G.R. No. 169509 - Cabo vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Title: Jocelyn E. Cabo vs. The Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, The Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman and The Commission on Audit, Region XIII
Date: June 16, 2006
Nature of Action: Special civil action for certiorari to nullify resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.

On June 26, 2004, an information was filed against Jocelyn E. Cabo and co-accused Bonifacio C. Balahay for violating Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
Allegations: The accused allegedly received P104,162.31 from Cabo, who was the Business Manager of a consultancy group, in consideration of Balahay's intervention in a governmental contract.
Cabo claimed deprivation of the right to a preliminary investigation due to lack of notice.

Motion for Reinvestigation: Granted by Sandiganbayan on March 29, 2004.
Travel Permission: Cabo was granted permission to travel abroad under a conditional arraignment on May 14, 2004.
Conditions:
- Conditional arraignment allowed to preserve the court's authority to conduct trial in absentia.
- Cabo agreed to waive her rights against double jeopardy if the information was amended.

Cabo returned from travel on May 24, 2004.
The Special Prosecutor found probable cause for charges against her.
Cabo’s subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied.
The original arraignment set for October 12, 2004, was complicated by procedural motions and co-accused's failures to appear.

Co-accused Balahay filed a motion to quash the information, arguing it did not charge any offense.
Sandiganbayan agreed on January 18, 2005, that the original information was defective but did not quash it outright and allowed for amendment.
Amended Information: Filed on February 7, 2005, adding essential elements of the offense concerning Balahay’s official capacity.

Cabo's Motion to Cancel Arraignment: Argued that the amended information pertained only to Balahay and that substantial amendments were improper post-plea.
First Resolution (May 4, 2005): Denied Cabo’s motion, ruling her conditional arraignment permitted the prosecution to amend the information.
Second Resolution (July 20, 2005): Denied her motion for reconsideration, reinforcing the terms of her conditional arraignment.

Legal Standard: For double jeopardy to attach, several conditions must be met:
- A valid and sufficient information must exist.
- The accused must have been validly arraigned.
- The case must have been dismissed or terminated without express consent.
Findings:
- The original information was insufficient, thus not a valid basis for double jeopardy.
- The case was ongoing and not dismissed.

Conditional Arraignment: Recognized as valid if the conditions are express, informed, and accepted by the accused.
Amendment of Information: Permitted under Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, allowing corrections to defects without dismissing the original information.
Definition of Double Jeopardy: Not applicable in this case due to the non-termination of the original case and the invalidity of the original information.