ANTIPORDA, JR. V. GARCHITORENA, G.R. No.

133289, December 23, 1999

Petitioners were charged for the kidnapping of Elmer Ramos. The Information was filed
with the Sandiganbayan. Due to inadequacies of the allegations in the Information relating to the
jurisdiction of the SB over the offense, the SB ordered the amendment of the Information. The
prosecution complied with the order and filed an Amended Information.

Petitioners then filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion, praying for the reinvestigation of the
case and for the suspension of the issuance of the warrants of arrest. The Urgent Omnibus
Motion was denied by the Ombudsman.

Thereafter, petitioners moved for a new preliminary investigation and to hold in abeyance
and/or recall the warrants of arrest issued, but the same was denied by the SB. They then filed
Motion to Quash the Amended Information for Lack of Jurisdiction over the offense charged.

RULING OF THE SB:

The SB refused to act on the Motion to Quash on the ground that the accused have
continually refused to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the court.

Petitioners, on reconsideration, argued that the filing of the Motion to Quash and the
appearance of their counsel during the scheduled hearing thereof amounted to their voluntary
appearance and invested the court with jurisdiction over their persons. The SB, however, denied
the motion.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the SB, which has no jurisdiction over the offense charged in the original
information, subsequently acquire such jurisdiction by the simple expedient of amending the
information to supply, for the first time, jurisdictional facts not previously averred in the original
information?

Corollarily, can the amended information be allowed without conducting anew a

preliminary investigation for the graver offense charged therein?