FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242141. December 3, 2018.]
HECTOR OABEL, JOSEFINA PEREZ, GILBERT OABEL, NELSON COLADILLA AND ROLANDO OLIVAR, petitioners, vs.SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 3, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242141 — Hector Oabel, Josefina Perez, Gilbert Oabel, Nelson Coladilla and Rolando Olivar, Petitioners, vs. Sandiganbayan and the Office of the Ombudsman, Respondents.
After carefully reviewing the allegations, issues, and arguments in the instant Petition for Certiorari, the Court resolves to DISMISS the same for failure of the petitioners to show that the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing its July 30, 2018 Resolution and August 20, 2018 Order in SB-18-CRM-0006. On the contrary, they are in accord with the facts and the applicable laws and jurisprudence.
Under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, a complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused. ATICcS
In this case, the Court does not find any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan when it allowed the amendment of the Information against the petitioners and included the allegation of conspiracy since the same was made before the petitioners entered their plea. When a motion to quash an Information is based on a defect that can be cured by amendment, the courts must provide the prosecution with the opportunity to amend the information.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant Petition for Certiorari. ETHIDa
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court