Case Digest (G.R. No. 140311)
Facts:
Dennis T. Gabionza v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 140311, March 30, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court. The petition sought review of the Court of Appeals' dismissal of Gabionza's Rule 65 petition attacking a Regional Trial Court order that allowed amendment of the Information charging him under the Social Security Law.Petitioner Dennis T. Gabionza, then President of the Manila City Bus Corporation, was charged by Information filed on November 9, 1993 with willfully failing to remit SSS, Medicare and Employee Compensation contributions amounting to P1,652,330.10 and related penalties, alleging the offense occurred "in and about or during the period from January 1991 to May 1993" under Sec. 22 (a) and (d), in relation to Sec. 28 (e) of RA No. 1161. Gabionza was arraigned on December 7, 1993.
On February 10, 1998 — about four years after arraignment — the public prosecutor filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Information to change the material dates from "January 1991 to May 1993" to "January 1991 to May 1992." Petitioner opposed, arguing the change was substantial and would prejudice his right to be informed of the nature of the charge and impair available defenses. The trial court (Presiding Judge Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.) granted the motion on March 31, 1998, treating the amendment as one of form that did not alter the prosecution's theory; a motion for reconsideration was denied on September 2, 1998.
Petitioner filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 49098-SP). The Court of Appeals, in a decision penned by Justice Renato C. Dacudao (concurred in by Justices Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez and Salvador J. Valdez, Jr.), dismissed the petition on June 9, 1999, upholding the trial court's ruling that the amendment was not substantive and caused no prejudice. Petitioner then brought the matter to the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- After arraignment, may an Information be amended to change the material dates of the commission of the offense without prejudicing the accused?
- Did laches or unreasonable delay by the prosecution bar the amen...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)