CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 – 2014) ATTY.

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
CABO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN 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
Petitioner: requisites were not met: The original information was not sufficient in
substance and form, and trial was not dismissed/terminated because the
Jocelyn E. Cabo
motion to quash was 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,
Cabo was charged with violation of RA 3019 for allegedly bribing her co- Surigao del Sur, were charged for violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019. In
accused. She claimed to have been deprived of due process, so the the information, it was alleged that Mayor Balahay received from Cabo
Sandiganbayan (SB) ordered for the reinvestigation of her case. While the
the amount of P104,000, and that said mayor “intervened in the
investigation was ongoing, she filed for a motion to travel abroad. This was
undertaking by Cabo’s company (OIDCI) for consultancy services with
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 the Municipality of Barobo”.
complaint was amended, she automatically waived her right to object to the
amendment and her right against double jeopardy. Her arraignment was set Cabo claimed that she was deprived of her right to preliminary
on another date, and for this she filed another motion reiterating her previous investigation so she filed a motion for reinvestigation. The
plea. Sandiganbayan (SB) granted her motion and directed the Special
Prosecutor to conduct one.
Meanwhile, her co-accused, Municipal Mayor Balahay moved to quash the
information on the ground that the facts did not constitute the crime charged. Meanwhile, Cabo filed another motion seeking permission to travel
The SB did not grant his motion, but ordered the amendment of the original
abroad for a family vacation. The SB granted it in an order dated May
complaint, of which the prosecution subsequently complied with.
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 reinvestigation, and considering that she had not yet been arraigned,
that the amendment was done after she had entered her plea, and that since Cabo expressly consented to the order that she be arraigned
she had already reiterated her plea of not guilty, double jeopardy had already conditionally. [CONDITIONS:] If it is found that there is no probable
attached. 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

Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure as well as her

constitutional right against double jeopardy. SB denied petitioner’s motion. It held that her arraignment on the
original information was only conditional in nature to accommodate her
When she was arraigned, she was duly assisted by her counsel and request to travel abroad so that she could be tried in absentia. She
pleaded NOT GUILTY to the offense charged. She also duly affixed her agreed to the condition that should the information be amended, she is
signature in the minutes to signify her conformity to the conditional deemed to waive her right to object to the amendment and to waive
arraignment and the legal consequence thereof. her constitutional protection against double jeopardy. She was
considered estopped from raising her objection to the amended
Thereafter, the Special Prosecutor concluded his reinvestigation and complaint.
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 Petitioner filed an MR on the ground that double jeopardy had set in.
before arraignment, Cabo filed a motion (“reiterate-not-guilty She asserted that her conditional arraignment had been confirmed by
motion”) praying that she be allowed to reiterate her previous plea in her October motion (“reiterate-not-guilty motion”) reiterating her plea
the conditional arraignment so that she may be excused from attending of not guilty. Thus, her arraignment on the original information was no
the arraignment the next day. SB, however, did not act on her said longer conditional, and double jeopardy must consequently attach.
motion.
SB denied her resolution. This prompted her to file the petition for
Balahay, on the other hand, filed a motion to quash the information on review on certiorari.
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. ISSUE:

The SB sustained Balahay’s contention that the information was W/N double jeopardy had attached on the basis of the “NOT GUILTY”
defective for lack of necessary facts, but it did not immediately quash plea (which petitioner “reiterated” in her October 2004 motion).
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
HELD:
amended information was filed in February 2005 containing all the
necessary elements of the crime charged.
Double jeopardy DID NOT attach. Petitioner’s 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 RATIO:
of the information based on the substance is not allowed after the plea
has been made. Sandiganbayan’s 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 petitioner’s 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
a need to amend the original information, she forfeits her right to official functions, taking advantage of his official position…with grave
object and her RIGHT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY”. She was assisted by abuse…while conspiring…with petitioner”. The amended information
counsel and thereby informed of the legal consequences of such also simply specified that Balahay received the money from petitioner
conditions. “for his own benefit and use”.

With regard to her formal manifestation reiterating her not guilty plea In People vs. Casey, tests to determine whether defendant is prejudiced
(“reiterate-not-guilty motion”), there was no showing that by the amendment of the information were set forth, among them are:
Sandiganybayan affirmed her motion. Section 1(b), Rule 116 of the
Rules of Court explicitly requires the accused to be present at If the defenses of the accused in the original information are still
arraignment and personally enter his plea. available in the amended information, and/or if the amended
information does not change the nature of the offense charged—the
With respect to the applicability of double jeopardy to the case, two amendment is one of FORM AND NOT SUBSTANCE, therefore not
requisites were absent: 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.

Contrary to petitioner’s 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).

Castelo Gana Gutierrez Lao Lopez Miclat Mercado Sales Salagubang Tan Tecson Valdez Varela Villanueva
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 – 2014) ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR

ADDITIONAL DOCTRINE AND INFORMATION 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;
SECTION 3(b) OF RA 3019 (ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT)
(2) the same is filed before a court of competent jurisdiction;
Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or
(3) there is a valid arraignment or plea to the charges; and
benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or
(4) the accused is convicted or acquitted or the case is otherwise dismissed or
transaction between the Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in
terminated without his express consent.
his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
PEOPLE vs. CASEY
JOCELYN CABO
The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment of an information
Business Manager of Orient Integrated Development Consultancy, Inc. (OIDCI), a
has been said to be whether a defense under the information as it originally stood
consultancy group charged with conducting feasibility study for the community-based
would be available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant
resource management project of Barobo, Surigao del Sur.
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
AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
change the nature of the crime alleged therein, does not expose the accused to a charge
SECTION 4, RULE 117 OF THE RULES OF COURT
which could call for a higher penalty, does not affect the essence of the offense or cause
If the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information
surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each
which can be cured by amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made.
been held to be one of form and not of substance – not prejudicial to the accused and,
If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the
therefore, not prohibited by Section 13 (now Section 14), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules
prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct the defect by
of Court.
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.

Castelo Gana Gutierrez Lao Lopez Miclat Mercado Sales Salagubang Tan Tecson Valdez Varela Villanueva