Matalam v. Sandiganbayan

9/11/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME455
736
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Matalamvs.Sandiganbayan,SecondDivision
*
G.R.No.165751.April12,2005.
DATU GUIMID P. MATALAM, petitioner, vs. THE SECOND

DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF
THEPHILIPPINES,respondents.
CriminalProcedureInformationAmendmentandSubstitutionBefore
the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial amendment of the
complaint or information may be made without leave of court After
arraignment, a substantial amendment is proscribed except if the same is
beneficial to the accused What Consists of a Substantial Amendment.
Before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial amendment of
thecomplaintorinformationmaybemadewithoutleaveofcourt.Afterthe
entry of a plea, only a formal amendment may be made but with leave of
court and if it does not prejudice the rights of the accused. After
arraignment, a substantial amendment is proscribed except if the same is
beneficialtotheaccused.Asubstantialamendmentconsistsoftherecitalof
factsconstitutingtheoffensechargedanddeterminativeofthejurisdictionof
thecourt.Allothermattersaremerelyofform.
SameSameSameTestastowhetheradefendantisprejudicedbythe
amendment An amendment to an information which does not change the
natureofthecrimeallegedthereindoesnotaffecttheessenceoftheoffense
orcausesurpriseordeprivetheaccusedofanopportunitytomeetthenew
avermenthadeachbeenheldtobeoneofformandnotofsubstance.The
testastowhetheradefendantisprejudicedbytheamendmenthasbeensaid
tobewhetheradefenseundertheinformationasitoriginallystoodwouldbe
available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant
mighthavewouldbeequallyapplicabletotheinformationintheoneformas
in the other. An amendment to an information which does not change the
natureofthecrimeallegedthereindoesnotaffecttheessenceoftheoffense
or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new
avermenthadeachbeenheldtobeoneofformandnotofsubstance.
_______________
*SECONDDIVISION.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015717a61289b7833d37003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/17
9/11/2016
737
VOL.455,APRIL12,2005
737
SameSameSamePreliminaryInvestigationBeforeorafteraplea,a
substantial amendment in an information entitles an accused to another
preliminaryinvestigationunlesstheamendedinformationcontainsacharge
relatedtoorisincludedintheoriginalinformation.AccordingtoRetired
Senior Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado, before the plea is taken, the
information may be amended in substance and/or form, without leave of
court but if amended in substance, the accused is entitled to another
preliminary investigation, unless the amended charge is related to or is
included in the original charge. Thus, the rule is: Before or after a plea, a
substantial amendment in an information entitles an accused to another
preliminary investigation. However, if the amended information contains a
chargerelatedtoorisincludedintheoriginalinformation,anewpreliminary
investigationisnotrequired.
Same Same Same Same The exception, i.e., charge is related or
included in the original information, should not be applied automatically
Circumstances in every case must be taken into consideration before the
accusedisdeprivedofanotherpreliminaryinvestigation.Whileitistrue
thatthechargesintheoriginalandamendedinformationsarerelated,i.e.,an
inquiryintoonewouldhaveelicitedsubstantially,ifnotprecisely,thesame
facts that an inquiry into the other would have brought into light, this fact
should not necessarily deprive an accused to his right to a new preliminary
investigation. As abovestated, the rule is that a new preliminary
investigation is needed if there is a substantial amendment. The exception,
i.e., charge is related or included in the original information, should not be
applied automatically. The circumstances in every case must be taken into
consideration before the accused is deprived of another preliminary
investigation.
SameSameSameSameAcomponentpartofdueprocessincriminal
justice, preliminary investigation is a statutory and substantive right
accorded to the accused before trial.A component part of due process in
criminaljustice,preliminaryinvestigationisastatutoryandsubstantiveright
accorded to the accused before trial. To deny their claim to a preliminary
investigation would be to deprive them of the full measure of their right to
dueprocess.
Same Same Same Same The right of the accused to a preliminary
investigation should never be compromised or sacrificed at the altar of
expediency.Astostatementofthecourtaquothatthe
2/17
9/11/2016
738
738
conduct of another preliminary investigation would be merely a waste of

