RAMON ALBERT VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 164015 2/26/2009

Doctrine:

Amendment of pleadings – test as to when the rights of the accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a
complaint or information,

1. when a defense under the complaint or info would no longer be available after the amendment is made and
2. when any evidence the accused might hand, would be inapplicable to the complaint or information as
amended.

Amendment which merely states additional precision: something which is already contained
in the original information and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged is an
amendment to form that can be made at anytime.

FACTS:
Main: petition for certiorari for the resolution of Sandiganbayan and prosecutor’s motion to admit the amended
information.

 Special prosecution officer II of Ombudsman charged Ramon albert and Arturo Asumbrado, to SB charged with RA
3019.
 Hold departure order was issued by SB.
 Petitioner filed motion to dismiss on grounds of:
1. Denied due process of law
2. Office of Ombudsman did not acquire jurisdiction over the person
3. Constitutional rights of the accused to speedy disposition of cases and speedy trial were violated
4. That the charged was not support by evidence
 Pending resolution ------- petitioner filed motion to lift hold departure order and allowed to travel.
 Prosecution ------ did not object ----- on the condition ----- petitioner would be on provisionally arraigned.
 SB arraigned petitioner --- entered not guilty.
 SB --- granted urgent motion to amend motion to lift hold departure order and to be allowed to travel.
 Later, SB denied motion to dismiss and ordered re-investigation.
 SPO ------ conducted reinvestigation recommended ----- recommended Ombudsman that the indictment against
petitioner be ----- reversed for lack of probable cause….
 However, Ombudsman ---- directed to SPO ---- proceed with prosecution of criminal case.
 SB scheduled arraignment…..
 PROSECUTION -----filed ex Parte Motion to Admit Amended information. ---- changing from “gross neglect of duty”
to “ gross inexcusable negligence”
 Petitioner ----- opposed the motion ---- alleging that the amendment made on the information, is substantial and
therefore, not allowed after arraignment.
 SB ---- granted the motion to admit amended info. States -------- even grandting that the amendment of the information
be formal or substantial, the prosecution could still effect the same in the event that the accused had not yet undergone a
permanent arraignment.
 Since the arraignment was merely provisional then the prosecution may still amend the information either in
form or in substance.

ISSUE: Whether the Sandiganbayan should admit the amended information

RULING:
Yes, the SB should admit the amended information. Under Section 14, the test as to when the rights of an accused are
prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or information is when a defense under the complaint or information, as to
originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made, and when any evidence the accused might
hand, would be inapplicable to the complaint or information as mended.

Here, the amendment, being a modality in the commission of the offense, is considered as a form. Thus, can be admitted
even after the arraignment.