Case Summary (G.R. No. 249121)
Procedural Motions Filed by Petitioner
Following the filing, the prosecution recommended no bail. Petitioner moved for reinvestigation and for referral back to the OCP to allow presentation of defense evidence. Petitioner also filed a Motion to Fix Bail seeking provisional liberty despite the prosecution’s no-bail recommendation. The OCP reaffirmed its probable-cause finding in a subsequent resolution dated September 14, 2017.
Prosecution’s Amendment and Amended Information
A police witness sought reconsideration before the OCP to expand charges, including charging a qualifying circumstance under Section 28(e) in relation to Section 28(b) and alleging the complex crime of Direct Assault with Frustrated Murder. On October 9, 2017, the prosecution moved in court to admit an Amended Information that added the qualifier “IN REL. TO SEC. 28(e)” to the Section 28(b) charge and appended the phrase “Loaded with seven (7) live ammunitions” to the description of one recovered shotgun.
RTC Joint Resolution (November 20, 2017)
Branch 84, RTC (Judge Cortez) issued a Joint Resolution on November 20, 2017 denying petitioner’s Motion to Fix Bail and granting the prosecution’s Motion to Admit the Amended Information. The court relied on Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court to permit amendment “at any time before the accused enters his plea,” concluded that the Amended Information bore the City Prosecutor’s approval (thereby validating delegation under Office Order No. 44), and ruled that petitioner, now charged with an offense carrying reclusion perpetua to death, was not entitled to bail as a matter of right.
Allegation of Tampering and Subsequent Motions
Petitioner manifested that the original Amended Information later supplied to the RTC lacked City Prosecutor Lee’s signature and that a subsequently filed version bore that signature, contending tampering and invoking People v. Garfin. Petitioner filed motions for reconsideration and to inhibit Judge Cortez; Judge Cortez granted an inhibition, leading to re-raffle and assignment to other judges. Petitioner also moved to disqualify certain private prosecutors.
RTC Omnibus Order (October 30, 2018)
Branch 216, RTC (Judge Ruiz) issued an Omnibus Order denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and upholding admission of the Amended Information. The court ruled the belated submission of the version with the City Prosecutor’s signature did not invalidate the pleading, reiterated that the amended pleading rendered the charge non-bailable (reclusion perpetua to death under Section 28(e) in relation to Section 28(b)), and set the case for arraignment.
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling
Petitioner sought certiorari relief from the Court of Appeals to set aside the RTC decisions insofar as they admitted the Amended Information and denied bail. The CA dismissed the petition on August 30, 2019, holding that the Amended Information’s defect (initial lack of City Prosecutor Lee’s signature) was cured by the later-submitted signed version and that the charge under Section 28(e) carried a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, hence not affording bail as a matter of right.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court distilled the issues as (I) whether the CA erred in failing to find grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in admitting the Amended Information charging a capital offense and (II) whether the CA erred in failing to find grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in denying petitioner bail as a matter of right.
Governing Rules on Amendment of Information
The Court relied principally on Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court: a complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court at any time before the accused enters a plea. The Court emphasized that amendments before arraignment/plea do not violate substantive rights because the accused has not yet been formally informed of the nature and cause of accusation by plea.
Approval and Signature of Prosecutor: Formal vs. Substantial Defect
The Court considered the absence of the City Prosecutor’s signature on the original Information and the first copy of the Amended Information. It applied the en banc precedent in People v. Villa Gomez holding that lack of the chief prosecutor’s signature and approval is a formal defect, not a jurisdictional or substantive defect, and thus curable. The records showed a later-submitted Amended Information bearing City Prosecutor Lee’s signature prior to arraignment, which the Court found sufficient to validate the pleading.
Bail Entitlement and Legal Standard
The Court explained that whether an accused is entitled to bail as of right depends on the nature of the offense charged and the prescribed penalty. An accused charged with a capital offense (penalty range including reclusion perpetua to death) is not entitled to bail as of right. Because the Amended Information validly charged petitioner under Section 28(e) in relation to Section 28(b) (a qualifying circumstance elevating penalty), petitione
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 249121)
Case Caption, Procedural Posture, and Relief Sought
- Supreme Court First Division decision in G.R. No. 249121, promulgated August 2, 2023; penned by Chief Justice Gesmundo.
- Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by petitioner Felix Nathaniel "Angel" Villanueva Manalo II seeking reversal and setting aside:
- the November 20, 2017 Joint Resolution of RTC Branch 84 (Quezon City) that (1) granted the Motion to Admit Attached Amended Information, (2) admitted the Amended Information, and (3) denied petitioner’s Motion to Fix Bail; and
- the October 30, 2018 Omnibus Order of RTC Branch 216 (Quezon City) which denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
- The Court of Appeals’ August 30, 2019 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 159024, which affirmed the RTC rulings, was assailed in the petition to the Supreme Court.
Antecedent Facts — Search, Seizure, and Inquest
- On March 2, 2017 at about 6:00 a.m., police implemented a Search Warrant at petitioner’s residence located inside the Iglesia Ni Cristo compound (Tandang Sora Avenue, Brgy. New Era, Quezon City).
- The Search Warrant was issued by then Presiding Judge Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale.
- Several unlicensed firearms and ammunition were found during the search.
