Case Digest (G.R. No. 169509)
Facts:
The case involves Jocelyn E. Cabo as the petitioner against the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, the Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman, and the Commission on Audit, Region XIII as respondents. The events leading to this case began on June 26, 2004, when an information was filed against Cabo and her co-accused, Bonifacio C. Balahay, for violating Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The information alleged that on August 8, 2000, in Barobo, Surigao del Sur, Balahay, then the Mayor, unlawfully received P104,162.31 from Cabo, the Business Manager of Orient Integrated Development Consultancy, Inc. (OIDCI), in exchange for facilitating a consultancy contract for a feasibility study related to a community-based resource management project.
Cabo claimed she was denied her right to a preliminary investigation, as she did not receive any notice to submit a counter-affidavit. Consequently, she filed a motion for reinvestigati...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 169509)
Facts:
Background of the Case
- Petitioner Jocelyn E. Cabo, along with co-accused Bonifacio C. Balahay, was charged with violating Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The charge stemmed from an alleged transaction where Balahay, as Mayor of Barobo, Surigao del Sur, received P104,162.31 from Cabo, who was the Business Manager of Orient Integrated Development Consultancy, Inc. (OIDCI), in connection with a consultancy contract.
Procedural History
- Filing of Information: On June 26, 2004, an information was filed accusing Cabo and Balahay of violating Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019.
- Motion for Reinvestigation: Cabo claimed she was deprived of her right to a preliminary investigation and filed a motion for reinvestigation, which the Sandiganbayan granted on March 29, 2004.
- Conditional Arraignment: On May 14, 2004, the Sandiganbayan conditionally arraigned Cabo to allow her to travel abroad. The arraignment was conditional, meaning it would be void if no probable cause was found after reinvestigation.
- Reinvestigation Outcome: The Special Prosecutor found probable cause against Cabo, and her motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Amended Information: Balahay filed a motion to quash the original information, arguing it did not charge an offense. The Sandiganbayan ordered the prosecution to amend the information, which was done on February 7, 2005.
- Motion to Cancel Second Arraignment: Cabo filed a motion to cancel her re-arraignment, arguing that the amended information pertained only to Balahay and that her conditional arraignment had been ratified.
- Sandiganbayan Resolutions: The Sandiganbayan denied Cabo’s motion on May 4, 2005, and her motion for reconsideration on July 20, 2005, leading to the filing of this petition.
Issue:
- Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering Cabo’s re-arraignment on the amended information.
- Whether double jeopardy attached based on Cabo’s conditional arraignment on the original information.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that:
- The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering Cabo’s re-arraignment on the amended information.
- Double jeopardy did not attach because the original information was defective and did not charge an offense, and the case was not dismissed or terminated.
Ratio:
- Conditional Arraignment: The Sandiganbayan’s practice of conditionally arraigning an accused pending reinvestigation is not explicitly provided in the rules but has been recognized by the Court. The conditions must be clear, informed, and accepted by the accused. Cabo’s conditional arraignment was valid, and she waived her right to object to any amendments.
- Defective Information: The original information failed to allege all essential elements of the offense under Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019, making it void and defective. A valid conviction could not be sustained on such an information.
- Amendment of Information: The amended information merely clarified the factual averments and did not change the nature of the offense. Amendments to cure defects in the information are allowed even after a plea, provided they do not prejudice the accused.
- Double Jeopardy: For double jeopardy to attach, the original information must be valid and sufficient to sustain a conviction, and the case must be dismissed or terminated. Neither condition was met in this case.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions, ruling that Cabo’s conditional arraignment did not bar her re-arraignment on the amended information, and double jeopardy did not attach.