GR 167474; (November, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167474 November 15, 2005
CONRADO BANAL III, Petitioner, vs. HON. DELIA H. PANGANIBAN, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Conrado Banal III, a columnist, was charged with six counts of libel before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. The informations alleged that the libelous articles were “published in English in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and of general circulation in the Philippines and abroad.” Banal moved to quash the informations, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the informations failed to specifically allege either the offended parties’ residence in Makati or that the articles were printed and first published in Makati, as required under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code. The RTC initially granted the motion and dismissed the cases.
The private respondents filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration, seeking to amend the informations to cure the jurisdictional defect. The RTC granted the motion, recalling its dismissal order and allowing the amendment to specify that the libelous articles were “printed and first published” in Makati City. Banal challenged this order via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his petition, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC’s order allowing the amendment of the libel informations after the petitioner had pleaded not guilty.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The Court held that the amendment to the informations was formal, not substantial, and was therefore allowable even after the accused had pleaded not guilty. The original informations, while defectively phrased, already contained the essential averment that the publication occurred in Makati by stating the articles were “published in English in the City of Makati.” The amendment merely clarified and specified that the articles were “printed and first published” in Makati, which is the precise jurisdictional requirement under Article 360.
The amendment did not alter the nature of the crime charged, expose the accused to a higher penalty, affect the essence of the offense, or prejudice his defense. It was a correction of a formal defect to properly confer jurisdiction upon the RTC of Makati. Consequently, the trial judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in allowing the amendment. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, which was not present as the order was in accord with law and jurisprudence on formal amendments.