Matalam v. The 2nd Division of the Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 165751, April 12, 2005

Crim Pro - Rule 110

Facts:

On November 15, 2004, Datu Guimid Matalam, the Vice-Governor of Cotabato City and the Regional Secretary of DAR, and other low-ranking public officials were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Allegedly, Matalam illegally and unjustifiably refused to pay the monetary claims of several employees of the DAR. Later, the Information was amended charging him of illegally dismissing from the service the complaining employees. He then insisted that he is entitled to a new preliminary investigation.

Issue: Whether or not Matalam is entitled to a preliminary investigation since he was not informed that he is being charged for the alleged dismissal of the complaining witnesses.

Held: Yes. According to the SC, if the petitioner is not to be given a new PI for the amended charge, his right will definitely be prejudiced because he will be denied his right to present evidence to show or rebut evidence regarding the element of evident bad faith and manifest partiality on the alleged dismissal. He will be denied due process. Although the charge remained the same, which is violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019 as amended, the prohibited act allegedly committed changed, that is, failure to pay monetary claims to illegal dismissal, and he was not given the opportunity to submit his evidence on the absence or presence of evident bad faith and manifest partiality as to the illegal dismissal. Accused has not waived his right to a new PI and in fact asked for one.