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...

Facts:

Filing of the Information and Allegations

• On June 26, 2004, an information was filed against petitioner Jocelyn E. Cabo and co-accused Bonifacio C. Balahay for violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
• The information alleged that on or about August 8, 2000 in the Municipality of Barobo, Surigao del Sur, Balahay—as the then Municipal Mayor—and petitioner, acting in concert, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously received and accepted P104,162.31 from petitioner.
• It was further alleged that petitioner, as Business Manager of Orient Integrated Development Consultancy, Inc. (OIDCI), granted the said amount to Balahay in return for his intervention in the consultancy contract for a feasibility study regarding the Community-Based Resource Management Project with the Municipality of Barobo.

Motion for Reinvestigation and Conditional Arraignment

• Petitioner asserted that she was deprived of her right to a preliminary investigation because she was not given notice to submit a counter-affidavit or evidence to prove her innocence.
• Accordingly, she filed a motion for reinvestigation before the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, which resulted in the granting of such motion on March 29, 2004, with the Office of the Special Prosecutor directed to conduct a reinvestigation concerning her.
• Concurrently, petitioner sought permission to travel abroad for a family vacation, which was granted by the court on May 14, 2004.
• The court ordered a conditional arraignment: pending the outcome of the reinvestigation, petitioner was conditionally arraigned with conditions attached—specifically, that she would waive her right to object to any amendment of the information and her constitutional protection against double jeopardy should the prosecution file an amended information.

Developments in Arraignment and Subsequent Motions

• During the proceedings, petitioner, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of “not guilty” at the time of the conditional arraignment.
• Petitioner later filed an urgent manifestation requesting to reiterate her “not guilty” plea to avoid appearing again at the reset arraignment scheduled for October 12, 2004; however, no clear action was taken on this motion.
• Meanwhile, petitioner’s co-accused, Balahay, failed to appear for arraignment, prompting his arrest and subsequent recall of the arrest warrant and reinstatement of his bail bond.
• On November 24, 2004, Balahay filed a motion to quash the original information, arguing that it failed to demonstrate that he acted in his official capacity and that the proper elements of the offense were not sufficiently alleged.

Amendment of the Information and Petitioner’s Objection

• The Sandiganbayan, on January 18, 2005, ruled that the original information was defective because it did not include every element necessary to constitute the offense of violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019.
• Relying on Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the court allowed the prosecution a 15-day period to file an amended information instead of quashing the case outright.
• On February 7, 2005, the prosecution filed an amended information incorporating all essential elements, such as specifying that Balahay, in his official capacity, received the money “for his own benefit or use” and that petitioner was involved in a conspiracy with him.
• Petitioner objected on the ground that her re-arraignment on the amended information would lead to double jeopardy since her previous “not guilty” plea should be binding, thereby challenging the validity of amending an information after a plea had been entered.

Subsequent Orders and Petitioner’s Special Civil Action

• On May 4, 2005, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denying petitioner’s motion to cancel the second arraignment, emphasizing that her original conditional arraignment had involved her waiver of any objection to the subsequent amendment.
• Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the amendment resulted in double jeopardy, contending that her written manifestation ratified her plea and removed the conditionality of the previous arraignment.
• The court, in a subsequent resolution dated July 20, 2005, denied her motion for reconsideration.
• Ultimately, petitioner elevated the issue by filing a special civil action for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan in holding that her conditional arraignment did not preclude the filing and subsequent re-arraignment on the amended information.

Issue:

Whether the re-arraignment on an amended information—filed after petitioner’s "not guilty" plea under a conditional arraignment—violates the principle against double jeopardy.

• Does the petitioner’s written manifestation confirming her plea transform the conditional arraignment into an unconditional one?
• Can an amended information be filed after a plea has been entered without infringing on the accused’s rights?

Whether the Sandiganbayan acted within its discretion and correctly applied the rules concerning the amendment of an information (as provided under Section 4, Rule 117 and Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court).

• Was the defect in the original information such that the court was compelled to allow an amendment rather than quash it outright?
• Did the amendment alter the nature of the crime in a manner prejudicial to petitioner?

Whether the practice of conditional arraignment, with its attendant waiver of objection for future amendments, is valid and enforceable under established jurisprudence.

• Has petitioner been given adequate notice and understanding of the conditions attached to her conditional arraignment?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)