GR 165751; (April, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165751 . April 12, 2005
DATU GUIMID P. MATALAM, Petitioner, vs. THE SECOND DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS
An Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging Datu Guimid Matalam and others with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. The original accusation centered on their alleged illegal and unjustifiable refusal to pay the monetary claims (back salaries and benefits) of several DAR employees, as ordered by the Civil Service Commission. Following a reinvestigation, the public prosecutor moved to admit an Amended Information which deleted all other accused and solely charged petitioner Matalam.
The Amended Information, however, altered the alleged criminal act. It no longer cited the refusal to pay the monetary awards. Instead, it alleged that Matalam caused undue injury through the illegal dismissal of the complaining employees from the service. Petitioner moved to dismiss, arguing the amendment introduced a wholly new cause of action and a different corpus delicti, depriving him of his right to a preliminary investigation on the new charge.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting the Amended Information without first ordering a new preliminary investigation on the substantially altered charge.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, reversing the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions. The Court drew a crucial distinction between amendments that are merely formal and those that are substantial. A substantial amendment, which alters the theory of the prosecution or requires different evidence for the defense, necessitates a new preliminary investigation to satisfy due process.
Here, the amendment was substantial. The original Information was predicated on the refusal to pay adjudged monetary claims, a defense to which could be the lack of appropriation. The Amended Information was based on the act of illegally dismissing the employees, which is a distinct factual and legal accusation requiring different evidence and defenses. Since petitioner was never informed he was being investigated for illegal dismissal, he was denied the opportunity to present countervailing evidence on that specific charge during the preliminary investigation stage. The right to a preliminary investigation is a substantive component of due process in criminal prosecutions and cannot be compromised. The Court directed the remand of the case for a proper preliminary investigation on the charge embodied in the Amended Information, with the criminal proceedings to be held in abeyance pending its outcome.