time, it must be emphasized that though the conduct thereof will hold back
theprogressofthecase,thesameisnecessaryinorderthattheaccusedmay
beaffordedhisrighttoapreliminaryinvestigation.Therightoftheaccused
toapreliminaryinvestigationshouldneverbecompromisedorsacrificedat
thealtarofexpediency.
Same Same Same Same The absence or incompleteness of a
preliminary investigation does not warrant the quashal or dismissal of the
information neither does it affect the courts jurisdiction over the case or
impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective.As
to petitioners prayer that the Amended Information be quashed and
dismissed,thesamecannotbeordered.Theabsenceorincompletenessofa
preliminary investigation does not warrant the quashal or dismissal of the
information. Neither does it affect the courts 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
theremandofthecaseforpreliminaryinvestigationorcompletionthereof.
SPECIALCIVILACTIONintheSupremeCourt.Certiorari.
ThefactsarestatedintheresolutionoftheCourt.
PeteQuirinoQuadraforpetitioner.
TheSolicitorGeneralforthePeople.
RESOLUTION
CHICONAZARIO,J.:
Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of1 the 1997
Rules on Civil Procedure assailing the resolutions of the
SandiganbayaninCriminalCaseNo.26381,admittingtheAmended
2
Information anddenyingpetitionersMotionfor
_______________
1PennedbyAssociateJusticeFranciscoH.Villaruz,Jr.,withAssociateJustices
EdilbertoG.SandovalandEfrenN.DelaCruz,concurring.
2Rollo,pp.2733.
3/17
9/11/2016
739
739
3
Reconsideration, dated 12 January 2004 and 03 November 2004,

respectively.
An information dated 15 November 2004 was filed before the
SandiganbayanchargingpetitionerDatuGuimidMatalam,HabibA.
Bajunaid, Ansari M. Lawi, Muslimin Unga and Naimah Unte with
violationofSection3(e)ofRepublicActNo.3019,asamended,for
their alleged illegal and unjustifiable refusal to pay the monetary
claims of Kasan I. Ayunan, Abdul E. Zailon, Esmael A. Ebrahim,
AnnabelleZailon,PendatunMambatawan,HyriaMasturaandFaizal
I.Hadil.Theaccusatoryportionoftheinformationreads:
That from the period January 1998 to June 1999, in Cotobato City, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused ARMM Vice
Governor and Regional Secretary, DAR, DATU GUIMID MATALAM, a
high ranking public official, HABIB A. BAJUNAID, ANSARI M. LAWI,
MUSLIMINUNGAandNAIMAHUNTE,alllowrankingpublicofficials,
committingtheoffensewhileintheperformanceoftheirofficialdutiesand
taking advantage of their public position, conspiring, confederating and
mutually aiding one another, did there and then, willfully, unlawfully and
criminally, cause undue injury to several employees of the Department of
Agrarian Reform, Cotobato City, thru evident bad faith in the performance
of their official duties to wit: by illegally and unjustifiably refusing to pay
themonetaryclaimsofthecomplainingDARemployeesnamely:KASANI.
AYUNAN,ABDULE.ZAILON,ESMAELA.EBRAHIM,ANNABELLE
ZAILON, PENDATUN MAMBATAWAN, HYRIA MASTURA and
FAIZALI.HADIL,fortheperiodofJanuary1998toJune1999amounting
toP1,606,788.50ascontainedinCivilServiceResolutionsNos.982027and
990415 in the nature of unpaid salaries during the period when they have
4
beenillegallyterminated,includingsalarydifferentialsandotherbenefits.
On14August2002,petitionerfiledaMotionforReinvestigation.
_______________
3Id.,pp.4953.
4Id.,p.55.
740
740
4/17
9/11/2016
Per order of the court, a reinvestigation of5the case was conducted

