FACTS:
Special Prosecution Officer of the Office of the Ombudsman
charged petitioner Ramon A. Albert and his co-accused, Favio D. Sayson and
Arturo S. Asumbrado, before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of
Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019) or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The
information alleged that accused Albert, President of National Home Mortgage
and Finance Corporation (NHMFC), conspiring with Sayson and Asumbrado acted
with evident bad faith and manifest partiality and or gross neglect of duty when they made it appear that two parcels of real property are residential lands when in truth and
in fact, as accused well knew, the two pieces of real property are agricultural
land, and by reason of accused’s misrepresentation, the NHMFC released the
amount of P4,535,400.00
which is higher than the loanable amount the land could command being
agricultural, thus causing undue injury to the government.
Petitioner
filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Sandiganbayan denied it and
the Ombudsman ordered the Office of the Special
Prosecutor to proceed with the prosecution of the criminal case. Petitioner
filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of the Ombudsman.
In
view of the pending motion for reconsideration, the arraignment was reset to
October 2, 2003. Subsequently, the SPO informed the Sandiganbayan of the Ombudsman’s
denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The prosecution filed an
Ex-Parte Motion to Admit Amended Information. During the October 2, 2003
hearing, this ex-parte motion was withdrawn by the prosecution with the
intention of filing a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Information. The
scheduled arraignment of petitioner was reset to December 1, 2003.
The
amended information replaced gross
neglect of duty with gross inexcusable negligence.Petitioner opposed the motion, alleging that the
amendment made on the information is substantial and, therefore, not allowed
after arraignment.
The
Sandiganbayan granted the prosecution’s Motion to Admit Amended Information
stating that "gross neglect of duty" which falls under Section 3(f)
of RA 3019 is different from "gross inexcusable negligence" under
Section 3(e). In an information alleging gross
neglect of duty, it is not a requirement that such neglect or refusal
causes undue injury compared to an information alleging gross inexcusable negligence where undue injury is a constitutive
element. A change to this effect constitutes substantial amendment considering
that the possible defense of the accused may divert from the one originally
intended.
It further held that
granting that the amendment of the information be formal or substantial, the
prosecution could still effect the same in the event that the accused had not
yet undergone a permanent arraignment. And since the arraignment of petitioner
on 13 March 2001 was merely "provisional," then the prosecution may
still amend the information either in form or in substance.
Petitioner filed an
MR which was denied. Hence, a petition for
certiorari was filed with the SC. Petitioner contends that under the
above section, only a formal amendment of the information may be made after a
plea. The rule does not distinguish between a plea made during a
"provisional" or a "permanent" arraignment. Since
petitioner already entered a plea of "not guilty" during the March
13, 2001 arraignment, then the information may be amended only in form.
ISSUE:
WON
the amendment of the information is “substantial” and prejudicial to the rights
of the petitioner.
HELD: No, it is
an amendment only in form
RATIO:
Section
14 of Rule 110; ROC provides:
Sec. 14: Amendment
or Substitution- A complaint
or information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court,
at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the
trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can
be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
The rules mandate
that after a plea is entered, only a formal amendment of the Information may be
made but with leave of court and only if it does not prejudice the rights of
the accused.
The test as to when
the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or
information is when a defense under the complaint or information, as it
originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made, and
when any evidence the accused might have, would be inapplicable to the
complaint or information as amended. On the other hand, an amendment which
merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in
the original information and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for
conviction for the crime charged is an amendment to form that can be made at
anytime.
In this case, the
amendment entails the deletion of the phrase "gross neglect of duty"
from the Information. Although this may be considered a substantial amendment,
the same is allowable even after arraignment and plea being beneficial to the
accused. As a replacement, "gross inexcusable negligence" would be
included in the Information as a modality in the commission of the offense. The
Court believes that the same constitutes an amendment only in form. The inclusion of "gross
inexcusable negligence" in the Information, which merely alleges
"manifest partiality" and "evident bad faith" as modalities
in the commission of the crime under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, is an amendment
in form.
No comments:
Post a Comment