Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
TRANQUIL SALVADOR
G.R. 169509 *Date of promulgation not indicated The Supreme Court ruled that double jeopardy DID NOT attach to the amended
information. Her first arraignment was only conditional, and she was fully aware
CABO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN of one specific condition which waived her right to double jeopardy. Double
jeopardy was also held not to be applicable to the case because its requisites
Petitioner: were not met: The original information was not sufficient in substance and form,
and trial was not dismissed/terminated because the motion to quash was
Jocelyn E. Cabo
denied; the complaint was simply amended.
Respondents: The amendment in the second information was only as to form and NOT substance,
The Sandiganbayan Fourth Division, The Special Prosecutor of the therefore, it was allowed by law.
Ombudsman, Commission on Audit Region 8
Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.
FACTS:
CASE SUMMARY:
On June 24, 2000, Cabo and Bonifacio Balahay, Mayor of Barobo, Surigao
Cabo was charged with violation of RA 3019 for allegedly bribing her co-accused. del Sur, were charged for violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019. In the
She claimed to have been deprived of due process, so the Sandiganbayan (SB) information, it was alleged that Mayor Balahay received from Cabo the
ordered for the reinvestigation of her case. While the investigation was ongoing, amount of P104,000, and that said mayor intervened in the undertaking
she filed for a motion to travel abroad. This was granted by the SB in exchange
by Cabos company (OIDCI) for consultancy services with the Municipality
for her conditional arraignment, in which she pleaded NOT GUILTY. One of the
conditions of her arraignment was that, IF the complaint was amended, she
of Barobo.
automatically waived her right to object to the amendment and her right
against double jeopardy. Her arraignment was set on another date, and for this Cabo claimed that she was deprived of her right to preliminary
she filed another motion reiterating her previous plea. investigation so she filed a motion for reinvestigation. The
Sandiganbayan (SB) granted her motion and directed the Special
Meanwhile, her co-accused, Municipal Mayor Balahay moved to quash the Prosecutor to conduct one.
information on the ground that the facts did not constitute the crime charged.
The SB did not grant his motion, but ordered the amendment of the original
Meanwhile, Cabo filed another motion seeking permission to travel
complaint, of which the prosecution subsequently complied with.
abroad for a family vacation. The SB granted it in an order dated May
2004, which stated that, in light of the case still being under
Cabo thus filed for a motion to cancel her second arraignment, on the ground
that the amendment was done after she had entered her plea, and that since she reinvestigation, and considering that she had not yet been arraigned,
had already reiterated her plea of not guilty, double jeopardy had already Cabo expressly consented to the order that she be arraigned
attached. conditionally. [CONDITIONS:] If it is found that there is no probable cause
to proceed against her, the arraignment will have no effect.
However, if there is a need to amend the present information, then
Cabo would have then waived her right to object under Section 14,
Castelo Gana Gutierrez Lao Lopez Miclat Mercado Sales Salagubang Tan Tecson Valdez Varela Villanueva
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 2014) ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR
The SB sustained Balahays contention that the information was defective W/N double jeopardy had attached on the basis of the NOT GUILTY plea
for lack of necessary facts, but it did not immediately quash the (which petitioner reiterated in her October 2004 motion).
complaint. Instead, the court, in accordance with Section 4, Rule 117 of
the Rules of Court, ordered only the amendment of the information and
ordered the prosecution to correct the defect. The amended information
HELD:
was filed in February 2005 containing all the necessary elements of the
crime charged.
Double jeopardy DID NOT attach. Petitioners assertions must fail.
Cabo was notified of her re-arraignment in April 2005, but she filed a
Motion to Cancel Second Arraignment on the ground that she could no
longer be re-arraigned on the amended information since amendment of RATIO:
the information based on the substance is not allowed after the plea has
been made. Sandiganbayans practice of conditionally arraigning the accused has
no legal basis. It was only in People vs. Espinosa that the Court
Castelo Gana Gutierrez Lao Lopez Miclat Mercado Sales Salagubang Tan Tecson Valdez Varela Villanueva
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 2014) ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR
recognized conditional arraignment, provided that the conditions The amended information did not change the nature of the offense,
attached are unmistakable, express, informed and enlightened. which was for violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019, but it only made the
Otherwise, the arraignment was considered simple and conditional. facts more precise. The first information only alleged that Balahay
committed the offense with the use of his influence as public official
The SB was declared to have unequivocally laid down petitioners and together with petitioner, which was too vague. The amended
conditions for arraignment. Among those specified was that if there was information now stated that he did so in the performance of his official
a need to amend the original information, she forfeits her right to object functions, taking advantage of his official positionwith grave
and her RIGHT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY. She was assisted by counsel and abusewhile conspiringwith petitioner. The amended information
thereby informed of the legal consequences of such conditions. also simply specified that Balahay received the money from petitioner
for his own benefit and use.
With regard to her formal manifestation reiterating her not guilty plea
(reiterate-not-guilty motion), there was no showing that In People vs. Casey, tests to determine whether defendant is prejudiced
Sandiganybayan affirmed her motion. Section 1(b), Rule 116 of the Rules by the amendment of the information were set forth, among them are:
of Court explicitly requires the accused to be present at arraignment and
personally enter his plea. If the defenses of the accused in the original information are still available
in the amended information, and/or if the amended information does
With respect to the applicability of double jeopardy to the case, two not change the nature of the offense chargedthe amendment is one
requisites were absent: of FORM AND NOT SUBSTANCE, therefore not prohibited.
The first requisite of double jeopardy was not present since the original Section 14, Rule 110 is also not necessary, as petitioner suggested since
information failed to allege the essential elements for the violations there was no mistake in the charging of the proper offense; the
allegedly committed by petitioner and her co-accused. There was also prosecution merely failed to allege the appropriate facts necessary to
NO DISMISSAL OR TERMINATION OF THE CASE AGAINST PETITIONER constitute the crime charged.
(fourth requisite). The SB merely ordered an AMENDMENT. According
to Section 4, Rule 117, the prosecution is given an opportunity to amend
the defective information if the facts charged do not constitute an FINAL VERDICT:
offense. It is only when the prosecution fails to properly amend the
information that the motion to quash be granted. Petition DISMISSED.
Castelo Gana Gutierrez Lao Lopez Miclat Mercado Sales Salagubang Tan Tecson Valdez Varela Villanueva
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 2014) ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR
Castelo Gana Gutierrez Lao Lopez Miclat Mercado Sales Salagubang Tan Tecson Valdez Varela Villanueva