wherepetitionerfiledhisCounterAffidavit.
After the reinvestigation, the public prosecutor filed a
ManifestationandMotiontoAdmitAmendedInformationDeleting
6
the Names of Other Accused Except Datu Guimid Matalam to
which petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to the
Motion to Admit the Alleged
Amended Information Against the
7
AccusedGuimidP.Matalam.
Thereafter,thepublicprosecutorfiled
8
hisReply towhichpetitionerfiledaRejoinder.
TheAmendedInformationreads:
ThatonDecember16,1997andforsometimepriororsubsequentthereto,in
CotobatoCity,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabove
named accused a public officer being then the ARMM ViceGovernor and
Regional Secretary DAR, committing the offense while in the performance
of his official duties and thru evident bad faith and manifest partiality did
there and then, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, cause undue injury by
illegally dismissing from the service complaining DARMaguindanao
employees, Cotobato City, namely: Kasan I. Ayunan, Abdul E. Zailon,
Annabelle Zailon, Pendatum Mambatawan, Hyria Mastura and Faizal I.
Hadil,totheirdamageandprejudiceamountingtoP1,606,788.50bywayof
unpaid salaries during the period when they have
been illegally terminated
9
includingsalarydifferentialsandotherbenefits.
In his Motion to Dismiss, petitioner alleged that the amended

information charges an entirely new cause of action. The corpus
delictioftheamendedinformationisnolongerhisallegedrefusalto
pay the backwages ordered by the Civil Service Commission, but
theallegedwillful,unlawfuland
_______________
5Id.,pp.6065.
6Id.,pp.6679.
7Id.,pp.8087.
8Id.,pp.8891.
9Id.,p.77.
741
741
illegaldismissalfromtheserviceofthecomplainingwitnesses.He
insiststhattheamendedinformationchargingaseparateandentirely
different offense cannot be admitted because there would be a
seriousviolationofdueprocessoflaw.Heclaimsheisentitledtoa
preliminaryinvestigationsincehewasnotinformedthatheisbeing
5/17
9/11/2016
chargedfortheallegeddismissalofthecomplainingwitnessesand
thathewasnotgiventheopportunitytoexplain.
On 12 January 2004, the Sandiganbayan granted the
ManifestationandMotiontoAdmitAmendedInformationDeleting
the Names of Other Accused Except Datu Guimid P. Matalam. It
admitted the Amended Information charging solely petitioner for
Violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019. The court a quo
ruled:
What seems to be more crucial here is, whether the amendments made are
notprejudicialtotherightsoftheaccusedandareconsideredasamatterof
formonly,sothat,iftheAmendedInformationisadmitted,therewouldbe
no need to require the Public Prosecutor to conduct another preliminary
investigation in the observance of the rights of the accused to due process.
On the other hand, if the amendment would be substantial, necessarily,
another preliminary investigation should be accorded to the accused.
Distinctionofthetwoisthusimperative.
...
The Amended Information charges essentially the same offense as that
chargedintheoriginalInformationwhichisaViolationofSec.3(e)ofR.A.
3019.Theoretically,therefore,theamendmentisamatterofformonly.
Interestingly,however,thechangeintherecitalofcauseofactioninthe
Amended Information is very much noticeable. As correctly pointed out by
accused Matalam, the corpus delicti in the original Information was the
allegedwillfulandconfederatedrefusaloftheaccusedtopaythebackwages
of the complaining witnesses. The corpus delicti in the Amended
Information is now altered into the alleged illegal dismissal of the
complainants from their service by accused Matalam. Certainly, the two
causesofactiondifferdifferentlyfromeachother.
742
742
Following the aforementioned principles laid down by the Supreme Court,

theamendmentsseemtobesubstantialconsideringthatthemaindefenseof
all the accused in the original informationthe lack of a corresponding
appropriation for the payment of the monetary claims of the complaining
witnesseswould not, in itself alone, stands [sic] as a defense for accused
Matalam in the Amended Information anymore. In the same manner, the
evidence that accused Matalam would have to present in the original
Information, had it not been found to be without primafacie evidence, will
not be equally available to bail him out in the Amended Information
anymore. And further, although the nature of the offense charged has not
changed,thetheoryofthecaseasagainstaccusedMatalamisnowdeemedto
havebeenchangedbecausethecauseofactionnowvariesandtherefore,he
wouldhavetoformulateanotherdefenseagain.
6/17
9/11/2016
However, after making a meticulous and independent assessment on the

