REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SANDIGANBA YAN
QUEZON CITY

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE Criminal Case No. SB-17-

PHILIPPINES, CRM-1386
For: Violation of Section 3 (e), of
Republic Act No. 3019

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,
Chairperson,
FERNANDEZ, B., J. and
EXEQUIEL B. JAVIER, et al., FERNANDEZ, S.J., J. 1
Accused.

For resolution is accused Erika C. Orcasitas' ((Motion for

Reconsideration (on the Resolution dated November 3, 201 7)"
dated November 29,2017.2

Accused-movant Orcasitas prays that the Court's

Resolution promulgated on November 3,2017,3 be reconsider~

A
1 Sitting as a special member of the 3'd Division pursuant to Administrative Order No. 316-2017 datettd
September 13, 2017.
2 pp. 858-871, Record

'pp. 807-815, Rew,d

Resolution
Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1386
People vs. Javier, et al.

set aside and/ or the Information against her be quashed on the

ground that the said Information fails to charge an offense and
that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over her
person and the offense charged against her. 4

She asserts that it would be grossly unfair and prejudicial

to her constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the
accusations against her if the present Information were
amended because the disquisitions of the Office of the
Ombudsman in its Resolutions dated January 8, 2015, and
June 27, 2016, failed to pass upon the issue of her alleged
minority.s According to the accused-movant, the Information in
this case cannot be cured at this stage of the proceedings by
amendment without violating Sections 32 and 33 of Republic
Act (R.A.)No. 9344 which reads:6

SEC. 32. Duty of the Prosecutor's Office.-

There shall be a specially trained prosecutor to conduct
inquest, preliminary investigation and prosecution of
cases involving a child in conflict with the law. If there
is an allegation of torture or ill-treatment of a child in
conflict with the law during arrest or detention, it shall
be the duty of the prosecutor to investigate the same.

SEC. 33. Preliminary Investigation and Filing

of Information. - The prosecutor shall conduct a
preliminary investigation in the following instances: (a)
when the child in conflict with the law does not qualify
for diversion: (b) when the child, his/her parents or
guardian does not agree to diversion as specified in
Sections 27 and 28; and (c) when considering the
assessment and recommendation of the social worker,
the prosecutor determines that diversion is not
appropriate for the child in conflict with the law.

___ c_o_m_p_IaJ._·
n_t_,
_t_h_e_prosecutor shall notify the Pu/?
Upon serving the subpoena and the affidavit of

4 pp. 868-869, Record

5 p. 858, Record
6 pp. 864-865, Record
Resolution
Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1386
People vs. Javier, et at.

Attorney's Office of such service, as well as the personal

information, and place of detention of the child in
conflict with the law.

Upon determination of probable cause by the

prosecutor, the information against the child shall be
filed before the Family Court within forty-five (45) days
from the start of the preliminary investigation.

She reiterates that a child in conflict of the law enjoys the

presumption of minority and that the prosecution has the
burden to prove the she acted with discernment in order for her
to be held liable of the crime herein charged.7

In her further bid to dismiss the case against her,

accused-movant Orcasitas likewise insists on the applicability
of R.A. No. 8369, otherwise known as the ((Family Courts Act of
1997," to the present case. 8 She maintains that jurisdiction over
the present case against her rests with the Family Courts and
not with the Sandiganbayan. Invoking the case of Senator
Leila De Lima v. Hon. Juanita Guerrero,9 the accused-
movant argues that just like dangerous drugs cases, where
exclusive jurisdiction vests in Regional Trial Courts designated
as ((Drugs Courts," criminal cases involving minors are governed
by R.A. No. 8369, as amended by R.A. No. 9344; hence, it is the
Regional Trial Court designated as a ((Family Court" that has
exclusive original jurisdiction to try and hear the present case
against her. 10
Resolution
Criminal Case No. 8B-17 -CRM-1386
People vs. Javier, et al.

