Facts:

In the case of Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., Eliterio Rubiaco, Victor Gascon, and Caesar Talla vs. Hon. Francis E. Garchitorena, Hon. Edilberto G. Sandoval, Hon. Catalino CastaAeda, Jr., decided on December 23, 1999, the petitioners (Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., Eliterio Rubiaco, Victor Gascon, and Caesar Talla) were charged with kidnapping one Elmer Ramos in an Information filed on September 18, 1997, with the First Division of the Sandiganbayan. The Standard of order was issued to the prosecution on November 10, 1997, allowing them thirty days to amend the Information, as the court expressed concerns regarding its jurisdiction. The prosecution complied by filing an Amended Information on November 24, 1997, stating that the accused committed the crime on September 10, 1997, while Antiporda was acting in his capacity as Municipal Mayor, embodying alleged acts of conspiracy and force to kidnap Ramos. The initial charging Information did not explicitly relate the offense to their publi

...

Facts:

Overview of the Case

• Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition was filed by petitioners Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., Eliterio Rubiaco, Victor Gascon, and Caesar Talla.
• The petition sought to restrain the Justices of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with Criminal Case No. 24339 and from enforcing arrest warrants against the accused.
• The petition also prayed for the maintenance of the status quo pending further orders from the Court.

Charges and Allegations

• The accused were originally charged with kidnapping, specifically the kidnapping and illegal detention of one Elmer Ramos.
• The original Information, dated September 18, 1997, alleged that on or about September 1, 1995, the accused (including Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr.) committed the crime using firearms, force, violence, and intimidation.
• The original Information did not mention that the crime was committed in relation to the official functions of one of the accused.

Procedural Developments and Amended Information

• On November 10, 1997, an order was issued by the court instructing Prosecutor Evelyn T. Lucero-Agcaoili to file an amended Information within 30 days that would address alleged inadequacies, specifically the omission of jurisdictional (office-related) facts.
• The prosecution subsequently filed an Amended Information on November 24, 1997, which:
• Incorporated the element that Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., as the Municipal Mayor of Buguey, Cagayan, abused his official position by ordering the kidnapping.
• Specified additional details regarding the involvement of public officials and the use of a Maroon Tamaraw FX motor vehicle.
• Following the filing of the Amended Information, various motions were raised by the accused:
• An Urgent Omnibus Motion was filed on November 16, 1997, requesting a reinvestigation and the deferral of arrest warrants.
• A subsequent motion for a New Preliminary Investigation and to hold in abeyance or recall the warrant of arrest was filed on March 5, 1998.
• These motions were ultimately denied, with the Sandiganbayan maintaining that no separate reinvestigation was warranted and that the accused had voluntarily submitted to the Court’s jurisdiction through their actions.

Jurisdictional Issues Raised by the Petitioners

• The petitioners contended that the Sandiganbayan initially lacked jurisdiction because the original Information failed to allege that the offense was committed in relation to an official function.
• They questioned whether the simple amendment of the Information, which introduced jurisdictional facts for the first time, could validly confer jurisdiction on the Sandiganbayan.
• Additionally, they argued that the amended Information should not be allowed without a new preliminary investigation for the graver offense charged.

Estoppel and Submission to Jurisdiction

• Despite questioning the court’s jurisdiction on the basis of the omitted fact, the petitioners had previously challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, thereby affirming the work-connected nature of the crime and implicitly acknowledging the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.
• The accused’s appearance before the court, whether voluntary or via counsel, further contributed to their submission to the Court’s authority.

Final Disposition

• In light of the foregoing facts and procedural posture, the petition was ultimately dismissed by the Sandiganbayan.
• The court held that the amendment of the Information was proper and did not warrant a new preliminary investigation, as the purpose of such an investigation had already been achieved.

Issue:

Jurisdiction Over the Offense

• Whether the Sandiganbayan, which initially lacked jurisdiction due to the omission of an office-related allegation in the original Information, may later acquire such jurisdiction solely through the amendment of the Information to include jurisdictional facts.
• The petitioner’s contention that a court’s jurisdiction cannot be altered by an amendment that introduces new facts regarding office-related aspects.

Necessity of a Reinvestigation

• Whether a new preliminary investigation is required in the context of the Amended Information, which now alleges a more serious (work-connected) offense.
• The question of whether the absence of a supplementary preliminary investigation prejudices the rights of the accused, given that the essential purpose of such an investigation had already been fulfilled.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)