evidence obtaining on record, this Court agrees with the findings and
recommendationofthePublicProsecutorthattherealandexactissueinthis
case is actually the alleged illegal dismissal of the complaining witnesses.
The issue of nonpayment of their backwages is merely incidental because
had it not been for the alleged illegal dismissal, their demand for monetary
claims should have not arisen. Put in another perspective, the surrounding
circumstances that brought about the issue of the alleged illegal dismissal
wereactuallytheonesthatspewedtheissueofunpaidbackwages.
Furthermore, as correctly observed by the Public Prosecutor, the change
intherecitalofthecauseofactiondoesnotconceivablycomeasasurprise
to the accused. In fact, in his counteraffidavit submitted before the Public
Prosecutor, accused Matalam already took the occasion to elaborate his
version on the surrounding circumstances that brought about the alleged
illegal dismissal of the complaining witnesses. And these chain of
circumstances,actually,weretheveryprecedingcircumstancesastowhythe
complainingwitnesseshadsufferedtheirallegedinjury.Theneedforanother
preliminaryinvestigationisthereforenotnecessary.
Giventheforegoingfactualmilieu,therightsofaccusedMatalamarenot,
after all, in any way prejudiced because an inquiry to the allegations in the
original cause of action would certainly and necessarily elicit substantially
thesamefactstotheinquiryofthe
743
743
allegationsinthenewcauseofactioncontainedintheAmendedInformation.
To remand this case again to the Public Prosecutor would certainly be a
wasteoftimeconsideringthataccused,inhiscounteraffidavit,hadalready
explained extensively his defense on the new allegations contained in the
Amended Information sought to be admitted. And definitely, his projected
defense would be the same assuming that another preliminary investigation
be conducted and
that he would be required to submit another counter
10
affidavitagain.
11
On11February2004,petitionerfiledaMotionforReconsideration
12
which the prosecution opposed. 13 On 03 November 2004, the
SandiganbayandeniedtheMotion. Itexplained:
While it is true that accusedmovants defense in the original information

couldnotbyitselfstandaloneashisdefensetotheamendedone,however,
the same would still be available for the latter because although the two
questionedcausesofactionliterallyvaried,theyarenonethelessinterrelated
with each other. The essential ingredients of the amended information are
actually identical with those constituting the original, such that, the inquiry
into one would elicit substantially the same facts that an inquiry into the
otherwouldreveal.Andsincethesetwocausesofactionhademanatedfrom
7/17
9/11/2016
thesamesetoffactualsettings,theevidencethataccusedmovantmighthave
under the original information would still be available and applicable to the
amendedone.
Beitnotedthattheprivatecomplainantslodgedtheircomplaintduetothe
alleged injury they suffered as a consequence of the alleged refusal of the
accusedmovanttopaythemoftheirbackwages.Andnotably,basedonthe
affidavitthattheaccusedmovanthadsubmitted,hisdefensetothiswasdue
tothelackoffundsappropriatedforthesaidpurpose.Butwhywasthereno
appropriation? Because, allegedly, the private complainants were illegally
dismissedfromtheirserviceandasaresultthereof,theirnames
_______________
10Rollo,pp.3032.
11Id.,pp.3442.
12Id.,pp.9299.
13Id.,pp.4953.
744
744
were subsequently stricken off from the roster of employees in the

governmentagencywheretheywereconnected.
Culled from these factual settings, the root cause of the alleged injury
sufferedbytheprivatecomplainantswouldthereforebetheirallegedillegal
dismissal from the service. Otherwise, their names would not have been
stricken off from the roster of employees in the agency which they were
connectedwithandtheappropriationforthepaymentoftheirsalarieswould
havebeencontinuouslymade.
Thus, from the foregoing, although there was a change in the recital of
thecauseofaction(fromnonpaymentofbackwagesintoillegaldismissal),
theamendmentoftheinformationdidnothoweveraffectoralterthenature
of the offense that was originally charged. Neither did it change the basic
theoryoftheprosecutionsincethisremainedtobeaviolationofSec.3(e)of
R.A. 3019 on account of the alleged injury caused to the private
complainants.Andeveniftheprosecutionstheorywouldnowbepremised
onthenewcauseofaction(illegaldismissal),thiswouldnothowevercause
surprisetotheaccusedmovantnorwouldrequirehimtoundergoamaterial
change or modification in his defense because in presenting his defense, he
still has to commence from the very same set of factual settings that
preceded the original cause of action. And evidently, this is the reason why
in the affidavit he submitted during the reinvestigation, his discussions
thereinconsistednotonlyofhisdefensetotheoriginalinformationbutalso
includedanextensivediscussionregardinghisdefensetotheamendedone.
This being so, the outright admission of the amended information even
without affording the accusedmovant a new preliminary investigation did
8/17
9/11/2016
not amount to a violation of his rights. To afford him another process of

