People v. Recio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An Information was filed charging respondent Jaime Kison Recio (Recio), then Executive Director III of the National Parks and Development Committee (NPDC), with violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act." The Information alleged that Recio, from 2002 to 2010, entered into numerous security service contracts with Variance Protective and Security Agency (Variance) without the required public bidding, thereby giving Variance unwarranted benefits. Specifically, the accusatory portion stated that from January 1, 2004, to September 15, 2004, payments amounting to ₱7,843,54.33 were made for security services rendered, despite the absence of public bidding required under RA 9184. Procedural History: During trial, before the prosecution presented its last witness, it filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Information to correct the amount from ₱7,843,54.33 to ₱7,842,941.60, which was the amount reflected in the disbursement vouchers. Recio opposed this, arguing that the amendment was substantial and prejudicial to his right to be informed of the charges. The Sandiganbayan (SB) denied the motion, ruling that the amendment was substantial and that the error in the amount was too significant to be a mere typographical error, especially since evidence had already been presented. The SB denied the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Ombudsman, filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the SB's Resolutions denying their motion to amend the Information.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the Ombudsman's Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Information. Whether the proposed amendment to the Information constitutes a substantial or formal amendment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, annulled and set aside the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, and granted the prosecution leave to file the amended Information.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the Ombudsman's Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Information: The Court held that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, amounting to a lack of jurisdiction. Such abuse occurs when an act is done contrary to the Constitution, law, or jurisprudence, or executed whimsically, capriciously, or arbitrarily out of malice, ill-will, or personal bias. In this case, the SB's denial of the amendment, despite it being formal and non-prejudicial, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The SB failed to consider that the amendment sought did not prejudice Recio's rights, which is the primary consideration for amendments after plea. On the issue of whether the proposed amendment to the Information constitutes a substantial or formal amendment: The Court found the amendment to be one of form, not substance. Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure allows for formal amendments after the accused has entered a plea, provided they are made with leave of court and without prejudice to the rights of the accused. Substantial amendments involve the recital of facts constituting the offense or affecting the court's jurisdiction. Formal amendments, conversely, do not alter the nature of the crime, surprise the accused, or divest them of the opportunity to meet the accusation. The amendment here merely sought to correct a glaring typographical error in the amount stated in the Information, making it conform to the evidence on record. The original amount, ₱7,843,54.33, was mathematically inexistent due to the misplaced comma, indicating an obvious error. The amendment aimed to correct this to ₱7,842,941.60, which was already known to Recio from the disbursement vouchers and the Ombudsman's Joint Resolution during the preliminary investigation. Therefore, it did not introduce a new accusation or alter the theory of the case, nor did it require a change in Recio's defense. The Court emphasized that under the second mode of violating Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, damage is not required, meaning the exact amount of undue injury is not a necessary element for conviction, further diminishing the substantiality of the amendment.
Main Doctrine
An amendment to an Information after the accused has entered a plea, which merely corrects a typographical error in the amount of disbursement vouchers to conform to evidence on record, is considered a formal amendment and not a substantial one, especially when the erroneous amount is mathematically inexistent and the correct amount was known to the accused during the preliminary investigation, thus not causing prejudice to the accused's right to be informed of the charges.