Title
Cabo vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 169509
Decision Date
Jun 16, 2006
Petitioner charged under R.A. 3019 contested re-arraignment on amended info; SC ruled no double jeopardy, upheld Sandiganbayan's decision.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 91)

Antecedent Facts

A criminal information was filed on June 26, 2004, alleging that Cabo and Balahay violated Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, by unlawfully receiving and accepting an amount of Php 104,162.31 for consultancy services related to a feasibility study project. Cabo claimed she was deprived of her right to a preliminary investigation, as she did not receive notice to present a counter-affidavit.

Motions and Conditional Arraignment

Cabo filed a motion for reinvestigation, resulting in an order on March 29, 2004, from the Sandiganbayan to conduct a reinvestigation concerning her. She sought permission for travel abroad, which was granted on May 14, 2004, with explicit conditions that included a conditional arraignment pending the results of the reinvestigation, while allowing the court to surmise trial in absentia if necessary. Upon her return on May 24, 2004, the prosecution found probable cause against her.

Following Legal Proceedings

After the reinvestigation, Cabo filed motions that were subsequently denied, leading to her scheduled arraignment on October 12, 2004. A motion to validate her prior plea as 'not guilty' was filed the day before, but the Sandiganbayan did not act on it. Balahay did not appear for arraignment, resulting in an arrest order against him.

Motion to Quash and Amendment of Information

Balahay filed a motion to quash the information asserting that it did not charge any offense. On January 18, 2005, the Sandiganbayan agreed, indicating that the original information lacked sufficient allegations to constitute the offense. However, instead of quashing it outright, the Sandiganbayan allowed the prosecution 15 days to amend the information. The prosecution complied by submitting an amended information that satisfied the necessary legal elements of the charge.

Second Arraignment and Procedural Validity

Cabo's re-arraignment was scheduled for April 14, 2005. She filed a motion to cancel this arraignment, claiming the amended information was directed solely at Balahay. The Sandiganbayan denied her motion, emphasizing that her arraignment's conditional nature allowed for subsequent amendments. It underscored her express agreement to waive objections to an amended information.

Double Jeopardy Assertion

Cabo's claims regarding double jeopardy hinged on her belief that her plea of 'not guilty' constituted a full arraignment. However, the Sandiga

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.