GR 133289; (December, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133289 December 23, 1999
LICERIO A. ANTIPORDA, JR., ELITERIO RUBIACO, VICTOR GASCON and CAESAR TALLA, petitioners, vs. HON. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, HON. EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL, HON. CATALINO CASTAÑEDA, JR., in their capacity as Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were charged with kidnapping in an Information filed before the Sandiganbayan. The original Information did not allege that the crime was committed in relation to their public office. The Sandiganbayan, noting this jurisdictional defect, ordered the prosecution to amend the Information to establish the court’s jurisdiction. The prosecution complied, filing an Amended Information which specifically alleged that petitioner Antiporda, Jr., the Municipal Mayor, committed the act “in the exercise of his official duties” and “by taking advantage of his position,” and that he conspired with the other petitioners. The Sandiganbayan admitted the Amended Information.
Petitioners filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion seeking reinvestigation and deferment of arrest warrants, which was denied. They subsequently filed a Motion to Quash the Amended Information for lack of jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan denied this motion, noting that the accused had not submitted to the court’s jurisdiction. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing the Sandiganbayan cannot acquire jurisdiction by amending an originally defective Information.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction over the offense and the persons of the accused through the filing and admission of the Amended Information.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. The legal logic is clear: jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. The original Information was defective for failing to allege the jurisdictional fact that the offense was committed in relation to public office. However, this defect was cured by the Amended Information, which sufficiently alleged that Mayor Antiporda, Jr. committed the kidnapping in the exercise of his official functions and by taking advantage of his position, and that he conspired with the other accused. An information can be amended, even in substance, before arraignment, provided it does not prejudice the substantive rights of the accused. Here, the amendment merely supplied the necessary jurisdictional facts without altering the nature of the offense charged.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that petitioners were not entitled to a new preliminary investigation based on the Amended Information. A preliminary investigation is not a trial on the merits but merely an inquiry to determine probable cause. The purpose had already been served, and the amendment did not introduce new allegations that would surprise the accused or alter the defenses available to them. The Sandiganbayan correctly denied the Motion to Quash, as the Amended Information validly vested it with jurisdiction. The petitioners’ refusal to submit to the court’s jurisdiction did not preclude the court from acting on the amended pleading.