CABO vs. Sandiganbayan DIGEST PDF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 2014)
G.R. 169509 CABO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN Petitioner: Jocelyn E. Cabo Respondents: The Sandiganbayan Fourth Division, The Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman, Commission on Audit Region 8 Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J. FACTS: CASE SUMMARY:
Cabo was charged with violation of RA 3019 for allegedly bribing her coaccused. She claimed to have been deprived of due process, so the Sandiganbayan (SB) ordered for the reinvestigation of her case. While the investigation was ongoing, she filed for a motion to travel abroad. This was granted by the SB in exchange 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 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 she filed another motion reiterating her previous plea. Meanwhile, her co-accused, Municipal Mayor Balahay moved to quash the 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 complaint, of which the prosecution subsequently complied with. 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 had already reiterated her plea of not guilty, double jeopardy had already attached. *Date of promulgation not indicated
ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR

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 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 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 denied; the complaint was simply amended.
The amendment in the second information was only as to form and NOT substance, therefore, it was allowed by law.
On June 24, 2000, Cabo and Bonifacio Balahay, Mayor of Barobo, Surigao del Sur, were charged for violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019. In the information, it was alleged that Mayor Balahay received from Cabo the amount of P104,000, and that said mayor intervened in the undertaking by Cabos company (OIDCI) for consultancy services with the Municipality of Barobo. Cabo claimed that she was deprived of her right to preliminary investigation so she filed a motion for reinvestigation. The Sandiganbayan (SB) granted her motion and directed the Special Prosecutor to conduct one. Meanwhile, Cabo filed another motion seeking permission to travel 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 reinvestigation, and considering that she had not yet been arraigned, Cabo expressly consented to the order that she be arraigned 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

Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure as well as her constitutional right against double jeopardy. When she was arraigned, she was duly assisted by her counsel and pleaded NOT GUILTY to the offense charged. She also duly affixed her signature in the minutes to signify her conformity to the conditional arraignment and the legal consequence thereof. Thereafter, the Special Prosecutor concluded his reinvestigation and found probable cause to charge her with the violation of RA 3019. The SB then set a new schedule for arraignment in October 2004. On the day before arraignment, Cabo filed a motion (reiterate-not-guilty motion) praying that she be allowed to reiterate her previous plea in the conditional arraignment so that she may be excused from attending the arraignment the next day. SB, however, did not act on her said motion. Balahay, on the other hand, filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the same did not charge any offense. It failed to allege that Balahay had to intervene in the said contract under the law, in his official capacity as mayor. The SB sustained Balahays contention that the information was defective for lack of necessary facts, but it did not immediately quash the 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 was filed in February 2005 containing all the necessary elements of the crime charged. 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 the information based on the substance is not allowed after the plea has been made.
SB denied petitioners motion. It held that her arraignment on the original information was only conditional in nature to accommodate her request to travel abroad so that she could be tried in absentia. She agreed to the condition that should the information be amended, she is deemed to waive her right to object to the amendment and to waive her constitutional protection against double jeopardy. She was considered estopped from raising her objection to the amended complaint. Petitioner filed an MR on the ground that double jeopardy had set in. She asserted that her conditional arraignment had been confirmed by her October motion (reiterate-not-guilty motion) reiterating her plea of not guilty. Thus, her arraignment on the original information was no longer conditional, and double jeopardy must consequently attach. SB denied her resolution. This prompted her to file the petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE: W/N double jeopardy had attached on the basis of the NOT GUILTY plea (which petitioner reiterated in her October 2004 motion).
HELD: Double jeopardy DID NOT attach. Petitioners assertions must fail.
RATIO: Sandiganbayans practice of conditionally arraigning the accused has no legal basis. It was only in People vs. Espinosa that the Court

