G.R. No. 133289 - Antiporda, Jr. vs. Garchitorena

On September 18, 1997, petitioners Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., Eliterio Rubiaco, Victor Gascon, and Caesar Talla were charged via Information with the kidnapping of one Elmer Ramos on or about September 1, 1995, in Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, alleging use of force, violence, intimidation, and a motor vehicle.
The Information did not allege any office-related character of the offense despite one petitioner being a municipal mayor.

On November 10, 1997, the Sandiganbayan First Division ordered the prosecution to amend the Information within 30 days and to expand the recommendation to reflect the office-related nature of the charge.
On November 24, 1997, the Sandiganbayan admitted the Amended Information, which added allegations that petitioner Antiporda, Jr., as municipal mayor, ordered and conspired in the kidnapping and that the victim was detained at the mayor’s residence for over five days.

November 16, 1997: Urgent Omnibus Motion praying for reinvestigation and deferment of arrest warrants—denied by the Ombudsman’s approval (January 9, 1998).
March 5, 1998: Motion for New Preliminary Investigation and to Hold in Abeyance or Recall Arrest Warrant—denied on March 12, 1998 for lack of new matter and absence of submission to jurisdiction.
March 24, 1998: Motion to Quash the Amended Information for lack of jurisdiction—ignored by order of March 27, 1998 for continued non-submission to court’s jurisdiction.
April 3, 1998: Motion for Reconsideration asserting voluntary appearance—denied by resolution dated April 24, 1998.

Petitioners sought certiorari, prohibition, and injunctive relief to restrain the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with Criminal Case No. 24339 and from enforcing arrest warrants.
They raised two questions:

Whether the Sandiganbayan could acquire jurisdiction by amending the Information to allege jurisdictional facts not in the original Information.
Whether the Amended Information could stand without a new preliminary investigation for the aggravated offense.

Can the Sandiganbayan, lacking initial jurisdiction over an offense not alleged as office-related, subsequently acquire such jurisdiction by amending the Information to allege jurisdictional facts?
Does estoppel prevent petitioners from challenging the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction after having asserted its jurisdiction in earlier pleadings?

Is a new or supplemental preliminary investigation required once the Information is amended to allege a graver or office-related offense?
Would petitioners’ substantive rights be prejudiced by allowance of the Amended Information without reinvestigation?