Manalo vs. People

The lack of the city prosecutor’s signature and approval on an information is a formal, not jurisdictional, defect, and the prosecution may amend an information in form or in substance without leave of court at any time before the accused enters a plea. Where the amended information validly charges an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, the accused is not entitled to bail as a matter of right; bail becomes discretionary and depends on a showing that the evidence of guilt is not strong.

On March 2, 2017, police officers executed a search warrant at petitioner’s house inside the Iglesia Ni Cristo compound in Quezon City and discovered several unlicensed firearms and live ammunition. The Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) conducted an inquest and filed an Information charging petitioner with illegal possession of firearms under Section 28(b) of Republic Act No. 10591. Subsequently, before arraignment, the prosecution sought to amend the Information by adding a reference to Section 28(e) of the same law after one of the seized firearms was determined to be loaded. The Amended Information was filed, and petitioner challenged its validity for lack of the City Prosecutor’s written approval, contending that the defect rendered the charge void and that he remained entitled to bail as a matter of right.

• Search and Seizure: On March 2, 2017, by virtue of a search warrant issued by then Presiding Judge Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale, police officers searched petitioner’s residence inside the Iglesia Ni Cristo compound on Tandang Sora Avenue, Quezon City. The search yielded multiple firearms and ammunition: one M-16 Colt AR-15 rifle, one M1 carbine, and one 12-gauge Action shotgun loaded with seven live rounds, all unlicensed.

• Original Information: An inquest was conducted, and the OCP of Quezon City issued a Resolution on March 3, 2017, finding probable cause and recommending the filing of an Information for violation of R.A. No. 10591. The original Information charged petitioner with Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition under Section 28(b) of R.A. No. 10591, which punishes unlawful possession of three or more small arms with reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. The Information was signed by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Nilo A. Peñaflor and approved by Deputy City Prosecutor Rogelio A. Velasco. The OCP recommended “no bail.”

• Motions for Reinvestigation and Bail: Petitioner filed a Motion for Reinvestigation, seeking referral back to the OCP for preliminary investigation, and a Motion to Fix Bail on September 5, 2017, arguing that the “no bail” recommendation should be disregarded and that the penalty under Section 28(b) is a divisible penalty that allowed bail as a matter of right.

• Prosecution’s Motion to Amend: On October 6, 2017, Police Chief Inspector Jun G. Fortunato, the officer authorized to implement the search warrant, filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration before the OCP, asserting that conspiracy existed and that petitioner should be charged under Section 28(e) in relation to Section 28(b) because the shotgun was loaded. On October 9, 2017, the OCP filed a Motion to Admit Attached Amended Information with an Amended Information that added the phrase “IN REL. TO SEC. 28(e)” and the phrase “Loaded with seven (7) live ammunitions” after the description of the shotgun. The Amended Information thus charged an offense with a prescribed penalty one degree higher — reclusion perpetua to death.

• Alleged Defect in the Amended Information: The original copy of the Amended Information attached to the motion was signed by Assistant City Prosecutor Peñaflor and approved only by Deputy City Prosecutor Velasco; it did not bear the signature and approval of City Prosecutor Donald T. Lee. Petitioner claimed this defect was jurisdictional and rendered the Amended Information void, citing People v. Garfin. The prosecution later submitted a second copy of the Amended Information bearing City Prosecutor Lee’s signed approval, filed before arraignment.

• RTC Actions: The RTC (Branch 84), in its November 20, 2017 Joint Resolution, admitted the Amended Information, holding that the prosecution could amend it before plea and that the Amended Information was valid because Office Order No. 44 delegated approving authority to Deputy City Prosecutor Velasco for inquests, and the cured version with City Prosecutor Lee’s signature was submitted before arraignment. The RTC also ruled that petitioner was not entitled to bail as a matter of right due to the capital nature of the amended charge.

