Matalam v Sandiganbayan| G.R. No. 165751. April 12, 2005 i.

New allegations which relate only

| Chico-Nazario, J. | Distinction between substitution and to the range of the penalty that
amendment| by Jasper the court might impose in the
event of conviction;
FACTS: ii. An amendment which does not
● An information dated 15 November 2004 was filed charge another offense different
before the Sandiganbayan charging petitioner Datu or distinct from that charged in
Guimid Matalam, Habib A. Bajunaid, Ansari M. Lawi, the original one;
Muslimin Unga and Naimah Unte with violation of iii. Additional allegations which do
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, not alter the prosecution’s theory
for their alleged illegal and unjustifiable refusal to of the case so as to cause surprise
pay the monetary claims of Kasan I. Ayunan, Abdul to the accused and affect the
E. Zailon, Esmael A. Ebrahim, Annabelle Zailon, form of defense he has or will
Pendatun Mambatawan, Hyria Mastura and Faizal I. assume;
Hadil. The accusatory portion of the information iv. An amendment which does not
reads: adversely affect any substantial
● On 14 August 2002, petitioner filed a Motion for right of the accused;
Reinvestigation. After the reinvestigation, the v. An amendment that merely adds
public prosecutor filed a Manifestation and Motion specifications to eliminate
to Admit Amended Information Deleting the Names vagueness in the information and
of Other Accused Exept Datu Guimid Matalam. not to introduce new and
● Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the material facts, and merely states
amended information charges an entirely new with additional precision
cause of action. The corpus delicti of the amended something which is already
information is no longer his alleged refusal to pay contained in the original
the backwages ordered by the Civil Service information and which adds
Commission, but the alleged willful, unlawful and nothing essential for conviction
illegal dismissal from the service of the complaining for the crime charged.
witnesses. d. The test as to whether a defendant is
ISSUES/RATIO: prejudiced by the amendment has been
1. WON Petitioner was deprived of due process of law said to be whether a defense under the
when the Sandiganbayan admitted the Amended information as it originally stood would be
Information without conductin another or new available after the amendment is made,
preliminary investigation – YES and whether any evidence defendant
a. Respondent court is directed to order the might have would be equally applicable to
Office of the Ombudsman to forthwith the information in the one form as in the
conduct a preliminary investigation of the other. An amendment to an information
charge embodied in the Amended which does not change the nature of the
Information filed against petitioner. It is crime alleged therein does not affect the
further directed to suspend the essence of the offense or cause surprise or
proceedings in the said case pending deprive the accused of an opportunity to
termination of the preliminary meet the new averment had each been
investigation, and thereafter to take such held to be one of form and not of
action on petitioner’s case as may be substance
warranted by the results of said e. In the case at bar, the amendment was
preliminary investigation indeed substantial. The recital of facts
b. Before the accused enters his plea, a constituting the offense charged was
formal or substantial amendment of the definitely altered. In the original
complaint or information may be made information, the prohibited act allegedly
without leave of court. After the entry of a committed by petitioner was the illegal
plea, only a formal amendment may be and unjustifiable refusal to pay the
made but with leave of court and if it does monetary claims of the private
not prejudice the rights of the accused. complainants, while in the amended
After arraignment, a substantial information, it is the illegal dismissal from
amendment is proscribed except if the the service of the private complainants.
same is beneficial to the accused. A However, it cannot be denied that the
substantial amendment consists of the alleged illegal and unjustifiable refusal to
recital of facts constituting the offense pay monetary claims is related to, and
charged and determinative of the arose from, the alleged illegal dismissal
jurisdiction of the court. All other matters from the service of the private
are merely of form. complainant According to Retired Senior
c. The following have been held to be merely Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado,
formal amendments: before the plea is taken, the information
 may be amended in substance and/or private complainants. It cannot be
form, without leave of court; but if disputed that petitioner already discussed
amended in substance, the accused is circumstances surrounding the
entitled to another preliminary termination of services of the private
investigation, unless the amended charge complainants in his counter-affidavit.
