Facts:

This case revolves around an original action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, which was filed on September 30, 1970. The petitioners in this case are Jaime Bandiala and Gabriel Andaya, while the respondents are the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, presided over by Judge Mariano A. Zosa, along with Diosdado Bacolod, the Provincial Fiscal of Misamis Occidental. The legal proceedings originate from an amended complaint for robbery in band filed on April 10, 1962, by the Philippine Constabulary against the petitioners and two other individuals. The complaint alleges that on February 23, 1962, at approximately 4:20 PM in Barrio Bitibot, municipality of Sapangdalaga, the accused, wearing uniforms resembling those of Philippine Constabulary (PC) officers and armed with firearms, approached Lim Bing San and hogtied him along with another passenger, Inocencio Co, stealing ₱60,000 belonging to Lee Gee & Company.

Following a preliminary investig

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Jaime Bandiala and Gabriel Andaya, along with two other persons, were originally charged with robbery in band by the Philippine Constabulary authorities in an amended complaint filed on April 10, 1962.
• The complaint alleged that on or about February 23, 1962, at approximately 4:20 p.m., in Barrio Bitibot, Municipality of Sapangdalaga, Misamis Occidental, the accused, while wearing uniforms in the guise of Philippine Constabulary soldiers and armed with assorted firearms, forcibly held Lim Bing San at gunpoint, hogtied him (along with co-passenger Inocencio Co), and robbed him of cash amounting to P60,000.00 belonging to Lee Gee & Company.

Preliminary Investigation and Evidence

• The municipal (formerly justice of the peace) court of Sapangdalaga conducted the requisite preliminary investigation.
• Bandiala, who underwent the second stage of investigation (while Andaya waived this stage), presented one witness—a PC sergeant—who testified regarding the events leading to Bandiala’s arrest and an alleged confession.
• One of the affidavits submitted by a victim, Lim Bing San, stated that he was hogtied and carried from Sapangdalaga to Ozamis City (a distance of about 90 kilometers) before being released.
• Documentary evidence indicated that only two of the accused were armed, contradicting the uniform portrayal of all four alleged perpetrators being similarly equipped.

Judicial Proceedings and Filing of Information

• On February 28, 1963, the municipal court found a prima facie case against the petitioners and remanded the case to the respondent Court of First Instance for trial on the merits.
• Subsequently, the respondent Fiscal filed an information on June 11, 1963, which charged the petitioners not with robbery in band, as originally alleged, but with the more serious and complex offense of “robbery with kidnapping.”
• The information described the crime in detail, including the alleged act of hogtying passengers at gunpoint, ransacking the automobile, and taking the offended party, Lim Bing San, while en route to Ozamis City.
• It was contended that the use of disguise (as constabulary soldiers), simulation of public authority, and the use of a motor vehicle constituted aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime.

Controversial Amendment of the Charge

• During arraignment on March 10, 1965, the petitioners discovered that the information had been amended to charge them with "robbery with kidnapping" instead of the original robbery in band.
• The petitioners moved, in open court, to quash the amended information on the ground that the new charge involved a more serious offense, altered after the municipal court’s preliminary investigation.
• The respondent Fiscal argued that the kidnapping component was incidental to the robbery and was absorbed by it; however, the petitioners contended that the altered charge was prejudicial and the result of withholding evidence during the original preliminary investigation.

Issues Arising During the Investigation

• The procedural validity of the respondent Fiscal’s action in amending the charge without conducting a new comprehensive preliminary investigation was questioned.
• The controversy also centered on whether the evidence presented prior to and during the original investigation was sufficient to support a charge of “robbery with kidnapping” or merely that of robbery.

Issue:

Whether the respondent Fiscal had the authority to alter the nature of the charge from robbery in band to the more serious offense of robbery with kidnapping after the completion of the municipal court’s preliminary investigation.

• Does an amendment in the charge that raises the severity of the offense require a new preliminary investigation?
• Was the accused’s right to be informed of the full nature of the alleged criminal act compromised by such an amendment without a fresh investigation?

Whether the withholding and subsequent revelation of evidence—specifically, the alleged confession and evidence on the victim’s transportation—constitutes an abuse of prosecutorial discretion in violation of due process.

• Can the fiscal, under section 13 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, amend the information in substance without prejudice to the accused’s right to a full and fair preliminary investigation?
• Does the incidental nature of the kidnapping, as evidenced by the preliminary record, justify elevating the crime to a complex offense?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)