• Subsequent Developments: Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion to Inhibit against the presiding judge, which was granted. The case was re-raffled to Branch 216, which, on October 30, 2018, issued an Omnibus Order denying reconsideration and affirming the denial of bail, ruling that the Amended Information was valid and that R.A. No. 9346 (prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty) does not lower the classification of the offense for bail purposes.

• CA Proceedings: Petitioner elevated the matter to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari, arguing grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the RTC, holding that the defect in the Amended Information was cured by the submission of the signed version before arraignment, and that bail was properly denied because the penalty for the charged offense remained reclusion perpetua to death.

• Right to Bail Under Original Information: Petitioner argued that the original Information charged him under Section 28(b) of R.A. No. 10591, which carries the penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua — a divisible penalty whose minimum period falls below the threshold of a capital offense, thus entitling him to bail as a matter of right.

• Validity of Amended Information: Petitioner maintained that the Amended Information was void for lack of prior written authority or approval of City Prosecutor Lee, contending that the requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. He asserted that the original Amended Information bore only Deputy City Prosecutor Velasco’s signature, and the subsequent insertion of the City Prosecutor’s signature constituted tampering and could not retroactively cure the defect.

• Delegation of Authority: Petitioner claimed that City Prosecutor Lee’s delegation under Office Order No. 44 was limited to the conduct of inquests and did not vest Deputy City Prosecutor Velasco with authority to approve an amended information charging a different offense.

• Effect of R.A. No. 9346: Petitioner contended that because R.A. No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the imposable penalty under the Amended Information could no longer be considered a capital offense, restoring his right to bail as a matter of right. He invoked People v. Valdez, where the Court granted bail as a matter of right for a complex crime because the prescriptive penalty range included a bailable period.

• Amendment Before Plea: The prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General, countered that Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court permits substantial amendments to an Information before arraignment as a matter of right, without leave of court. The submission of the Amended Information with City Prosecutor Lee’s approval before petitioner entered his plea cured any defect.

• Authority of Deputy City Prosecutor: Respondent argued that the first version of the Amended Information signed by Deputy City Prosecutor Velasco was valid pursuant to Office Order No. 44, which delegated the City Prosecutor’s approving authority to the Chief of the Inquest Division. The subsequent signed version only reinforced its validity.

• Non-Bailable Offense: Respondent insisted that the Amended Information charged petitioner under Section 28(b) in relation to Section 28(e) of R.A. No. 10591, which prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death — a capital offense that is non-bailable as a matter of right. The original Information was superseded and no longer controlling.

• Qualifying Circumstance Not Modifying: The prosecution argued that the presence of live ammunition in an unlicensed firearm is a qualifying, not a generic aggravating, circumstance that raises the penalty by one degree; hence, People v. Valdez (which held that aggravating circumstances should not be considered for bail purposes) was inapplicable. Because R.A. No. 10591 is a mala prohibita law, modifying circumstances do not affect the penalty range for bail.

• Rule of Lenity Inapplicable: Respondent contended that the provisions of R.A. No. 10591 regarding penalties are unambiguous, leaving no room for application of the rule of lenity.

• Validity of the Amended Information: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in upholding the validity of the Amended Information that charged petitioner with Section 28(b) in relation to Section 28(e) of R.A. No. 10591, despite the initial absence of the City Prosecutor’s signature and approval.

• Right to Bail as a Matter of Right: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s holding that petitioner was not entitled to bail as a matter of right under the amended charge.

• Validity of the Amended Information: The Amended Information was valid. Under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, an information may be amended in form or in substance without leave of court at any time before the accused enters a plea. Because petitioner had not yet been arraigned, the prosecution was at liberty to amend the charge; no substantive right was impaired. The subsequent submission of a copy bearing the City Prosecutor’s approving signature before arraignment cured the defect. More fundamentally, the Court, citing the en banc ruling in People v. Villa Gomez, declared that the absence of the city prosecutor’s signature and approval is a formal, not a jurisdictional, defect. It does not affect the trial court’s jurisdiction over the nature of the case or the person of the accused. Petitioner could not rely on earlier jurisprudence treating such a defect as jurisdictional because judicial decisions are not independent sources of law and cannot create substantive rights.

