PP v. SB, GR No. 240621, 24 July 2019

PP v. SB, GR No.
240621, 24 July 2019

FACTS:
 An information was filed before the SB charging charging respondent Jaime Kison Recio
(Recio) with violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019,7 entitled the "Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act. Verily, the Information accuses Recio, then Executive Director III
of the National Parks and Development Committee (NPDC), of entering into numerous
security service contracts with Variance Protective and Security Agency (Variance) from
2002 to 2010 absent the required public bidding, thereby giving the latter unwarranted
benefits.
 During trial and before the prosecution presented its last witness on April 4, 2018, it filed a
Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Information dated March 27, 2018 seeking to
amend the amount stated in the Information from P7,843,54.33 to P7,842,941.60, which is
the amount reflected in the disbursement vouchers.10 In opposition thereto, Recio argued
that the amendment is not merely formal but substantial, which would be prejudicial to his
right to be informed of the charges against him.
 The SB denied the prosecution's motion for lack of merit. It ruled that the mistake in the
amount of the alleged undue injury stated in the Information is too substantial to have been
left uncorrected for more than a year, during which time evidence to prove the allegations in
the Information had already been presented. Moreover, it held that the alleged difference
could not be ruled out as a mere typographical error, especially considering that the amount
involved was only alleged numerically and had not been spelled out in words where the
difference would have been readily apparent.
 The Ombudsman moved for the Reconsideration but it was denied by the SB.
ISSUE: Whether or not the SB gravely abused its discretion in denying the Ombudsman's Motion
for Leave of Court to File Amended Information.
RULING: The petition is meritorious.
At the outset, it must be stressed that to justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy
of certiorari, petitioners must satisfactorily show that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely
abused the discretion conferred upon it. Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised
in a capricious and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. To be considered
"grave," discretion must be exercised in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. 18 There is
grave abuse of discretion when: (1) an act is done contrary to the Constitution, the law, or
jurisprudence; or (2) it is executed whimsically, capriciously, or arbitrarily out of malice, ill-will, or
personal bias.
Guided by the foregoing considerations and as will be shown below, the SB gravely
abused its discretion when it denied the Ombudsman's Motion for Leave of Court to File
Amended Information despite the absence of any resulting prejudice to the rights of the
accused.
The proper procedure for the amendment of an Information is governed by Section 14,
Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, viz.:
Section 14. Amendment or Substitution. - A complaint or information may be

amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the
accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal
amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done
without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the
offense charged in or excludes any accused from the complaint or information,
can be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended
party and with leave of court. The court shall state its reasons in resolving the
motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the
offended party. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Under this provision, the prosecution is given the right to amend the information,
regardless of its nature, so long as the amendment is sought before the accused enters
his plea, subject to the qualification under the second paragraph thereof. However, once
the accused enters his plea during arraignment, the prosecution is already prohibited
from seeking a substantial amendment, particularly citing those that may prejudice the
rights of the accused. One of these rights is the constitutional right of the accused to be
informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him, a right which is given life
during the arraignment of the accused. The theory in law is that since the accused
officially begins to prepare his defense against the accusation on the basis of the recitals
in the information read to him during arraignment, then the prosecution must establish its
case on the basis of the same information.
While there is no precise definition under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure of what
should be deemed as a substantial amendment, case law instructs that substantial amendments
consist of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction
of the court.On the other hand, formal amendments which can be made at any time do not alter
the nature of the crime, affect the essence of the offense, surprise, or divest the accused of an
opportunity to meet the new accusation. Verily, they are amendments which merely state with
additional precision something which is already contained in the original Information, and which,
therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction of the crime charged. Hence, the following are
considered as mere formal amendments: (a) new allegations which relate only to the range of the
penalty that the court might impose in the event of conviction; (b) an amendment which does not
charge another offense different or distinct from that charged in the original one; (c) additional
allegations which do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the
accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume; and (d) an amendment which does
not adversely affect any substantial right of the accused, such as his right to invoke prescription. 23
In this case, the Court finds that the amendment of the Information sought by the
prosecution is one of form, and not of substance, as it adds nothing essential for Recio's
conviction of the crime charged nor does it seek to amend the Information's recital of
facts constituting the offense charged. On the contrary, the amendment simply sought to
correct the total amount of the disbursement vouchers 24 reflected in the Information to
make it conform to the evidence on record. Moreover, a plain reading of the amount
stated, i.e., ₱7,843,54.33 cannot but convince the Court that the same is erroneous and
mathematically inexistent, and therefore, cannot be proved. A basic rule in writing figures
consisting of four (4) or more digits requires the use of commas to separate thousands;
thus, to place the first comma, count three (3) spaces or digits to the left of the decimal
point, and continue doing so after every three digits. 25 Here, the comma was written
immediately to the left of the second digit from the decimal point. In other words, the
Information obviously bears a typographical error as the error in the amount is apparent
to the naked eye.

PP v. SB, GR No. 240621, 24 July 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PP v. SB, GR No. 240621, 24 July 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

PP v. SB, GR No. 240621, 24 July 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PP v. SB, GR No.

240621, 24 July 2019

RULING: The petition is meritorious.

Section 14. Amendment or Substitution. - A complaint or information may be

You might also like