preliminaryinvestigationwouldnolongerservehimandthiscourtanybetter
consideringthathehadalreadyexplainedinthesaidaffidavithisdefenseto
theamendedinformation.Otherwise,ifheisallowedtosubmitanotherone,
he is likely to elaborate again the very same arguments that he had already
invokedinhispreviousaffidavit.
Hence,thispetition.
PetitionerarguesthattheresolutionsoftheSandiganbayandated
12 January 2004 and 03 November 2004 admitting the Amended
Information charging a new offense without conducting a
preliminaryinvestigationwereissuedwithout
745
745
jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of jurisdiction amounting to

lackofjurisdiction.
Fromtheargumentsraisedbypetitioner,theissueboilsdownto
whetherornotpetitionerwasdeprivedofdueprocessoflawwhen
the Sandiganbayan admitted the Amended Information without
conducting another or new preliminary investigation. Firstly,
petitioner maintains that a new preliminary investigation should
have been ordered because the corpus delicti in the Amended
Information is the termination of services of the complaining
witnesses,whilethecorpusdelictiintheOriginalInformationisthe
allegedrefusaltopaythebackwagesofthecomplainingwitnesses.
Inotherwords,therebeinganewanddistinctoffense,heshouldbe
entitledtoanewpreliminaryinvestigation.Secondly,hecontendshe
was denied due process when the Sandiganbayan ruled that if he
were allowed to submit another counteraffidavit, he is likely to
elaborate again the very same argument that he had invoked in his
previous affidavit considering that he would have pointed out
certain facts not contained in his counteraffidavit. He added that
despitethefindingoftheSandiganbayanthatthetheoryofthecase
againsthimchangedbecausethecauseofactionvaries,andthathe
would have to formulate another defense, the Sandiganbayan did
not remand the case to the public prosecutor for preliminary
investigation because it was a waste of time since he had already
explainedextensivelyinhiscounteraffidavithisdefenseonthenew
allegations contained in the Amended Information. Thirdly, he
assertshewasnotgiventheopportunitytoshowthathedidnotact
withmanifestpartialityandevidentbadfaithinthedismissalofthe
seven employees inasmuch as there are other factors and
circumstancesthatwouldsupporthisposture.
9/17
9/11/2016
In its Comment, respondent People of the Philippines, thru the

Office of the Special Prosecutor, stated that the admission of the
Amended Information without another preliminary investigation
wouldnotviolatepetitionersrighttodueprocessonthegroundthat
theamendmentismerelyformal,and
746
746
to require another preliminary investigation would not be in

obedience to, but in disregard of, the prime purpose for which a
preliminary investigation is ordained by law and jurisprudence. It
maintains that petitioner acted with evident bad faith and manifest
partialityinillegallyterminatingthecomplainantsfromservice.
14
On10March2005,petitionerfiledhisReply.
The initial question to be resolved is what kind of amendment
wasmadeintheInformation?
Section 14 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedureprovides:
SEC.14.Amendmentorsubstitution.A complaint or information may be
amended,informorinsubstance,withoutleaveofcourt,atanytimebefore
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
withoutcausingprejudicetotherightsoftheaccused.
However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of
the offense charged in or excludes any accused from the complaint or
information,canbemadeonlyuponmotionbytheprosecutor,withnoticeto
the offended party and with leave of court. The court shall state its reasons
inresolvingthemotionandcopiesofitsordershallbefurnishedallparties,
especiallytheoffendedparty.
Before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial

