DOCTRINAL DIGEST

Ramiscal Jr vs Sandiganbayan, Gr No. 169727-28, August 18, 2006

General Ramiscal Jr. (Ret.) former Armed Forces of the Philippines-Philippine Retirement
Separation and Benefit System President (AFP-PSBS) President, a government entity, being a
GOCCs while in the performance of official functions and commiting the offense in relation to
thier office, who had signed the unregisted bilateral deeds of sale covering the acquisition of
several parcel of land charged before the Ombudsman for Estafa through falsification of public
documents and violation of Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019. The deeds were used purposely to the facilitate
the payment of ammounts in excess of that paid to the landowners. The motivation was
obviously to evade payment of the correct taxes to the government and save money for the
sellers, brokers and who knowns probably even for the kickbacks going for the certain officials of
PSBS, the buyer.

Topic: ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA

Box 1 (Scene: AFB-PSBS Office, Cast: Seller-Landowners,Legal team of AFP-PSBS, Gen. Ramiscal)

Seller-Landowners: Attys/Sir, benta po namin lupa sa inyo sa murang halaga

Legal team of AFP-PSBS: ok yan. Sige bilhin namin pero ilalagay ntin sa deed of absolute sale na
nabili namin sa inyo ng triple ang presyo keysa sa actual price.

Seller-Landowners: E di wow! Approved.

Gen. Ramiscal: Ayos yan. pirmahan kona ang Deed of Sale. Kikita tayo ng malaki dito at tubong
lugaw pag nabenta ito.

Box 2 (Scene: Coutroom, Cast: Panel of Prosecutors from Ombudsman, Sandiganbayan,Gen. Ramiscal)

Panel of Prosecutors from Ombudsman: Your honor, we will charged Gen. Ramiscal for violation of Sec 3
(e) of RA 3019 and Estafa through falsification.

Sandiganbayan: Granted

Gen. Ramiscal: oh no! Bawal yan. That is tantamount to double jeopardy because the facts alleged in the
former is the same facts alleged in the latter. Besides, unresoved pa yung 2 motion for reconsideration ko
on nthe basis of finding probable cause before the Sandiganbayan.
Box 3 (Scene: Coutroom, Cast: Sandiganbayan,Gen. Ramiscal)

Sandiganbayan: (Arraignment) Gen Ramiscal, Ikaw ay nahaharap sa kasong Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019 at
Estafa through falsification. Inaamin mo ba ang lahat ng mga ito?

Gen. Ramiscal: Walang kibo. He refuse to enter a plea

Sandiganbayan: with that, a plea of not guilty will be entered to you Gen. Ramiscal.

DOCTRINE:

Arraignment- Section 7, Rule 11 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that only one motion
for reconsideration or reinvestigation shall be allowed. The filing of motion for reconsideration or
reinvestigation shall not bar the filing of corresponding information in court on the basis of finding
probable cause in the resolution subject to motion.

The arraignment may be suspended under sec 11, rule 16,ROC on: unsoundness of mind, prejudicial
question, and pending petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor of Doj which shall not exceed
60 days. Ramiscal failed to show any instances.

Plea- Under Section 1, Rule 11 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, When the accused refuses to
plead or makes a conditional plea, a plea of not guilty shall be entered to him.
DOCTRINAL DIGEST

Ramon Albert vs. Sandiganbayan, Gr No. 164015, February 26, 2009

Albert, public officer, President of National Home Mortgage and Finance Corporation (NHMFC),
salary grade 27, was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019.,
while in his performance of of his official function, commiting an offense in relation to his office,
conspiring and confederating with accused Favio Sayson, President of the Buhangin Residents
and Employees Association for Development Inc., in acting with evident badfaith and manifest
partially and or gross neglect of duty, and cause injury to the government and public interest and
make it apear in tax declarations that two parcel of lands are residential lands when in thruth
and in fact he knew that this are agricultural lands and by reason of accused misreppresentation,
the NHMFC released the amount higher that the loanable amount the land would could
command being agricultural lands, thus causing injury the government.

Topic: ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA

Box 1 (Scene: Courtroom, Cast: panel of the prosecutors from Ombudsman,Sandiganbayan, Albert)

Panel of Prosecutors from Ombudsman: Your honor, we will charged Albert for violation of Sec 3 (e) of
RA 3019.

Sandiganbayan: Granted. Dahil jan, Mr albert, This court issued a hold Departure Order against Mr Albert

During Arraignment: Sandiganbayan: Mr Albert, Ikaw ay nahaharap sa kasong Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019
Inaamin mo ba ito?

Albert: Hindi po your honor. Kulang ang mga mga evidensiya at out of jurisdiction ang sandiganbayan.

Sandiganbayan: Pansamantala ikaw muna ay “provisionally arraigned”

Box 2 (Scene: Courtroom, Cast: Special Prosecting Officer SPO,Sandiganbayan, Albert)

After1 year... Sandiganbayan denied the petitioners motion to dismiss on the ground of out of jurisdiction
and ordered the prosecution to to conduct reinvestigation

SPO: teka lng your honor, kelangn i-ammend ang information from “gross neglect of duty to gross
inexcusable negligence. Nagkamali kami ng words na ginamit.

Albert: Hidi pwede yan. Ammendment on the information is substantial and therefore not allowed after
arraignment.

Sandiganbayan: Pwede yan. Provisionally arraigned ka pa lng... and the prosecution could still effect the
same in the event that the accused had not yet undergone a permanent arraignment either in form or
substance.

DOCTRINE:

Section 14, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure does not distinguish a plea made during a
provisional or a permanent arraignment.

In this case, the ammendments entails the deletion of the phrase “ gross neglect of duty “ from the
information. Although this way may be substantial ammendment, the same is allowable even after
arraignment and plea being benificial to to the accused. As a replacement, “gross inexcusable negligence”
would be included in the information as a modality in the commission of an offense. The court believes
that the same constitutes an ammendment only in form.

The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the ammendment of the complaint or
information is when a defense under the complaint or information, as it is originally stood , wuold no
longer be available after the ammendment is made , and when any evidence that the accused might have,
would be innapplicable to the complaint or information as ammended.