informed of the nature of the accusation against her and she

may fully prepare her defenses.12 The prosecution also notes
that the accused-movant is yet to be arraigned; hence,
pursuant to Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, the amendment of the Information is a
matter of right for the prosecution whether in form or in
substance. 13

Furthermore, the prosecution points out that the

allegations of the accused-movant in her present motion are
mere reiterations of the arguments she raised in her ((Motion to
Quash Information for the Accused Minor" dated July 26, 2017;
hence, the prosecution likewise repleaded its arguments in its
Opposition dated August 8, 2017.14

As correctly pointed out by the prosecution, the arguments

raised by the accused-movant in her present motion are mere
reiterations of the grounds she raised in her ((Motion to Quash
Information for the Accused Minor" dated July 26,2017.15 To be
sure, these arguments were squarely passed upon by the Court
in its Resolution sought to be reconsidered.

On the accused-movant's assertion that the

Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the present case
against her, the Court held in its assailed Resolution
promulgated on November 3, 2017, Viz~

12 pp. 917-918, Record

13 p. 917, Record
14 p. 918, Record
15 pp. 445-456, Record
Resolution
Criminal Case No. 8B-17 -CRM-1386
People vs. Javier, et al.

II. The Sandiganbayan

has jurisdiction over
the present case
against accused-
movant Orcasitas.

On the issue of jurisdiction, accused-movant

Orcasitas invokes Section 5 of R.A. No. 8369, otherwise
known as (The Family Courts Act of 1997." This
provision declares that Family Courts shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide
criminal cases where one or more of the accused is
below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine
(9) years of age or where one or more of the victims is a
minor at the time of the commission of the offense.16
She argues that because she was only sixteen (16) years
old at the time of the approval of Resolution No. 007-
2008, exclusive original jurisdiction over the present
case against her is vested on the Family Courts and not
the Sandiganbayan.17

Section 1 of A.M. No. 02-1-18, promulgated by the

Supreme Court on November 24, 2009, provides:

Section 1. Applicability of the Rule. - This

Rule shall apply to all criminal cases involving
children in conflict with law.

A child in conflict with the law is a person

who at the time of the commission of the
offense is below eighteen (18) years old but not
less than fifteen (15) years and one (1) day old.

This Rule shall not apply to a person

who at the time of the initial contact as

______
defined in Sec. 4 (q) of this Rule shall have
re_a_c_h_ed
__ th_e age of eighteen (IB) in W/"7
16 p. 450, Record
17 p. 450, Record
Resolution
Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1386
People vs. Javier, et al.

case, the regular rules on criminal

procedure shall apply without prejudice to
the rights granted under Sees. 53, 54, 55
and 56 of this Rule.18

The term ((initial contact" is defined under Section

4 (q) of the same rule, to wit:

(q) Initial contact refers to apprehension or

taking into custody of a child in conflict with the
law by law enforcement officers or private
citizens. It includes the time the child alleged
to be in conflict with the law receives a
subpoena under Section 3 (b) of Rule 112 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure or
summons under Section 6 (a) or Section 9(b) of
the same Rule in cases that do not require
preliminary investigation, or where there is no
necessity to place the child alleged to be in
conflict with the law under immediate custody.19

A review of the factual antecedents of this

case reveals that accused-movant Orcasitas
received a copy of the order of the Office of the
Ombudsman requiring her to file her counter-
affidavit on December 23, 2013.20 Thereafter, she
executed her counter-affidavit on January 13,
2014. 21 Applying the afore-cited rules, the Court
holds that the "initial contact" with accused-
movant Orcasitas occurred on December 23, 2013,
or upon her receipt of the copy of the order of the
Office of the Ombudsman; hence, the provisions of
the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 are
inapplicable to her because at that time, she was
already twenty-one (21) years old. Therefore, the

applied.
22
/I
regular rules of criminal procedure should be

18 Emphasis supplied
19 Emphasis supplied
20 p. 466, Record
21 pp. 184-189, Record
22 Emphasis supplied
Resolution
Criminal Case No. SB-17 -CRM-1386
People vs. Javier, et al.

