G.R. No. 240621 - People vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 240621)

Petitioner

The prosecution is the People of the Philippines as represented by the Ombudsman, which sought leave to amend the Information during trial to correct the total amount allegedly involved in the offense to conform to the disbursement vouchers and the records of the preliminary investigation.

Respondent

Jaime K. Recio is accused under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 of manifest partiality or gross inexcusable negligence in relation to security service contracts awarded to Variance Protective and Security Agency without public bidding, thereby giving it unwarranted benefits.

Key Dates and Documents

Original Information charged an erroneous amount written as P7,843,54.33.
Motion for Leave to File Amended Information filed March 27, 2018, seeking to correct the amount to P7,842,941.60 (the amount reflected in the disbursement vouchers).
Sandiganbayan Minute Resolutions denying the motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration dated April 27, 2018 and May 22, 2018, respectively.
Relevant records include the complaint, disbursement vouchers (Jan 30, 2004 to Oct 8, 2004), and the Ombudsman Joint Resolution (Jan 21, 2016) listing the amounts.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the decision date is post-1990); notably, the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
Statutes and rules: Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act); Republic Act No. 9184 and its IRR (government procurement law referenced as not observed); Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (governing amendment or substitution of complaints or informations).
Controlling procedural standard: Standards on “grave abuse of discretion” and the test whether an amendment is substantial (affecting the accused’s rights) or formal.

Facts

The Information charged Recio with giving unwarranted benefits to Variance by signing disbursement vouchers authorizing payments for security services covering specified dates in 2004. The monetary total in the Information was manifestly erroneous as written (P7,843,54.33). The prosecution sought to amend that numeric total to P7,842,941.60 — the figure appearing in the disbursement vouchers and in the Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution resolving to indict. The motion to amend was filed during trial before the prosecution presented its last witness. Recio opposed, arguing the amendment was substantial and prejudicial to his right to be informed of the charge.

Procedural History

The Sandiganbayan denied the prosecution’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Information on April 27, 2018, reasoning that the mistaken amount was too substantial to be corrected after evidence had been presented for over a year and noting the amount was stated only numerically, not in words. The Sandiganbayan also denied the prosecution’s Motion for Reconsideration on May 22, 2018. The prosecution then filed a petition for certiorari challenging those denials.

Issue Presented

Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the prosecution’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Information to correct the erroneous monetary figure in the Information.

Legal Standards on Amendments and Grave Abuse

Section 14, Rule 110: A complaint or information may be amended in form or substance without leave before plea; after plea and during trial, a formal amendment requires leave of court and must be made without prejudice to the accused. The rule protects the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, which becomes operative at arraignment.
Substantial versus formal amendment: Substantial amendments alter the recital of facts constituting the offense or affect jurisdiction and thus can prejudice the accused; formal amendments merely correct or state with greater precision things already evident in the Information and do not alter the essence of the offense or the defense. Examples of formal amendments include changes affecting only the range of penalty, amendments not charging a different offense, additional allegations that do not alter the prosecution’s theory or surprise the accused, or amendments that do not affect substantial rights (e.g., prescription).
Grave abuse of discretion: A capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment tantamount to a refusal to perform a duty; to be shown for certiorari relief.

Court’s Analysis of the Amendment Sought

Nature of the error: The Court treated the numeric figure P7,843,54.33 as an obvious typographical and mathematical error (a misplaced comma rendering the number non-existent) that was apparent on the face of the Information. The correct figure (P7,842,941.60) was reflected in the disbursement vouchers and other documents in the record.
Relation of the monetary amount to the offense: Under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 the offense may be committed in two modes: (1) by causing undue injury to any party (including the government), or (2) by giving any private party unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference. The second mode does not require proof of damage; the monetary tot

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 240621)

Facts of the Case

The Information filed before the Sandiganbayan (SB) charged respondent Jaime Kison Recio, then Executive Director III of the National Parks and Development Committee (NPDC), with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
The Information alleged that Recio entered into numerous security service contracts with Variance Protective and Security Agency (Variance) from 2002 to 2010 without required public bidding, thereby giving Variance unwarranted benefits.
The accusatory portion specifically alleged that on or about 30 January 2004 to 8 October 2004 in Manila, Recio, while performing official functions and acting with evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence, willfully, unlawfully and criminally gave unwarranted benefits to Variance by signing Disbursement Vouchers facilitating release of payment to Variance for security services purportedly rendered from 1 January 2004 to 15 September 2004, in the amount of P7,843,54.33, knowing that required public bidding and procurement activities under RA 9184 and its IRR were not conducted, to the damage and prejudice of the government.
Copies of Disbursement Vouchers dated January 30, 2004 to October 8, 2004 were part of the case records.

Procedural Posture and Motion to Amend

During trial and before the prosecution presented its last witness on April 4, 2018, the prosecution (People of the Philippines through the Office of the Ombudsman) filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Information dated March 27, 2018.
The motion sought to amend the amount stated in the Information from the erroneous P7,843,54.33 to P7,842,941.60, the amount reflected in the disbursement vouchers.
Respondent Recio opposed the amendment, arguing it was substantial and prejudicial to his right to be informed of the charges against him.
The Ombudsman filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated May 3, 2018 after the initial denial.

Sandiganbayan Resolutions and Rulings Below

The SB issued a Resolution dated April 27, 2018 denying the prosecution’s Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Information for lack of merit.
The SB held that the mistake in the amount alleged in the Information was too substantial to have remained uncorrected for more than a year while evidence had already been presented.
The SB found that the alleged difference could not be treated as a mere typographical error, particularly because the amount was stated only numerically and not spelled out in words.
The SB denied the Ombudsman’s Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 22, 2018.
The prosecution thereafter filed this petition for certiorari.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the Ombudsman’s Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Information.

Legal Standard for Certiorari and Grave Abuse of Discretion (as applied by the Court)

To justify extraordinary relief by certiorari, petitioners must satisfactorily show the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the discretion conferred upon it.
Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical manner tantamount to lack of jurisdiction; it implies discretion exercised in a despotic manner by passion or personal hostility, patent and gross enough to amount to evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty.
The Court summarized that there is grave abuse of discretion when (1) an act is done contrary to the Constitution, the law, or jurisprudence; or (2) it is executed whimsically, capriciously, or arbitrarily out of malice, ill-will, or personal bias.

Controlling Procedural Law on Amendment of an Information (Section 14, Rule 110)

Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure governs amendment or substitution of a complaint or information:
- A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea.
- After plea and during trial, a formal amendment may be made only with leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
- Any amendment before plea which downgrades the nature of the offense charged or excludes any accused can be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of