amendment of the complaint or information may be made without
leaveofcourt.Aftertheentryofaplea,onlyaformalamendment
maybemadebutwithleaveofcourtandifitdoesnotprejudicethe
rightsoftheaccused.Afterarraignment,asubstantialamendmentis
15
proscribedexceptifthesameisbeneficialtotheaccused.
_______________
14Id.,pp.138145.
15Peoplev.Janairo,G.R.No.129254,22July1999,311SCRA58,67.
747
10/17
9/11/2016
747
Asubstantialamendmentconsistsoftherecitaloffactsconstituting
the offense charged and determinative of
the jurisdiction of the
16
court.Allothermattersaremerelyofform.
Thefollowinghavebeenheldtobemerelyformalamendments:
(1)newallegationswhichrelateonlytotherangeofthepenaltythat
thecourtmightimposeintheeventofconviction(2)anamendment
whichdoesnotchargeanotheroffensedifferentordistinctfromthat
chargedintheoriginalone(3)additionalallegationswhichdonot
alter the prosecutions theory of the case so as to cause surprise to
theaccusedandaffecttheformofdefensehehasorwillassume(4)
anamendmentwhichdoesnotadverselyaffectanysubstantialright
17
oftheaccused (5) an amendment that merely adds specifications
toeliminatevaguenessintheinformationandnottointroducenew
and material facts, and merely states with additional precision
something which is already contained in the original information
and which
adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime
18
charged.
The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the
amendment 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
havewouldbeequallyapplicabletotheinformationintheoneform
as in the other. An amendment to an information which does not
change the nature of the crime alleged therein does not affect the
essenceoftheoffenseorcause
_______________
16Almedav.Villaluz,G.R.No.L31665,06August1975,66SCRA38,45.
17Teehankee, Jr. v. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102, 06 March 1992, 207 SCRA 134,
142Villaflor v. Vivar,G.R. No. 134744, 16 January 2001, 349 SCRA 194, 201202
Peoplev.Degamo,G.R.No.121211,30April2003,402SCRA133,141.
18Pobletev.Sandoval,G.R.No.150610,25March2004,426SCRA346,356,citing
Peoplev.Montenegro,G.R.No.L45772,25March1988,159SCRA236,241.
748
748
surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new

averment 19had each been held to be one of form and not of
substance.
11/17
9/11/2016
In the case at bar, the amendment was indeed substantial. The

recital of facts constituting the offense charged was definitely
altered. In the original information, the prohibited act allegedly
committed by petitioner was the illegal and unjustifiable refusal to
pay the monetary claims of the private complainants, while in the
amended information, it is the illegal dismissal from the service of
the private complainants. However, it cannot be denied that the
alleged illegal and unjustifiable refusal to pay monetary claims is
related to, and arose from, the alleged illegal dismissal from the
serviceoftheprivatecomplainants.
According to Retired Senior Associate Justice Florenz D.
Regalado,beforethepleaistaken,theinformationmaybeamended
insubstanceand/orform,withoutleaveofcourtbutifamendedin
substance, the accused is entitled to another preliminary
investigation,unlesstheamendedchargeisrelatedtoorisincluded
20
intheoriginalcharge.
Thus,theruleis:Beforeorafteraplea,asubstantialamendment
in an information entitles an accused to another preliminary
investigation. However, if the amended information contains a
charge related to or is included in the original information, a new
preliminaryinvestigationisnotrequired.
The Sandiganbayan and the public prosecutor maintain that
petitionerisnotentitledtoanewpreliminaryinvestigationbecause
thechargesintheoriginalinformationandamendedinformationare
related and the latter has already presented his defense on the
amended charge. Further, remanding the case to the Public
Prosecutorforanotherpre
_______________
19Peoplev.Casey,G.R.No.L30146,24February1981,103SCRA21,3132.
20 Remedial Law Compendium
by Florenz D. Regalado, Vol. 2, Ninth Revised
Edition,p.276.
749
749
liminary investigation would be a waste of time considering that

petitionerhadalreadyexplainedextensivelyhisdefenseonthenew
allegations contained in the Amended Information, that is, the
accused already elaborated his version on the surrounding
circumstances that brought about the alleged dismissal of the
complainingwitnesses.Itaddedthatthechangeintherecitalofthe
cause of action will not come as a surprise to the accused because
the causes of action, though different, are nonetheless interrelated,
and that the rights of the accused will not be prejudiced since the
12/17
9/11/2016
inquiry to the allegations in the original information will certainly

