Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 157472. September 28, 2007.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
339
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169a15e0cdb71d5fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/18
3/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
Same; Same; Same; Section 14, Rule 110 also provides that in
allowing formal amendments in cases in which the accused has
already pleaded, it is necessary that the amendments do not
prejudice the rights of the accused.—Section 14, Rule 110 also
provides that in allowing formal amendments in cases in which
the accused has already pleaded, it is necessary that the
amendments do not prejudice the rights of the accused. The test of
whether the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the
amendment of a complaint or information is whether a defense
under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would
no longer be available after the amendment is made; and when
any evidence the accused might have would be inapplicable to the
complaint or information. Since the facts alleged in the accusatory
portion of the amended Information are identical with those of the
original Information for Homicide, there could not be any effect on
the prosecution’s theory of the case; neither would there be any
possible prejudice to the rights or defense of petitioner.
340
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169a15e0cdb71d5fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/18
3/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
341
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169a15e0cdb71d5fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/18
3/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
342
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169a15e0cdb71d5fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/18
3/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
7 Id., at p. 1.
8 Records, p. 85.
9 Id., at pp. 88-92.
343
10 11
In an Order dated October 25, 2002, the respondent
judge denied the Motion to Quash. He ruled that a claim of
former acquittal or conviction does not constitute double
jeopardy and cannot be sustained unless judgment was
rendered acquitting or convicting the defendant in the
former prosecution; that petitioner was never acquitted or
convicted of Homicide, since the Information for Homicide
was merely corrected/or amended before trial commenced
and did not terminate the same; that the Information for
Homicide was patently insufficient in substance, so no
valid proceedings could be taken thereon; and that with the
allegation of aggravating circumstance of “disregard of
rank,” the crime of Homicide is qualified to Murder.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Inhibit with attached Motion
for Reconsideration. In his Motion to Inhibit, he alleged
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169a15e0cdb71d5fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/18
3/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
344
12
In his Order dated December 18, 2002, the respondent
judge denied the Motion to Inhibit and granted the Motion
for Reconsideration, thus:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169a15e0cdb71d5fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/18
3/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
345
_______________
347
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169a15e0cdb71d5fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/18
3/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
“Considering the fact that the case for Homicide against him was
already terminated without his express consent, he cannot
anymore be charged and arraigned for Murder which involve the
same offense. The petitioner argued that the termination of the
information for Homicide without his express consent is
equivalent to his acquittal. Thus, to charge him again, this time
for Murder,
18
is tantamount to placing the petitioner in Double
Jeopardy.”
_______________
348
xxx
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has
been made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss
the original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one
charging the proper offense in accordance with Rule 119, Section
11, provided the accused would not be placed thereby in double
jeopardy, and may also require the witnesses to give bail for their
appearance at the trial.”
“SEC. 19. When mistake has been made in charging the proper
offense.—When it becomes manifest at any time before judgment
that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense and
the accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or any
other offense necessarily included therein, the accused shall not
be discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. In such
case, the court shall commit the accused to answer for the proper
offense and dismiss the original case upon the filing of the proper
information.”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169a15e0cdb71d5fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/18
3/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
349
_______________
350
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169a15e0cdb71d5fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/18
3/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
21 People v. Navarro, 159 Phil. 863, 869-870; 63 SCRA 264, 270 (1975).
22 Poblete v. Sandoval, G.R. No. 150610, March 25, 2004, 426 SCRA
346, 356 citing People v. Montenegro, No. L-45772, March 25, 1988, 159
SCRA 236, 241.
351
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169a15e0cdb71d5fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/18
3/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
352
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169a15e0cdb71d5fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/18
3/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
24 People v. Cawaling, 355 Phil. 1, 24; 293 SCRA 267, 292 (1998) citing
Guerrero v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 496, 506; 257 SCRA 703, 712
(1996) and People v. Leviste, 325 Phil. 525, 537; 255 SCRA 238, 249 (1996).
25 People v. Cawaling, supra note 22, at p. 24; p. 292.
353
The court may require the witnesses to give bail for their
appearance at the trial.”
“SEC. 19. When mistake has been made in charging the proper
offense.—When it becomes manifest at any time before judgment
that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense and
the accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or any
other offense necessarily included therein, the accused shall not
be discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. In such
case, the court shall commit the accused to answer for the proper
offense
_______________
26 Bulaong v. People, 124 Phil. 141, 144; 17 SCRA 746, 749 (1966).
27 People v. Molero, 228 Phil. 375, 384; 144 SCRA 397, 404 (1986).
354
and dismiss the original case upon the filing of the proper
information.”
_______________
355
Petition dismissed.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169a15e0cdb71d5fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/18
3/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
——o0o——
_______________
29 Tan, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 354 Phil. 463, 472; 292 SCRA 452, 460
(1998).
356
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169a15e0cdb71d5fc3f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/18