Case Digest: FEDERICO A. POBLETE, et al. v. HONORABLE JUSTICES EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL, et al.

FEDERICO A. POBLETE, et al. v. HONORABLE JUSTICES
EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL, et al.

            The officers of Samahan ng Lahing Mandaragat ng Pulborista, Inc. (Samahan) filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioner municipal officials of Kawit, Cavite Federico A. Poblete, et al. The complaint alleges that the officials caused the registration of foreshore land in Barangay Binakayan, Kawit in the name of the Municipality of Kawit and subsequently sold the same to FJI Property Developers, Inc., notwithstanding that under Commonwealth Act No. 141, specifically, Title III, Chapter [8], Section 59 in relation to Section 61, the land is inalienable and cannot be disposed by any mode or transfer, except by lease.

              The complaint further avers that the sale of the land caused undue prejudice and injury to poor people, especially the indigent families who claimed it as communal fishing grounds since time immemorial, and gave private parties unwarranted benefits, the contract or transaction being manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government and the public.

              In an Ex-parte Motion to Admit Amended Information to which the accused filed their Comment, the Ombudsman Prosecutor sought to amend the information by inserting the number of the lot under controversy and the amount representing the price paid by FJI Property Developers Inc. for it.

                Also, the Ombudsman recommending further amendments to the information, the prosecution filed a Motion to Admit Amended Information (second Amended Information). For lack of merit, the Sandiganbayan, denied the Motion to Quash the first amended information and by a subsequent Resolution, it granted the Motion to Admit the second amended Information. Hence, the present petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting the second amended Information

HELD:

As laid down by the Court, an amendment is only in form when it merely adds specifications to eliminate vagueness in the information and not to introduce new and material facts, and merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the original information and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged.

The mere re-arrangement of the words and phrases in the second Amended Information which are also alleged in the first Amended Information does not change the basic theory of the prosecution, thus creating no material change or modification in the defenses of the accused.

Clearly, the allegations of Poblete, et al. are factual and evidentiary in nature which may best be considered as matters of defense to be ventilated in a full-blown trial. Lack of probable cause during the preliminary investigation is not one of the grounds for a motion to quash. A motion to quash should be based on a defect in the information, which is evident on its face. The guilt or innocence of the accused, and their degree of participation, which should be appreciated, are properly the subject of trial on the merits rather than on a motion to quash.

Poblete, et al. having failed to substantiate the grounds they invoked in their Motion to Quash the first Amended Information, and it having been established that the amendments introduced in the second Amended Information are mere matters of form, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing its Resolutions of October 10, 2001 and November 8, 2001.