and necessarily elicit substantially the same facts to the inquiry of
theallegationsintheAmendedInformation.
On the other hand, petitioner insists he should be given a new
preliminary investigation because he was not, among other things,
given the opportunity to show that he did not act with manifest
partiality and evident bad faith in the dismissal of the private
complainants.
While it is true that the charges in the original and amended
informationsarerelated,i.e.,aninquiryintoonewouldhaveelicited
substantially,ifnotprecisely,thesamefactsthataninquiryintothe
21
otherwouldhavebroughtintolight, thisfactshouldnotnecessarily
deprive an accused to his right to a new preliminary investigation.
As abovestated, the rule is that a new preliminary investigation is
needed if there is a substantial amendment. The exception, i.e.,
chargeisrelatedorincludedintheoriginalinformation,shouldnot
be applied automatically. The circumstances in every case must be
taken into consideration before the accused is deprived of another
preliminaryinvestigation.
The following indispensable elements must be established to
constitute a violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, as
amended:
_______________
21Peoplev.Magpale,70Phil.176,180.
750
750
1. The accused is a public officer discharging administrative

or official functions or private persons charged in
conspiracywiththem
2. The public officer committed the prohibited act during the
performance of his official duty in relation to his public
position
3. The public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident
badfaithorgrossinexcusablenegligenceand
4. His action caused undue injury to the government or any
private party, or gave any party any unwarranted
benefit,
22
advantageorpreferencetosuchparties.
Thethirdelementoftheoffensestatesthatthepublicofficeracted
with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligenceincommittingtheprohibitedact.Admittedly,thealleged
13/17
9/11/2016
illegal dismissal contained in the amended charge gave rise to the

original charge of failure to pay the monetary claims of private
complainants.Itcannotbedisputedthatpetitioneralreadydiscussed
circumstancessurroundingtheterminationofservicesoftheprivate
complainants in his counteraffidavit. However, we find nothing
therein that would show that he had already touched the issue of
evidentbadfaithormanifestpartiality.Ascanbegatheredfromthe
counteraffidavit, there were arguments tending to counter the
presence of evident bad faith, manifest partiality or gross
inexcusable negligence, but the same refer to the allegation of
failure to pay the monetary claims and not to the alleged illegal
dismissal. Although one allegation stemmed from the other, the
court a quo and the public prosecutor cannot say the element of
evidentbadfaith,manifestpartialityorgrossinexcusablenegligence
is the same in both. This being an element of the offense charged,
petitioner should be given the opportunity to thoroughly adduce
evidenceonthematter.
_______________
22Quibalv.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.109991,22May1995,244SCRA224,231.
751
751
If petitioner is not to be given a new preliminary investigation for

theamendedcharge,hisrightwilldefinitelybeprejudicedbecause
he will be denied his right to present evidence to show or rebut
evidence regarding the element of evident bad faith and manifest
partialityontheallegeddismissal.Hewillbedenieddueprocess.
Acomponentpartofdueprocessincriminaljustice,preliminary
investigation is a statutory and substantive right accorded to the
accused before trial. To deny their claim to a preliminary
investigationwouldbetodeprivethemofthefullmeasureoftheir
23
righttodueprocess.
24
Our rulings
in the cases of People v. Magpale and Lava v.
25
Gonzales where no new preliminary investigation was given
becausethechargesintheamendedinformationswererelatedto,or
includedin,theoriginalchargescannotapplyinthecaseatbar.The
factualmilieuinthosecasesisdifferentfromthecasebeforeus.
In Magpale, the accused was charged with violation of Article
176oftheRevisedPenalCodeforillegalpossessionofironbrand,
andmakingororderingthemakingthereof.Inthenoticessenttothe
accused in connection with the preliminary investigation of the
complaint,theaccusedwasinformednotofonebutofboth.Hewas
given the chance, and was placed on guard, to defend himself for
14/17
9/11/2016
both charges. Moreover, the right of the accused to have another

preliminary investigation was waived when he went forward with
thetrial.
In Lava, the accused was charged with Complex Rebellion but
the chargewaslater amended to Simple Rebellion. This courtheld
that a new preliminary investigation was not necessary there being
nochangeinthenatureofthecrimecharged,andthataccusedfailed
to ask for a reinvestigation upon learning of the amended
information.
_______________
23Villaflorv.Vivar,supra,note17.
24Supra,note21.
25G.R.No.L23048,31July1964,11SCRA650.
752
752
In the case of petitioner herein, although the charge remained the