recognized conditional arraignment, provided that the conditions attached are unmistakable, express, informed and enlightened. Otherwise, the arraignment was considered simple and conditional. The SB was declared to have unequivocally laid down petitioners conditions for arraignment. Among those specified was that if there was a need to amend the original information, she forfeits her right to object and her RIGHT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY. She was assisted by counsel and thereby informed of the legal consequences of such conditions. With regard to her formal manifestation reiterating her not guilty plea (reiterate-not-guilty motion), there was no showing that Sandiganybayan affirmed her motion. Section 1(b), Rule 116 of the Rules of Court explicitly requires the accused to be present at arraignment and personally enter his plea. With respect to the applicability of double jeopardy to the case, two requisites were absent: The first requisite of double jeopardy was not present since the original information failed to allege the essential elements for the violations allegedly committed by petitioner and her co-accused. There was also NO DISMISSAL OR TERMINATION OF THE CASE AGAINST PETITIONER (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 offense. It is only when the prosecution fails to properly amend the information that the motion to quash be granted. Contrary to petitioners submission, the original information can be cured by amendment even after she had pleaded thereto, since the amendments ordered by the court below were only as to matters of form and not of substance (Section 14, Rule 110).

The amended information did not change the nature of the offense, which was for violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019, but it only made the facts more precise. The first information only alleged that Balahay committed the offense with the use of his influence as public official and together with petitioner, which was too vague. The amended information now stated that he did so in the performance of his official functions, taking advantage of his official positionwith grave abusewhile conspiringwith petitioner. The amended information also simply specified that Balahay received the money from petitioner for his own benefit and use. In People vs. Casey, tests to determine whether defendant is prejudiced by the amendment of the information were set forth, among them are: If the defenses of the accused in the original information are still available in the amended information, and/or if the amended information does not change the nature of the offense chargedthe amendment is one of FORM AND NOT SUBSTANCE, therefore not prohibited. Section 14, Rule 110 is also not necessary, as petitioner suggested since there was no mistake in the charging of the proper offense; the prosecution merely failed to allege the appropriate facts necessary to constitute the crime charged.
FINAL VERDICT: Petition DISMISSED.

ADDITIONAL DOCTRINE AND INFORMATION
SECTION 3(b) OF RA 3019 (ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. JOCELYN CABO Business Manager of Orient Integrated Development Consultancy, Inc. (OIDCI), a consultancy group charged with conducting feasibility study for the community-based resource management project of Barobo, Surigao del Sur.

REQUISITES FOR DOUBLE JEOPARDY TO PROSPER (1)there is a complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the same is filed before a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) there is a valid arraignment or plea to the charges; and (4) the accused is convicted or acquitted or the case is otherwise dismissed or terminated without his express consent. PEOPLE vs. CASEY The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment of an information has been said to be whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other. A look into Our jurisprudence on the matter shows that an amendment to an information introduced after the accused has pleaded not guilty thereto, which does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein, does not expose the accused to a charge which could call for a higher penalty, does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to be one of form and not of substance not prejudicial to the accused and, therefore, not prohibited by Section 13 (now Section 14), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court.
AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION SECTION 4, RULE 117 OF THE RULES OF COURT If the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information which can be cured by amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made. If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. The motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or information still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment. AMENDED INFORMATION FILED ON FEBRUARY 7, 2005 That on or about 08 August 2000, in the Municipality of Barobo, Surigao Del Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused BONIFACIO C. BALAHAY, then Mayor of the Municipality of Barobo, Surigao Del Sur, a high ranking public official, in the performance of his official functions, taking advantage of his official position, with grave abuse of authority, and committing the offense in relation to his office, conspiring and confederating with JOCELYN CABO , did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously receive and accept the amount of ONE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY TWO PESOS AND 31/100 (P104,162.31) for his own benefit or use from said JOCELYN CABO, Business Manager of Orient Integrated Development Consultancy, Inc. (OIDC), a consultancy group charged with conducting a feasibility study for the Community-Based Resource Management Project of the Municipality of Barobo, with accused Cabo giving and granting said amount to accused Balahay in consideration of the contract for said feasibility study, which contract accused Balahay in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. CONTRARY TO LAW.

CABO vs. Sandiganbayan DIGEST PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CABO vs. Sandiganbayan DIGEST PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CABO vs. Sandiganbayan DIGEST PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 2014)

ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 2014)

ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 2014)

ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR

FINAL VERDICT: Petition DISMISSED.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 2014)

ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR

You might also like