- The Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Quezon City conducted an inquest and, by a Resolution dated March 3, 2017, found probable cause and recommended filing of an Information for violation of R.A. No. 10591 against petitioner and his companions; the Resolution ordered their release “subject to the approval of the Inquest Chief.”
- The original Information (dated March 6, 2017) charged petitioner under Sec. 28(b) of R.A. No. 10591 (penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if three or more small arms or Class-A light weapons are unlawfully acquired or possessed) and was signed by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Nilo A. PeAaflor and approved by Deputy City Prosecutor Rogelio A. Velasco.
- The Information’s accusatory paragraph listed: (a) one M-16 Colt Ar 15 rifle, serial no. 4952780; (b) one M1 carbine, serial no. 4161809; and (c) one 12-gauge Action shotgun, serial no. 116534.
Initial Prosecution Recommendations and Pre-Trial Motions
- The OCP made a “no bail recommendation,” prompting:
- petitioner’s Motion for Reinvestigation filed March 15, 2017, requesting referral back to the OCP for preliminary investigation and leave to adduce evidence in his defense;
- petitioner’s Motion to Fix Bail filed September 5, 2017, requesting the RTC to set bail despite the prosecution’s no-bail recommendation.
- On September 14, 2017, the OCP issued another Resolution upholding its finding of probable cause to charge petitioner under R.A. No. 10591.
Subsequent Prosecutorial Action — Motion to Amend and New Theories
- On October 6, 2017, Police Chief Inspector Jun G. Fortunato (a prosecution witness and the officer primarily authorized by the RTC to implement the Search Warrant) filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration with the OCP seeking:
- a finding of conspiracy between petitioner and his companions;
- charges under Sec. 28(e) in relation to Sec. 28(b) of R.A. No. 10591;
- charging the complex crime of Direct Assault with Frustrated Murder under the Revised Penal Code;
- direction to the trial prosecutor to amend all Informations filed pursuant to the March 3, 2017 OCP Resolution.
- On October 9, 2017, the OCP filed with the RTC a Motion to Admit Attached Amended Information and an Amended Information which:
- added “IN REL. TO SEC. 28(e)” to the original Sec. 28(b) charge, and
- appended the phrase “Loaded with seven (7) live ammunitions” after reference to the 12-gauge shotgun.
RTC Joint Resolution (November 20, 2017) — Actions and Decretal Portion
- RTC Branch 84, presided by Judge Luisito G. Cortez, promulgated a Joint Resolution (Motion to Fix Bail and Motion to Admit Amended Information) on November 20, 2017 that:
- DENIED the Motion to Fix Bail filed by accused Felix Nathaniel “Angel” Villanueva Manalo II and co-accused;
- GRANTED the Motion to Admit Attached Amended Information filed by the public prosecutor dated October 9, 2017; and
- ADMITTED the Amended Information.
- The RTC set arraignment and pre-trial for December 6, 2017 at Metro Manila District Jail Courtroom at Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig City, and ordered usual notifications to parties and prison authorities for courtroom preparation.
RTC Reasoning for Admitting Amended Information and Denying Bail
- The RTC relied on Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court allowing the prosecution to amend or substitute a complaint or information, in form or in substance, at any time before the accused enters a plea, unless the amendment downgrades or drops an accused.
- The RTC noted the Amended Information bore City Prosecutor Donald T. Lee’s signature indicating his approval, and upheld the validity of Office Order No. 44 that delegated approving authority to Deputy City Prosecutor/Chief Inquest Division Rogelio A. Velasco.
- The RTC concluded petitioner was not entitled to bail as a matter of right because he was charged with a capital offense under the Amended Information.
Petitioner’s Immediate Post-Ruling Actions and Allegations of Tampering
- On November 21, 2017, petitioner filed a Manifestation asserting the prosecution tampered with and altered the original October 9, 2017 Amended Information, alleging the original did not contain City Prosecutor Lee’s signature and approval and that the version bearing Lee’s signature was later submitted; petitioner invoked People v. Garfin as controlling precedent to render the amended initiatory pleading void.
- On December 4, 2017, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the November 20 Joint Resolution, seeking reversal, denial of the Amended Information, and grant of his Motion to Fix Bail.
- On December 4, 2017, petitioner also filed a Motion to Inhibit against Judge Cortez alleging selective appreciation of evidence; the RTC granted his Motion to Inhibit by Joint Order dated December 20, 2017.
Subsequent Re-Raffling, Further Inhibition, and Reassignment
- On February 23, 2018, petitioner filed another Motion to Inhibit against Presiding Judge Juris S. Dilinila-Callanta, alleging she posted a copy of Pasugo (an INC publication) outside the courtroom door.
- On April 12, 2018, Judge Dilinila-Callanta promulgated a Resolution granting petitioner’s Motion to Inhibit; the case was re-raffled to Presiding Judge Alfonso C. Ruiz II (Judge Ruiz).
RTC Omnibus Order (October 30, 2018) — Disposition and Reasoning
- RTC Branch 216, presided by Judge Alfonso C. Ruiz II, issued an Omnibus Order on October 30, 2018 that:
- DENIED the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Joint Resolution dated November 20, 2017) filed by petitioner;
- GRANTED petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify Private Prosecutor dated July 27, 2018, disqualifying the law firm Angara Abella Concepcion Regala & Cruz and/or any of its l