is related to or is included in the original However, we find nothing therein that
charge would show that he had already touched
f. Thus, the rule is: Before or after a plea, a the issue of evident bad faith or manifest
substantial amendment in an information partiality. As can be gathered from the
entitles an accused to another preliminary counter-affidavit, there were arguments
investigation. However, if the amended tending to counter the presence of evident
information contains a charge related to or bad faith, manifest partiality or gross
is included in the original information, a inexcusable negligence, but the same refer
new preliminary investigation is not to the allegation of failure to pay the
required monetary claims and not to the alleged
g. While it is true that the charges in the illegal dismissal. Although one allegation
original and amended informations are stemmed from the other, the court a quo
related, i.e., an inquiry into one would and the public prosecutor cannot say the
have elicited substantially, if not precisely, element of evident bad faith, manifest
the same facts that an inquiry into the partiality or gross inexcusable negligence
other would have brought into light, this is the same in both. This being an element
fact should not necessarily deprive an of the offense charged, petitioner should
accused to his right to a new preliminary be given the opportunityto thoroughly
investigation. As above-stated, the rule is adduce evidence on the matter.
that a new preliminary investigation is j. If petitioner is not to be given a new
needed if there is a substantial preliminary investigation for the amended
amendment. The exception, i.e., charge is charge, his right will definitely be
related or included in the original prejudiced because he will be denied his
information, should not be applied right to present evidence to show or rebut
automatically. The circumstances in every evidence regarding the element of evident
case must be taken into consideration bad faith and manifest partiality on the
before the accused is deprived of another alleged dismissal. He will be denied due
preliminary investigation. process. A component part of due process
h. The following indispensable elements in criminal justice, preliminary
must be established to constitute a investigation is a statutory and substantive
violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. right accorded to the accused before trial.
3019, as amended: To deny their claim to a preliminary
i. The accused is a public officer investigation would be to deprive them of
discharging administrative or the full measure of their right to due
official functions or private process.
persons charged in conspiracy k. Our rulings in the cases of People v.
with them; Magpale and Lava v. Gonzales where no
ii. The public officer committed the new preliminary investigation was given
prohibited act during the because the charges in the amended
performance of his official duty in informations were related to, or included
relation to his public position; in, the original chargescannot apply in the
iii. The public officer acted with case at bar. The factual milieu in those
manifest partiality, evident bad cases is different from the case before us.
faith or gross inexcusable In the case of petitioner herein, although
negligence; and the charge remained the same (Violation
iv. His action caused undue injury to of Section 3(e), Rep. Act No. 3019, as
the government or any private amended), the prohibited act allegedly
party, or gave any party any committed changed, that is, failure to pay
unwarranted benefit, advantage monetary claims to illegal dismissal, and
or preference to such parties. he was not given the opportunity to
i. The third element of the offense states submit his evidence on the absence or
that the public officer acted with manifest presence of evident bad faith and manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross partiality as to the illegal dismissal.
inexcusable negligence in committing the Petitioner has not waived his right to a
prohibited act. Admittedly, the alleged new preliminary investigation and,
illegal dismissal contained in the amended instead, is asking for one.
charge gave rise to the original charge of l. It is settled that the preliminary
failure to pay the monetary claims of investigation proper, i.e., the
 determination of whether there is
reasonable ground to believe that the
accused is guilty of the offense charged
and should be subjected to the expense,
rigors and embarrassment of trial, is the
function of the prosecution.
m. Our ruling in this case does not in any way
divest the public prosecutor of its duty
under the Rules. This Court is not
determining if petitioner should or should
not be brought to trial. What we are
looking into is whether or not petitioner
was given all the opportunity to present
countervailing evidence on the amended
charge. Accordingly, finding that petitioner
was not given the chance to fully present
his evidence on the amended information
which contained a substantial
amendment, a new preliminary
investigation is in order.
n. RE: Statement of the court a quo that the
conduct of another preliminary
investigation would be merely a waste of
time à The right of the accused to a
preliminary investigation should never be
compromised or sacrificed at the altar of
expediency.
o. RE: P’s prayer that the Amended
Information be quashed and dismissed,
the same cannot be ordered. The absence
or incompleteness of a preliminary
investigation does not warrant the quashal
or dismissal of the information. Neither
does it affect the court’s jurisdiction over
the case or impair the validity of the
information or otherwise render it
defective. The court shall hold in abeyance
the proceedings on such information and
order the remand of the case for
preliminary investigation or completion
thereof.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby
GRANTED. Respondent court’s resolutions dated 12
January 2004 and 03 November 2004 in Criminal Case No.
26381 are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Respondent
court is directed to order the Office of the Ombudsman to
forthwith conduct a preliminary investigation of the charge
embodied in the Amended Information filed against
petitioner. It is further directed to suspend the proceedings
in the said case pending termination of the preliminary
investigation, and thereafter to take such action on
petitioner’s case as may be warranted by the results of said
preliminary investigation.