Title
Supreme Court
Antiporda, Jr. vs. Garchitorena
Case
G.R. No. 133289
Decision Date
Dec 23, 1999
Petitioners, including a mayor, challenged Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over kidnapping charges, arguing amended Information lacked reinvestigation. SC upheld jurisdiction, citing estoppel and no prejudice to rights.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192514)

Facts

On or about September 1, 1995, petitioners allegedly, armed with firearms and abusing official positions, kidnapped Elmer Ramos from his residence in Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, using a motor vehicle. Original Information did not allege any office-related fact.

Original and Amended Information

Original Information (Sept. 18, 1997): charged kidnapping without reference to any official capacity.
Amended Information (Nov. 24, 1997): added that Antiporda, Jr. used his mayoral office to conspire with co-accused, thereby supplying jurisdictional facts.

Procedural History of Motions

  • Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion (Nov. 16, 1997) for reinvestigation and deferment of arrest warrants – denied by the Ombudsman (Jan. 9, 1998).
  • Motion for new preliminary investigation and to recall warrants (Mar. 5, 1998) – denied (Mar. 12, 1998) due to unchanged substance and non-appearance.
  • Motion to quash Amended Information (Mar. 24, 1998) – ignored (Mar. 27, 1998) for refusal to submit to jurisdiction.
  • Motion for reconsideration (Apr. 3, 1998) – denied (Apr. 24, 1998).

Issues Presented

a) Whether Sandiganbayan can acquire jurisdiction by amending the Information to add office-related facts not in the original Information.
b) Whether allowing the Amended Information without a new preliminary investigation violates petitioners’ rights.

Jurisdictional Framework

Under P.D. 1606 as amended, Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses by public officers in relation to their office carrying penalties exceeding six years. Jurisdiction requires three requisites: (1) the court’s authority over the offense by law, (2) commission within territorial bounds, and (3) acquisition of jurisdiction over the person by warrant or voluntary submission.

Jurisdiction Over Person and Offense

Territorial jurisdiction was undisputed. Petitioners’ counsel appearances at hearings constituted voluntary submission to jurisdiction. However, original Information lacked office-related allegations; thus, at that stage, substantive jurisdiction over the offense was absent.

Estoppel and Jurisdictional Facts

Petitioners had earlier contested the Regional Trial Court’s jurisdiction and asserted the crime was work-related before the Ombudsman. They cannot now deny Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction after invoking it. Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, petitioners are precluded from challenging the court’s jurisdiction over the offense.

Amendment of Information

Rule 110, Section 14 permits amendment of Information before plea or during trial on matters of form at the court’s discretion without prejudice to the accused. The Sandiganbayan lawfully allowed the amendment to supply office-related facts since petitioners had invoked jurisdiction and were not unfairly s

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.