Case Summary (G.R. No. 240621)
Facts of the Case
Jaime Kison Recio, former Executive Director III of the National Parks Development Committee (NPDC), was charged with violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 for unlawfully awarding security service contracts to Variance Protective and Security Agency (Variance) without public bidding, covering the period from 2002 to 2010. The Information alleged that Recio gave unwarranted benefits to Variance, naming a specific erroneous amount of P7,843,54.33 purportedly paid for security services from January 1 to September 15, 2004.
During trial, prior to the prosecution presenting its last witness, the Office of the Ombudsman moved for leave to file an amended Information correcting the disputed amount in the Information to P7,842,941.60, which corresponded with the disbursement vouchers in evidence. Recio opposed the motion, asserting that the amendment was substantial and prejudicial to his right to be informed of the charges.
Sandiganbayan’s Resolution
The Sandiganbayan denied the motion for amendment on April 27, 2018, reasoning that the discrepancy in the amount was too substantial to be considered a mere typographical error and that evidence had already been presented on the basis of the original Information. The court also cited that the amount was only given numerically without being spelled out in words, which might have prevented easy detection of the error. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied on May 22, 2018.
Issue Presented
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the prosecution’s Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Information correcting the amount stated in the Information.
Legal Standard on Grave Abuse of Discretion and Amendment of Information
Grave abuse of discretion exists if a court acts in a capricious or whimsical manner, or commits an act contrary to the Constitution, law, or jurisprudence, rendering its exercise of discretion despotic or in contempt of fixed duty.
Under Rule 110, Section 14 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution may amend an Information in form or substance without leave of court before the accused enters a plea. After a plea is entered and trial is underway, formal amendments may be allowed only with leave of court and if the amendment will not prejudice the accused’s rights. The constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is paramount, and any amendment that undermines this right may be disallowed.
Distinction Between Substantial and Formal Amendments
A substantial amendment alters the recital of facts that constitute the offense or affect jurisdiction, potentially surprising the accused or changing the nature of the charges. Formal amendments merely clarify or correct details without changing the essential character of the offense or prejudicing the accused. Examples of formal amendments include changes related only to penalty range, corrections that do not charge a different offense, or additional allegations that do not alter theory of the case or defense form.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court found the amendment sought by the prosecution to correct the amount in the Information from the erroneous figure to the correct amount shown in official disbursement vouchers was a formal, not substantial, amendment. The incorrect amount stated (P7,843,54.33) was obviously a typographical and mathematical error, as it violated basic rules for numerical notation. This error was apparent on the face of the Information and correcting it did not add or change the facts that constitute the offense.
Furthermore, the amount was not an essential element of the violation under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 in the mode charged because the offense may be established by showing that unwarranted benefits were given, regardl
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 240621)
Background and Procedural History
- The case involves petitioner People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Ombudsman, filing a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking review of the Sandiganbayan’s (SB) Resolutions dated April 27, 2018, and May 22, 2018.
- The SB had denied the Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Information and the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner.
- The charges stem from an Information filed before the SB, accusing respondent Jaime Kison Recio, then Executive Director III of the National Parks and Development Committee (NPDC), of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
- Specifically, Recio was charged for entering multiple security service contracts with Variance Protective and Security Agency without public bidding from 2002 to 2010, allegedly giving unwarranted benefits in an amount initially stated as P7,843,54.33.
- During trial on April 4, 2018, the prosecution moved to amend the amount in the Information to P7,842,941.60 to reflect the correct figure in the disbursement vouchers.
- Recio opposed the motion, arguing that the amendment was substantial and would prejudice his right to be informed of the charges.
- The SB denied the motion, finding the amendment substantial and prejudicial, and denied the motion for reconsideration as well.
Issue Presented
- Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Information that sought to correct a numeric error in the stated amount of alleged undue injury.
Relevant Legal Principles on Amendment of Information
- Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure governs the amendment of an Information in criminal cases.
- Before the accused enters a plea, the prosecution may amend the Information in form or substance without leave of court.
- After plea and during trial, formal amendment requires leave of court and must be done without prejudice to the accused’s rights.
- Substantial amendments typically involve changes to the recital of facts constituting the offense or matters determining court jurisdiction.
- Formal amendments merely refine or correct non-essential parts of the Information without altering the accused’s opportunity to prepare a defense.
- Examples of formal