Moreover, Section 2 of R.A. No. 10660 provides

that the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original
jurisdiction over violations of R.A. No. 3019, where one
or more of the accused are those officials enumerated
therein, whether acting in a permanent, acting or
interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the
offense.

A plain reading of the Information in this case

shows that accused-movant Orcasitas is charged to
have acted in conspiracy with certain government
officials falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan to commit a violation of Section 3
(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Thus, these allegations are enough
to vest jurisdiction on this Court over the case against
accused-movant Orcasitas.

Neither does the case of De Lima v. Guerrer023 support

the claim of the accused-movant. In De Lima, the Supreme
Court ratiocinated that due to the technical aspect of drug-
related cases; i.e. the unique characteristics of narcotic
substances, judges presiding over designated drugs courts are
equipped with "the proper tools to appreciate pharmacological
evidence and give an analytical insight upon this esoteric
subject. "24

In this case, the accused-movant's sole basis for insisting

that the Family Courts have jurisdiction to try the criminal
charge against her is the fact that she was a minor at the time
the alleged criminal act imputed to her was committed. She
completely overlooks the one material fact that she was already
twenty-one (21) years old when the ('initial contact" with her
respecting the case took place. In fact, she is now twenty-five
(25) years old for which reason, the regular rules of criminal
procedure should be applied to her.

The present charge involves a violation of Section 3 (e) of

R.A. No. 3019. Pursuant to Section 4 of Presidential Decree

23

24
G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017
De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017
/?
J1
Resolution
Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1386
People vs. Javier, et al.

(P.D.)No. 1606, Section 4 of R.A.No. 8249 and Section 2 of R.A.

No. 10660, the Sandiganbayan has the exclusive jurisdiction to
try a violation of the said law. Thus, this Court unquestionably
has the jurisdiction to try the accused -movant and her co-
accused.

Accused-movant Orcasitas further submits that the

amendment of the present Information will violate her
constitutional rights to due process and to be informed of the
nature of the accusations against her because the issue of her
alleged minority was not passed upon by Office of the
Ombudsman in its Resolutions dated January 8,2015 and June
27,2016.25

To begin with, it is jurisprudentially settled that the

essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard.26
In the consolidated cases of Ocampo v. Abando, Echanis v.
Medina, Baylosis v. Medina, and Ladlad v. Medina,27 the
Supreme Court en banc ruled that in the context of a
preliminary investigation, the right to due process of law simply
entails the opportunity to be heard.28 It requires that the
respondent be given reasonable opportunity to be heard and
submit his/her defenses.29 What is proscribed is the absolute
opportunity to be heard. 30 Thus, one who has been afforded a
chance to present one's own side of the story cannot claim
denial of due process.31

The record of this case shows that the accused-movant was

given the opportunity to present her side through her counter-
affidavit and motion for reconsideration which were filed with the

f
Office of the Ombudsman. Moreover, her defense of mino~

25 p. 858, Record
26 Shu v. Dee, 723 SCRA 512 (2014); See also Vivo v. PAGCOR, 707 SCRA 276 (2013), Republic v. Caguioa,
691 SCRA 306 (2013), Demaala v. Sandiganbayan, 771 SCRA 1 (2014), and Ynot v. lAC, 148 SCRA 659 (1987)
27 715 SCRA 673 (2014)

28 p. 695, Ocampo v. Abando, 715 SCRA 673 (2014)

291d
30,d
31 pp. 695-696, Ocampo v. Abando,715 SCRA 673 (2014)
Resolution
Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1386
People vs. Javier, et al.

was passed upon by the Office of the Ombudsman in its Order

dated June 27, 2016, thus:

Respondent Orcasitas rehashed her defense of

minority, stressing that she was only 16 years old at the
time of the signing of SB Resolution No. 007-2008.
Without any concrete evidence to show that she did not
act with discernment, there is no legal basis to exempt
her from criminal prosecution and liability. As to the
question of lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
over her person, such matter must be left to the sound
determination of the Sandiganbayan.32

