Antiporda Jr v. Garchitorena|December 23, 1999|Buena, J.

(First name Arturo)

Nature of Case: Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition

Petitioner(s): Licerio Antiporda Jr., Eliterio Rubiaco, Victor Gascon, and Caesar Talia
Respondent(s): Francis Garchitorena, Edilberto Sandoval, Catalino Castaeda
SUMMARY: The prosecutor failed to allege pertinent details in the original
information that would have vested jurisdiction to Sandiganbayan of the criminal
case. The accused then questioned the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and their FACTS:
authority to have ordered an opportunity to amend the information. Their action  Accused Licerio
would have prospered were it not for the fact that they already questioned the Antiporda, Jr.,
jurisdiction of the RTC stating that the crime was work related. This resulted in their Eliterio Rubiaco,
being estopped. Victor Gascon,
and Caesar Talla
were charged
with kidnapping Elmer Ramos
 The information was filed with the First Division of the Sandiganbayan, comprised of the petitioners
o The information did not allege the pertinent details to be clear that the crime was office related
(sandiganbayan e)
o The court wanted to clarify the propriety of the proceeding with the Information as it stands
o Prosecutor informed court that there was indeed inadequacies in the information so she was
allowed to submit an amendment
 The amendment contained such details like
o Antiporda being the Municipal Mayor
o Gallardo being a Barangay Captain
o And Rubiaco being a barangay councilman
o That the kidnapped was brought to the residence of the Mayor for more than 5 days
 In light of the amendment, accused then filed Urgent Omnibus Motion praying that a reinvestigation of
the case be conducted and the issuance of warrants of arrest be deferred.
 Motion was denied
o There was nothing in the Amended Information that was added to the original information so
that the accuse could not claim a right to be heard separately in an investigation
o Also, since none of them submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court, the accused were
not in a position to be heard on the matter
 Accused then filed a Motion to Quash Amended Information for lack of jurisdiction over the offense
charged
o Denied since the accused have failed to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the court
o The amended information vests the court jurisdiction as it includes the office related character of
the offense
 A motion for reconsideration was filed
o Accused reasons that their filing of the motion to quash and the appearance of their counsel
during the scheduled hearing amounted to voluntary submission to the court
 Still denied, hence the case at bar
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
1. WON the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the case, and therefore the authority to order the
amendment of the information. Yes. (But only by estoppel)
a. As held in Arula v. Espino, three requisites must concur for a court to acquire jurisdiction over a
case
i. Jurisdiction over the offense
ii. Jurisdiction over the territory
iii. Jurisdiction over the person
b. It is undisputed that Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the territory
 c. Sandiganbayan also acquired jurisdiction over the person when the accused filed their motion to
quash
i. Accused cited Layosa v. Rodriguez
1. It was ruled here that the voluntary appearance of the accused at the pre-
suspension hearing amounted to his submission to the court’s jurisdiction even
if no warrant of arrest has been issued
d. The petitioners countered the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person by citing De los Santos-
Reyes v. Montesa
i. The accused have no right to invoke the processes of the court since they have not been
placed in the custody of the law, or otherwise deprived of their liberty by reason of the
filing of the information
e. The court held that the two cases did not conflict with one another, they both discuss ways for a
court to acquire jurisdiction over a person
i. Through warrants
ii. Through voluntary submission
f. Since the 2 requisites have been fulfilled, the court now tries to discuss the last requisite
g. The court found that the Sandiganbayan DID NOT have jurisdiction over the offense
i. The pertinent details were not alleged in the original information
h. HOWEVER, the petitioners are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the sandiganbayan as
they themselves challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC and they clearly said that the crime was
work connected.
i. It is a well settled rule that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative
relief against his opponent, and after obtaining of failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or
question that same jurisdiction
j. So since Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction, they were allowed to have ordered the amendment of
the information
i. Rule 110, Section 14 of the Rules of Court provides thus
1. Section 14. Amendment – The information or complaint may be amended, in
substance or in form, without leave of court, at any time before the accused
pleads; and at the discretion of the court, when the same can be done without
prejudice to the rights of the accused.

2. WON a reinvestigation is necessary in view of the Amended Information. No.

a. A reinvestigation is only proper when the accused’s substantial rights will be impaired
b. The amendment merely described the positions that they held, and where the victim was
brought when he was kidnapped
c. It must be stressed that the preliminary investigation is inquisitorial
i. It is a means of discovering the persons who may be charged of a crime, in order for a
prosecutor to prepare the complaint or information
ii. The purpose of the preliminary investigation has already been achieved and the court
sees no reason to conduct another one

RULING:
 Wherefore, the PETITION is hereby DISMISSED.