same (Violation of Section 3(e), Rep. Act No. 3019, as amended),
the prohibited act allegedly committed changed, that is, failure to
pay monetary claims to illegal dismissal, and he was not given the
opportunity to submit his evidence on the absence or presence of
evident bad faith and manifest partiality as to the illegal dismissal.
Petitioner has not waived his right to a new preliminary
investigationand,instead,isaskingforone.
It is settled that the preliminary investigation proper, i.e., the
determinationofwhetherthereisreasonablegroundtobelievethat
theaccusedisguiltyoftheoffensechargedandshouldbesubjected
totheexpense,rigorsandembarrassmentoftrial,isthefunctionof
26
theprosecution.
Our ruling in this case does not in any way divest the public
prosecutorofitsdutyundertheRules.ThisCourtisnotdetermining
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,findingthatpetitionerwasnotgiventhechance
to fully present his evidence on the amended information which
containedasubstantialamendment,anewpreliminaryinvestigation
isinorder.
As to statement of the court a quo that the conduct of another
preliminaryinvestigationwouldbemerelyawasteoftime,itmust
be emphasized that though the conduct thereof will hold back the
progressofthecase,thesameisnecessaryinorderthattheaccused
maybeaffordedhisrighttoapreliminaryinvestigation.Therightof
15/17
9/11/2016
the accused to a preliminary investigation should never be

compromisedorsacrificedatthealtarofexpediency.
Finally,astopetitionersprayerthattheAmendedInformationbe
quashedanddismissed,thesamecannotbeor
_______________
26Sistozav.Desierto,G.R.No.144784,03September2002,388SCRA307,323.
753
753
27
28
dered. The absence or incompleteness of a preliminary

investigation does not warrant the quashal or dismissal of the
information. Neither does it affect the courts jurisdiction over the
caseorimpairthevalidityoftheinformationorotherwiserenderit
defective.Thecourtshallholdinabeyancetheproceedingsonsuch
information and order the remand of the case for preliminary
investigationorcompletionthereof.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionforcertiorariisherebyGRANTED.
Respondent courts resolutions dated 12 January 2004 and 03
November2004inCriminalCaseNo.26381areREVERSEDAND
SETASIDE.RespondentcourtisdirectedtoordertheOfficeofthe
Ombudsmantoforthwithconductapreliminaryinvestigationofthe
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 petitioners case as may be
warrantedbytheresultsofsaidpreliminaryinvestigation.
SOORDERED.
Puno(Chairman),AustriaMartinez,Callejo,Sr.andTinga,
JJ.,concur.
Petitiongranted,respondentsresolutionsreversedandsetaside.
Note.Theabsenceofpreliminaryinvestigationdoesnotaffect
thecourtsjurisdictionoverthecasenordoesitimpairthevalidity
of the complaint or otherwise render it defective. (People vs.
Madraga,344SCRA628[2000])
o0o
_______________
27Villaflorv.Vivar,supra,note17Paredesv.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.89989,28
January1991,193SCRA464,469.
16/17
9/11/2016
28Torralbav.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.101421,10February1994,230SCRA33,41.
754
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
17/17

Matalam v. Sandiganbayan

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Matalam v. Sandiganbayan

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

9/11/2016

DATU GUIMID P. MATALAM, petitioner, vs. THE SECOND

conduct of another preliminary investigation would be merely a waste of

Reconsideration, dated 12 January 2004 and 03 November 2004,

Per order of the court, a reinvestigation of5the case was conducted

In his Motion to Dismiss, petitioner alleged that the amended

Following the aforementioned principles laid down by the Supreme Court,

However, after making a meticulous and independent assessment on the

While it is true that accusedmovants defense in the original information

were subsequently stricken off from the roster of employees in the

not amount to a violation of his rights. To afford him another process of

jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of jurisdiction amounting to

In its Comment, respondent People of the Philippines, thru the

to require another preliminary investigation would not be in

Before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial

surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new

In the case at bar, the amendment was indeed substantial. The

by Florenz D. Regalado, Vol. 2, Ninth Revised

liminary investigation would be a waste of time considering that

inquiry to the allegations in the original information will certainly

1. The accused is a public officer discharging administrative

illegal dismissal contained in the amended charge gave rise to the

If petitioner is not to be given a new preliminary investigation for

both charges. Moreover, the right of the accused to have another

In the case of petitioner herein, although the charge remained the

the accused to a preliminary investigation should never be

dered. The absence or incompleteness of a preliminary

Вам также может понравиться