People of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan (Seventh Division)

An amendment to an Information that merely corrects a patent typographical error in the amount alleged, without altering the nature of the offense or the facts constituting it, constitutes a formal amendment allowable under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, particularly where the specific amount is not an essential element of the crime charged under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and the accused had prior knowledge of the correct figure from the preliminary investigation records.

Jaime Kison Recio, then Executive Director III of the National Parks and Development Committee (NPDC), was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 for entering into security service contracts with Variance Protective and Security Agency from 2002 to 2010 without public bidding, thereby giving unwarranted benefits to the private agency. The Information alleged that Recio signed Disbursement Vouchers facilitating payment to Variance for services rendered from January 1, 2004 to September 15, 2004, amounting to ₱7,843,54.33.

• The Charge: The Information filed before the Sandiganbayan charged Recio, as Executive Director III of the National Parks and Development Committee, with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The accusation centered on his alleged execution of security service contracts with Variance Protective and Security Agency from 2002 to 2010 without the required public bidding, thereby giving unwarranted benefits to the private agency. Specifically, the Information alleged that Recio signed Disbursement Vouchers facilitating the release of payment to Variance for security services purportedly rendered from January 1, 2004 to September 15, 2004, amounting to ₱7,843,54.33.
• The Proposed Amendment: During trial and before presenting its last witness on April 4, 2018, the prosecution filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Information dated March 27, 2018. The motion sought to amend the amount stated in the Information from ₱7,843,54.33 to ₱7,842,941.60, which was the amount actually reflected in the disbursement vouchers.
• Opposition: Recio opposed the motion, arguing that the amendment was not merely formal but substantial, which would be prejudicial to his constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him.
• Sandiganbayan Rulings: The Sandiganbayan denied the motion in its Resolution dated April 27, 2018, ruling that the mistake in the amount of the alleged undue injury was too substantial to have been left uncorrected for more than a year, during which time evidence had already been presented. It held that the alleged difference could not be ruled out as a mere typographical error, especially since the amount was alleged only numerically and had not been spelled out in words where the difference would have been readily apparent. The Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated May 22, 2018.

• Nature of Amendment: The prosecution maintained that the amendment sought was merely formal, not substantial, as it merely sought to correct a typographical error in the amount to make it conform to the evidence on record. The erroneous amount ₱7,843,54.33 was mathematically inexistent and obviously erroneous, with the comma improperly placed immediately to the left of the second digit from the decimal point instead of three spaces to the left.
• No Prejudice to Accused: The prosecution argued that the amendment would not prejudice the rights of the accused because the correct amount of ₱7,842,941.60 was not a new fact unknown to Recio. During the preliminary investigation, Recio was furnished copies of the complaint and the disbursement vouchers indicating the correct amount. Moreover, the Joint Resolution of the Ombudsman dated January 21, 2016, which resolved to indict Recio, clearly enumerated in tabulated form the specific amounts and periods covered by the disbursement vouchers signed by him.
• Essential Elements of the Crime: The prosecution contended that under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, where the charge involves giving unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference to a private party (the second mode), the specific amount of damage is not a necessary element for conviction. Hence, the amendment to the amount did not alter the nature of the offense or the facts constituting it.

• Substantial Amendment: Recio countered that the amendment was substantial, not merely formal, as it changed the amount of the alleged undue injury from ₱7,843,54.33 to ₱7,842,941.60. He argued that such an amendment would prejudice his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, a right that is given life during arraignment.
• Prejudice to Defense: Respondent maintained that the amendment, being sought after the presentation of evidence for more than a year, would divest him of an opportunity to meet the new accusation and would require a material change or modification in his defense.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the Ombudsman's Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Information.
• Formal vs. Substantial Amendment: Whether the proposed amendment correcting the amount from ₱7,843,54.33 to ₱7,842,941.60 constitutes a formal or substantial amendment under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Information. Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical manner tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, or executed arbitrarily out of malice, ill-will, or personal bias. The denial was patently gross where the amendment sought was clearly formal and would not result in prejudice to the rights of the accused.
• Formal Amendment: The amendment sought was one of form, not substance. The amount ₱7,843,54.33 stated in the Information bore a patent typographical error, being mathematically inexistent and violating the basic rule in writing figures requiring commas to separate thousands (placed immediately to the left of the second digit from the decimal point instead of three spaces to the left). The amendment merely sought to correct this obvious error to conform to the evidence on record and added nothing essential for Recio's conviction of the crime charged.
• No Prejudice to Accused: Recio would not be prejudiced by the amendment. He was well aware of the amount ₱7,842,941.60 even during the early stages of preliminary investigation, having been given a copy of the complaint and the disbursement vouchers indicating said amount. The Joint Resolution of the Ombudsman dated January 21, 2016, which resolved to indict him, enumerated in tabulated form the specific amounts of the disbursement vouchers. The amendment did not involve a completely new fact or matter previously unknown to him, nor did it require him to undergo a material change or modification in his defense.
• Amount Not Essential Element: Under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, there are two modes of violation: (1) causing undue injury to any party, including the government; or (2) giving any private party unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference. Under the second mode (which was the basis of the charge), damage is not required. Hence, regardless of which amount was correct, the same was not a necessary element for a violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 under the second mode.

• Amendment of Information under Section 14, Rule 110 — A complaint or information may be amended, in form or substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during 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. Substantial amendments consist of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. Formal amendments do not alter the nature of the crime, affect the essence of the offense, surprise, or divest the accused of an opportunity to meet the new accusation; they merely state with additional precision something already contained in the original Information.
• Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — There are two modes by which Section 3(e) may be violated: (1) by causing undue injury to any party, including the government; or (2) by giving any private party unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference. The presence of one mode suffices for conviction. Under the second mode, damage is not an essential element of the offense.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. It is considered "grave" when discretion is exercised in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and is so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law.

• "Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. To be considered 'grave,' discretion must be exercised in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law."
• "Substantial amendments consist of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. On the other hand, formal amendments which can be made at any time do not alter the nature of the crime, affect the essence of the offense, surprise, or divest the accused of an opportunity to meet the new accusation."
• "There are two ways by which Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may be violated - the first, by causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or the second, by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference... Under the second mode, damage is not required."
• "A basic rule in writing figures consisting of four (4) or more digits requires the use of commas to separate thousands; thus, to place the first comma, count three (3) spaces or digits to the left of the decimal point, and continue doing so after every three digits. Here, the comma was written immediately to the left of the second digit from the decimal point. In other words, the Information obviously bears a typographical error as the error in the amount is apparent to the naked eye."

• Ampil v. Ombudsman, 715 Phil. 733 (2013) — Controlling precedent discussing the two modes of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and holding that under the second mode (giving unwarranted benefits), damage is not required.
• Mendez v. People, 736 Phil. 181 (2014) — Cited for the principle that the accused officially begins to prepare his defense against the accusation on the basis of the recitals in the information read to him during arraignment.
• Corpus, Jr. v. Pamular, G.R. No. 186403, September 5, 2018 — Cited for the definition of substantial amendments as consisting of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of jurisdiction.
• Teehankee, Jr. v. Madayag, 283 Phil. 956 (1992) — Cited for the distinction between formal and substantial amendments.
• Gadia v. Sykes Asia, Inc., 752 Phil. 413 (2015) — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion.

• Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Governs the amendment or substitution of a complaint or information. Allows amendment in form or substance without leave of court before plea; after plea, formal amendments may be made with leave of court when done without prejudice to the rights of the accused.
• Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Prohibits public officers from causing undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of official functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

Carpio, Senior Associate Justice (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Lazaro-Javier, JJ.