G.R. No. 169509; June 16, 2006
JOCELYN E. CABO, Petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, FOURTH DIVISION, THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OF THE OMBUDSMAN and THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REGION XIII, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jocelyn E. Cabo was charged with violating Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft Act) alongside Mayor Bonifacio Balahay. The Information alleged they conspired for Cabo to give money to Balahay in consideration of his intervention in a municipal consultancy contract. Claiming deprivation of her right to preliminary investigation, Cabo secured a reinvestigation. Pending reinvestigation, the Sandiganbayan granted her motion to travel abroad but conditionally arraigned her, stating the arraignment would be void if reinvestigation found no probable cause. The reinvestigation upheld probable cause.
Subsequently, Balahay moved to quash the Information, arguing it failed to allege essential elements: that he intervened in his official capacity as required by law, and that he received the money “for himself or for another.” The Sandiganbayan granted the motion, declaring the Information defective for not constituting an offense, but allowed the prosecution to amend it. An amended Information was filed. Cabo moved for reconsideration, arguing her conditional arraignment on the original Information barred a second arraignment on the amended one under double jeopardy. The Sandiganbayan denied her motion and ordered her re-arraignment.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering petitioner’s re-arraignment on the amended Information, thereby violating her right against double jeopardy.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion and that double jeopardy did not attach. For double jeopardy to apply, four requisites must concur: (1) a valid complaint or information; (2) filed before a competent court; (3) a valid arraignment and plea; and (4) a conviction, acquittal, or dismissal without the accused’s consent. Here, the first requisite was absent. The original Information was fatally defective as it failed to allege every fact necessary to constitute the offense under Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019. Specifically, it omitted the crucial allegations that Balahay’s intervention was in his official capacity as required by law and that the benefit was received for himself or another. An information that fails to charge an offense cannot support a conviction; thus, it is invalid and cannot be the basis for double jeopardy.
Consequently, petitioner’s conditional arraignment on this invalid Information was also invalid and produced no legal effect. The amendment of the Information was substantive, curing its jurisdictional defects by properly alleging all elements of the crime. Since the original proceeding was void from inception due to the defective information, the amendment initiated a new, valid proceeding. Petitioner’s re-arraignment on the amended Information was therefore proper and did not place her in double jeopardy for the same offense.