.O. No. 408 does not create such a distinction. If ever a distinction is to be made, it is
the transiting tourist who should be more entitled to the exemptions and facilitations since this kind of
tourist is not even required to observe a visa which the ordinary tourist must have to obtain. Both are
tourists and bona fide must be considered, even if only impliedly, as always required of all tourists of
whatever kind.
The Court believes that the act of the State Prosecutor presenting evidence and making certain admissions as a
tactical mistake. It is because with all the evidence presented before the court, the respondent judge cannot
discard the evidence presented in resolving the motion to quash on the mere technicality that the motion
should be resolved solely on the basis of the allegations of the informations.
a. The Court cannot close its eyes to evidence aliunde duly presented at the instance of the prosecution
itself, followed by the defense presenting its own evidence. The result was a trial on the merits, and an
insistence on the part of the petitioner to restore the informations already quashed in order that trial on the
merits could proceed, fails to find support upon consideration of substantial justice. It is a resort to mere
technicality so strongly frowned upon by the courts and expressly discouraged by our own rules of
procedure. It would not also seem in keeping with the true role of the prosecutor to see that justice is
done.

Held
Petition DISMISSED. Judges orders AFFIRMED.
Prepared by: Ralph Cedie Fabon [CrimPro | Atty. Bautista]