G.R. No. 107372 - Ortanez vs. Court of Appeals

On November 24, 2000, public relations practitioner Salvador “Bubby” Dacer and his driver Emmanuel Corbito were abducted along Zobel Roxas Street, Manila.
Their charred remains—burnt bones, metal dental plates and a ring—were found in Indang, Cavite, positively identified by dentists and UP forensic pathologists; cause of death was strangulation.

A DOJ panel conducted a preliminary investigation; on May 11, 2001, an Information for double murder was filed with RTC Manila, Branch 41, naming civilians and several PNP officers among the accused.
On May 23, 2001, the prosecution’s motion to admit an Amended Information (adding an abduction charge) was granted.

On May 24, 2001, several accused moved to quash. P/Supt. Glen Dumlao was arrested and executed a sworn statement implicating other officers.
On June 18, 2001, P/Insp. Danilo Villanueva moved for reinvestigation due to mistaken identity; granted. On June 26, 2001, prosecution moved for reinvestigation based on Dumlao’s statement; granted.
On August 16, 2001, P/Insp. Villanueva was discharged. On September 17, 2001, prosecution filed a Manifestation and Motion to Admit a second Amended Information discharging Lopezes, Diloy and Dumlao as state witnesses, substituting Allan Cadenilla Villanueva, and adding P/Sr. Supts. Aquino, Mancao II and ViAa.

On October 1 and 24, 2001, RTC Branch 41 denied the motion to admit the second Amended Information.
On November 22, 2001, after a motion to inhibit, the case was re-raffled to Branch 18, RTC Manila (Judge Laguio).
On January 4, 2002, the prosecution filed a certiorari petition before the Supreme Court; the SC referred the matter to the Court of Appeals.
On April 4, 2002, the CA granted the petition, set aside the RTC orders, and ordered admission of the September 17, 2001 Amended Information (except as to P/Sr. Supt. Dumlao). A motion for reconsideration was denied on August 12, 2002.

Which provision governs an amendment of an information before plea that excludes accused for use as state witnesses: Section 14, Rule 110 or Section 17, Rule 119 of the RRCP?
Whether the trial court’s grant of reinvestigation constitutes “leave of court” under Section 14, Rule 110.
Whether the procedural requirements of Section 17, Rule 119 apply when the accused have not yet been arraigned and trial has not commenced.
Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the admission of the Amended Information.