Albert Vs Sandiganbayan
Albert Vs Sandiganbayan
Facts:
Ramon Albert, the president of the National Home Mortgage and Finance Corporation hereinafter
NHMFC ( a public office) was charged by the special prosecution officer of the Office of the Ombudsman
for violation of Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The information alleged that he “in
evident bad faith and manifest partiality AND OR GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY, caused injury to the
government when he made it appear that certain lots in his possession were residential lands in his tax
declarations that were submitted to the NHMF when they were in fact agricultural lands which allowed
him to acquire loans which were higher than what agricultural lands would allow.
A hold departure order was issued by the Sandiganbayan against Albert. He then filed a motion to lift
the hold departure order and be allowed to travel. The prosecution did not object to the motion
provided that the accused be “provisionally” arraigned. Thus, the day after Albert entered a plea of not
guilty and was subsequently allowed to travel.
Eventually, the prosecution filed a motion for Leave to Admit Amended Information. Instead of stating
that the accused acted IN GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY, the information was amended to state AND/OR
GROSS INEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE instead.
Accused opposed the amendment arguing that the information is substantial and therefore not allowed
after arraignment.
Section 14 of rule 110 provides that a complaint or information may be made amended in form or in
substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and
during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done
without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
For an arraignment to be provisional, the conditions thereof must be unmistakable, expressed, informed
and enlightened. Moreover, the conditions must be expressly stated in the order disposing the of the
arraignment otherwise it would be simple and unconditional.
In the case at hand, the order did not state the arraignment was unconditional, thus it was a simple
arraignment.
Thus, only an amendment in form can be made. Regardless, the amendment is still an amendment in
form. The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by an amendment is when a defense
under the complaint or information as it originally stood would no longer be available under the
amendment. A formal amendment states with additional precision something already contained in the
original information, adding nothing essential for conviction.
Thus, the amendment from a “gross neglect of duty” to “gross and inexcusable negligence” is an
amendment to form.