• Right to Bail as a Matter of Right: Petitioner was not entitled to bail as a matter of right. The Amended Information validly charged him with violation of Section 28(b) in relation to Section 28(e) of R.A. No. 10591, which prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. This is a capital offense and, under Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, is non-bailable as a matter of right. The ruling in People v. Valdez — where bail was granted because the prescriptive penalty range included reclusion temporal — was inapplicable, as the lowest possible penalty for the amended charge is reclusion perpetua. The suspension of the death penalty under R.A. No. 9346 does not downgrade the classification of the offense for purposes of bail. Consequently, petitioner could only be granted bail upon a satisfactory showing that the evidence of guilt is not strong, a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court. No grave abuse of discretion was shown.

• Amendment of Information Before Plea: Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court allows the prosecution to amend a complaint or information in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters a plea, provided the amendment does not downgrade the offense or exclude an accused. This right is broad and includes the submission of a corrected version bearing the requisite approval.

• Lack of Prosecutor’s Signature as Formal Defect: Under People v. Villa Gomez, the absence of the written approval and signature of the city, provincial, or chief state prosecutor on an information is a formal — not a substantial or jurisdictional — defect. It does not vitiate the information or divest the trial court of jurisdiction over either the nature of the case or the person of the accused.

• Bail in Capital Offenses: Where the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, bail is not a matter of right. The accused may only be granted bail upon a showing that the evidence of guilt is not strong, and the determination of the strength of the evidence lies within the trial court’s sound discretion. The proscription of the death penalty under R.A. No. 9346 does not convert the offense into a bailable one.

• Jurisprudence as Non-Source of Substantive Rights: Judicial decisions cannot be considered independent sources of law and cannot create substantive rights. A party cannot invoke a previous doctrinal rule as a vested right if the rule has been abandoned by a later decision, because a change in jurisprudence is not a change in the law but a reinterpretation thereof.

• “[T]he lack of signature and approval on the part of the chief state, provincial or city prosecutor only amounts to a formal – not substantial – defect, as it does not affect the trial court's jurisdiction of either the nature of the case or the person of the accused.” — The central pronouncement from People v. Villa Gomez, applied here to resolve the validity of the Amended Information.

• “Jurisprudence, in our system of government, cannot be considered as an independent source of law — it cannot create law.” — The Court’s rationale for denying petitioner’s reliance on older rulings that treated the lack of a prosecutor’s approval as a jurisdictional defect.

• People v. Villa Gomez, G.R. No. 216824, November 10, 2020 — The controlling en banc decision that classified the absence of the city prosecutor’s signature as a formal, non-jurisdictional defect. Applied to sustain the Amended Information.

• People v. Valdez, 774 Phil. 723 (2015) — Distinguished. In Valdez, the prescribed penalty range included a bailable period (reclusion temporal), triggering the in dubio pro reo rule; here, the amended charge imposed a single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, making the case inapplicable.

• People v. Bon, 536 Phil. 897 (2006) — Cited by the RTC for the proposition that R.A. No. 9346 affects only the application of the death penalty, not the classification of crimes, a principle reaffirmed in the bail discussion.

• Section 14, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Governs amendment or substitution of information; allows amendment in form or substance without leave of court before plea. Applied to uphold the admission of the Amended Information filed before arraignment.

• Section 28(b) and (e), Republic Act No. 10591 — Penalizes illegal possession of firearms. Paragraph (b) prescribes reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua for three or more small arms; paragraph (e) imposes a penalty one degree higher when the firearm is loaded. Used to determine that the amended charge carried reclusion perpetua to death.

• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. The Court held that this law does not reclassify offenses for purposes of bail.

• Rule 114, Sections 4 and 5, Rules of Court — Governs bail. Capital offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or death are not bailable as a matter of right.

Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando, Rodil V. Zalameda, Ricardo R. Rosario, and Jose Midas P. Marquez concurred.