Notably, the accused-movant asserts that the allegations in

the present Information do not constitute an offense due to its
apparent defect. It must be stressed, however, that
jurisprudence and Section 4, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure teach that if the ground relied upon by the
accused-movant in his motion to quash is that ((the facts
charged do not constitute an offense," the prosecution shall be
given by the court an opportunity to correct the defect by
amendment.33 Also, in People v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth
Division),34 the Supreme Court ruled, thus:

When a motion to quash is filed challenging the

validity and sufficiency of an Information, and the defect
may be cured by amendment, courts must deny the
motion to quash and order the prosecution to file an
amended Information.35 Generally, a defect pertaining
to the failure of an Information to charge facts
constituting an offense is one that may be corrected
by an amendment.36 In such instances, courts are
mandated not to automatically quash the
Information; rather, it should grant the prosecut~

32 p. 15, Order dated June 27, 2016; p. 48, Record / /

33 See People v. Andrade, 741 SCRA 460 (2014) )()
34 770 SCRA 162 (2015)
35 Footnote omitted
36 Footnote omitted
Resolution
Criminal Case No. SB-17 -CRM-1386
People vs. Javier, et ai.

the opportunity to cure the defect through an

amendment.37 This rule allows a case to proceed
without undue delay. By allowing the defect to be
cured by simple amendment, unnecessary appeals
based on technical grounds, which only result to
prolonging the proceedings, are avoided.38

More tHan this practical consideration, however, is

the due process underpinnings of this rule. As explained
by this Court in People v. Andrade,39the State, just like
any other litigant, is entitled to its day in court.

Thus, a court's refusal to grant the prosecution the

opportunity to amend an Information, where such right
is expressly granted under the Rules of Court and
affirmed time and again in a string of Supreme Court
decisions, effectively curtails the State's right to due
process.

Hence, even assuming that the Information was

defective, the Sandiganbayan should have first ordered
its amendment and not its quashal. Doing so would have
saved the parties from resorting to an appeal to this
Court and this case from remaining in the docket of the
Sandiganbayan for a long period.

In the same veIn, the Court is of the view that the

accused-movant cannot validly claim that the impending
amendment to the present Information would be grossly unfair
and/ or prejudicial to her interest because her defense of
minority would still be available to her even after the said
amendment. In Mendez v. People,40 the Supreme Court, citing
the case of People v. Casey,41 held that the jurisprudential test
on whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment of an
Information pertains to the availability of the same defense ~

Footnote omitted / '

f'
37

38 Emphasis supplied
39 Footnote omitted
40 726 SCRA 203 (2014)
41
103 SCRA 21 (1981)
Resolution
Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-l386
People vs. Javier, et al.

evidence that the accused previously had under the original

Information.

In this case, the impending amendment to the present

Information pursuant to the disquisition of the Court in its
assailed Resolution promulgated on November 3, 2017, does not
change the nature of the crime charged, does not expose the
accused-movant to a charge which could call for a higher
penalty, nor does it affect the essence of the offense or cause
surprise or deprive the accused an opportunity to meet the new
averment.42

Also, as correctly pointed out by the prosecution, since the

accused-movant has not been arraigned, the Information may be
amended in form or substance pursuant to Section 14, Rule
110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

In sum, the accused-movant failed to raise any new or

substantial matter that would warrant a reconsideration of the
Court's Resolution promulgated on November 3,2017.

WHEREFORE, accused Erika C. Orcasitas' ((Motion for

Reconsideration (on the Resolution dated November 3, 2017)"
dated November 29, 2017,43 is DENIED for being pro forma
and/or lack of merit.

Quezon City, Metro Manila

~O~E-TAN
Presiding Justice
Chairperson

42 See People v. Casey, 103 SeRA 21 (1981)

43 pp. 858-871, Record
Resolution
Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1386
People vs. Javier, et al.

JANET. FERN
Associate Justice