GR 150610; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150610, March 25, 2004
FEDERICO A. POBLETE, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. JUSTICES EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL, ET AL., AND HEDLIZA C. ANTHONY, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, municipal officials of Kawit, Cavite, were charged before the Sandiganbayan with violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The information alleged they caused the registration and subsequent sale of foreshore land, classified as inalienable under Commonwealth Act No. 141, to a private corporation, to the manifest disadvantage of the government and the public. The Ombudsman, after investigation and considering a Senate committee report, directed the filing of the information. Petitioners filed various motions, including a Motion for Reinvestigation and a Motion to Quash the first amended information, which were denied by the Sandiganbayan. Subsequently, the prosecution filed a Motion to Admit a second amended information, which the Sandiganbayan granted. Petitioners then filed this certiorari petition, assailing the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions denying their Motion to Quash and admitting the second amended information.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Quash the first amended information and in admitting the second amended information.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the Motion to Quash, the Court held that the grounds raised by petitioners—that the facts charged do not constitute an offense and that the information contained averments constituting a legal justification—were improperly invoked. A motion to quash hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged in the information. The information sufficiently alleged the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: that the accused are public officers, who acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, and that such action caused undue injury or gave unwarranted benefits. The defense that the land was validly reclaimed and the sale was approved by the Commission on Audit involves evidentiary matters that must be threshed out during trial, not in a motion to quash. Regarding the admission of the second amended information, the amendments—which pertained to the specific lot number and the purchase price—were merely formal and were made before petitioner Pobre’s arraignment. Formal amendments can be made at any time before arraignment, and even thereafter if they do not prejudice the accused’s rights. The Sandiganbayan correctly exercised its discretion in allowing the amendments.