G.R. No. 164015 February 26, 2009
RAMON A. ALBERT, Petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

On March 24, 1999, petitioner Ramon A. Albert, then President of the National Home Mortgage and Finance Corporation (NHMFC), along with co-accused, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in Criminal Case No. 25231. The Information alleged that they conspired, with evident bad faith and manifest partiality and/or gross neglect of duty, to cause undue injury to the government by misrepresenting agricultural land as residential in tax declarations submitted to NHMFC, leading to the release of a higher loan amount. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss. Pending its resolution, and to allow him to travel, petitioner was “provisionally” arraigned on March 13, 2001, where he pleaded not guilty. The Sandiganbayan later denied his Motion to Dismiss and ordered a reinvestigation. The reinvestigating prosecutor recommended dismissal for lack of probable cause, but the Ombudsman disapproved this and directed prosecution to proceed. On October 7, 2003, the prosecution filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Information, which changed the phrase “gross neglect of duty” in the original information to “gross inexcusable negligence.” Petitioner opposed, arguing the amendment was substantial and not allowed after arraignment. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion to admit the Amended Information in its Resolution dated February 10, 2004, reasoning that petitioner’s earlier arraignment was merely “provisional,” thus amendment was permissible. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 3, 2004.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in admitting the Amended Information.
2. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in further proceeding with the case despite an alleged violation of the accused’s right to a speedy trial.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions.
1. On the admission of the Amended Information: The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion. While the practice of “provisional” or “conditional” arraignment is not sanctioned by the rules, the Court in People v. Espinosa recognized it provided conditions are unmistakable, express, informed, and enlightened. In this case, the Minutes of the Sandiganbayan Proceedings for March 13, 2001, merely stated that the accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, with no mention of any condition. Therefore, the arraignment was simple and unconditional. Consequently, under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, only formal amendments were allowed after his plea. The amendment from “gross neglect of duty” to “gross inexcusable negligence” was substantial, as it referred to different modes of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and could alter the accused’s defense. However, the Court found that the amendment was merely formal. The original information already alleged “evident bad faith,” “manifest partiality,” and “gross neglect of duty” as the modes of violation. “Gross neglect of duty” under Section 3(f) is different from “gross inexcusable negligence” under Section 3(e), but the Information clearly invoked Section 3(e). The Court ruled that the original information’s use of “gross neglect of duty” was a mere formal defect or a typographical error. Its amendment to “gross inexcusable negligence” did not alter the nature of the offense charged, which remained a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Therefore, the amendment was formal and permissible.
2. On the right to a speedy trial: The Court held that petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that his right to a speedy trial was violated. He did not provide details of the delays or demonstrate that the Sandiganbayan unjustifiably postponed the trial. The delays appeared attributable to the pendency of petitioner’s own motions (Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Reconsideration before the Ombudsman) and the prosecution’s motion to amend the information. The Court found no inordinate delay, and thus, no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan in proceeding with the case.