G.R. No. 195957 - Quiambao vs. People

The petitioner, Cezar T. Quiambao, is charged with estafa arising from his alleged acts while serving in key positions (Chairman of the Board, CEO, and/or Treasurer) at Star Infrastructure Development Corporation (SIDC).
The respondents are the People of the Philippines and SIDC, with the latter initiating the complaints.
The criminal complaints originated from SIDC’s allegations that Quiambao misappropriated, misapplied, and converted corporate funds for his personal benefit by committing acts of estafa through misappropriation on one count and through deceit and false pretenses on another.

Criminal complaints for estafa were filed by SIDC, docketed as I.S. Nos. 06-10-11685 to 89.
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City (OCP-Pasig) rendered a Consolidated Resolution on May 2, 2007, finding probable cause to charge Quiambao with two counts of estafa.
Two separate informations were subsequently filed by the prosecution on June 4, 2007:

Criminal Case No. 135413-PSG – estafa through misappropriation, alleging that Quiambao, in his corporate capacity, misappropriated a substantial amount (P85,808,778.26) by converting funds for personal use.
Criminal Case No. 135414-PSG – estafa through deceit and false pretenses, alleging that through fraudulent misrepresentation, Quiambao induced SIDC to disburse funds amounting to P15,180,000.00, which he then misapplied and converted for personal gain.

Quiambao filed a motion to quash the twin Information on November 9, 2007, due to the vague phrasing “sometime between 1997 to 2004” as the period of commission of the offense.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of curing the defect by ordering the prosecution to specify the precise months or years within 1997 to 2004.
On April 15, 2008, the OCP-Pasig issued two Amended Informations replacing the broad phrase with 72 specific dates linked to the alleged acts.
Subsequent motions followed:

On June 13, 2008, Quiambao filed another Motion to Quash with Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the insertion of various dates constituted a substantial amendment requiring a new preliminary investigation.
The RTC, in its order dated August 28, 2008, denied these motions, characterizing the defects as curable and the amendment as a clarification.
Quiambao further filed a Motion for Reconsideration on September 26, 2008, contending that his rights were prejudiced because the amended dates were not part of the original preliminary investigation findings.
The RTC, on January 26, 2009, denied the motions, holding that the prosecution had substantially complied with the directive to amend the Informations.

Quiambao filed an Omnibus Motion seeking to quash the Amended Information on the ground that the charges now amounted to multiple offenses, arguing that each misappropriation or conversion was a separate felony.

The RTC, however, clarified in its order dated May 7, 2009 that the alleged acts were independent but ultimately reversed its stance by directing that an information be filed for each act.

SIDC’s move for reconsideration of the May 7, 2009 Order, which resulted in an October 5, 2009 Order directing the filing of the corresponding Informations.
Quiambao’s attempts at partial reconsideration and subsequent petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) as he contested the directive to file additional Informations without a new preliminary investigation.

The CA, through its Decision on November 18, 2010 and Resolution on March 10, 2011, dismissed Quiambao’s petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in ordering the filing of the new Informations.
Quiambao ultimately filed the present petition on March 24, 2011, challenging the CA’s decisions on two main grounds:

That the CA erred in sanctioning the RTC’s departure from standard judicial procedure by not allowing a new preliminary investigation.
That, alternatively, the charges against him should have been dismissed outright.

Quiambao’s challenges also involved addressing prior consolidated resolutions by the OCP-Pasig, specifically the May 2, 2007 Consolidated Resolution and an earlier one dated December 8, 2005, the latter having been reviewed by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The issue of forum shopping was raised when Quiambao brought attention to 11 additional criminal complaints pending before the DOJ that involved similar subject matter.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and SIDC filed respective memoranda and comments, with the OSG emphasizing that an amendment which merely clarifies without adding new material facts is formal in nature.
Documents and manifestations were submitted well into 2011 and later, including a DOJ resolution reversing its earlier findings, further complicating the evidentiary and procedural landscape, though these were not central to the core controversy regarding the amendment.

Whether the RTC’s order directing the filing of new Informations, which amended the original Informations by replacing the vague “sometime between 1997 to 2004” with specific dates, constitutes a substantial change that would prejudice the rights of the accused.
Whether the amendments to the Information were merely formal clarifications or amounted to a change in the nature of the charges such that a new preliminary investigation should have been conducted.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC when it directed the filing of new Informations instead of dismissing the charges.