G.R. No. 195032 - ISABELO A. BRAZA, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (1ST DIVISION).D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the prosecution filed its Manifestation and Motion to Admit Amended Information [16] on May 8, 2009. On July 1, 2009, Braza filed his Comment (to the motion to admit amended information) with Plea for Discharge and/or Dismissal of the Case. [17] He claimed that the first information had been rendered ineffective or had been deemed vacated by the issuance of the Supplemental Resolution and, hence, his discharge from the first information was in order. By way of an alternative prayer, Braza sought the dismissal of the case with prejudice claiming that his right to a speedy disposition of the case had been violated and that the Supplemental Resolution failed to cure the fatal infirmities of the January 24, 2008 Resolution since proof to support the allegation of overpricing remained wanting. Braza averred that he could not be arraigned under the second information without violating the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy. On October 12, 2009, the Sandiganbayan issued the first assailed resolution admitting the Amended Information, [18] dated May 4, 2009, ( second Information ) and denying Braza's plea for dismissal of the criminal case. The Sandiganbayan ruled that Braza would not be placed in double jeopardy should he be arraigned anew under the second information because his previous arraignment was conditional. It continued that even if he was regularly arraigned, double jeopardy would still not set in because the second information charged an offense different from, and which did not include or was necessarily included in, the original offense charged. Lastly, it found that the delay in the reinvestigation proceedings could not be characterized as vexatious, capricious or oppressive and that it could not be attributed to the prosecution. The dispositive portion of the said resolution reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Motion to Admit Attached Amended Information filed by the prosecution is hereby GRANTED . The Amended Information charging all the accused therein with violation of Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019, being the proper offense, is hereby ADMITTED. Consequently, accused Braza's Alternative Relief for Dismissal of the Case is hereby DENIED . Let the arraignment of all the accused in the Amended Information be set on November 18, 2009, at 8:30 in the morning. SO ORDERED . [19] On November 6, 2009, Braza moved for reconsideration with alternative motion to quash the information [20] reiterating his arguments that his right against double jeopardy and his right to a speedy disposition of the case were violated warranting the dismissal of the criminal case with prejudice. In the alternative, Braza moved for the quashal of the second information vigorously asserting that the same was fatally defective for failure to allege any actual, specified and quantifiable injury sustained by the government as required by law for indictment under Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019, and that the charge of overpricing was unfounded. On Oc