View full case

CLAUDIO J. TEEHANKEE v. JOB B. MADAYAG

FACTS:

In this special civil action, petitioner seeks to nullify the order of the respondent judge admitting the amended information for murder in Criminal Case No. 91-4606. Petitioner was originally charged with the crime of frustrated murder. However, before filing a motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence, the victim died. The prosecution then filed an omnibus motion for leave to file an amended information, which was granted by the trial court.

Petitioner refused to be arraigned on the amended information, and as a result, the judge ordered a plea of not guilty to be entered for petitioner. Due to the refusal of petitioner's counsel to participate in the proceedings, the trial court appointed a counsel de oficio to represent petitioner.

Petitioner raises issues regarding the validity of the amended information, the appointment of a counsel de oficio, and the scheduling of the trial. However, the court dispensed with the comment of the Solicitor General, finding no merit in the petition. The court stated that the trial court's orders were in accordance with the rules on amendment of the information.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the amended information charging the offense of murder is a substantial amendment or merely a formal amendment.

  2. Whether the amendment should be allowed after the accused has already entered a plea.

  3. Whether the amended information for murder is an amendment as to form or as to substance.

  4. Whether a preliminary investigation is necessary for the filing of the amended information.

  5. Whether the appointment of a counsel de oficio for the petitioner was irregular.

  6. Whether the scheduling of cases should be left to the discretion of the trial court.

RULING:

  1. The amended information charging the offense of murder is a substantial amendment. It changes the stage of execution of the offense from frustrated murder to consummated murder.

  2. The amendment should be allowed even after the accused has entered a plea. Section 14 of Rule 110 provides that amendments, whether of form or substance, may be made at any time before the accused enters a plea, and thereafter as to all matters of form with leave of court.

  3. The amended information for murder is an amendment as to form, as it does not change the nature of the offense originally charged and the defense that the accused may raise.

  4. A preliminary investigation is not necessary for the filing of the amended information since it is only a formal amendment and the crime originally charged is related to the amended charge.

  5. The appointment of a counsel de oficio for the petitioner was not irregular, considering that the counsel of record refused to participate in the proceedings and it caused delay in the disposition of the case.

  6. The scheduling of cases should be left to the sound discretion of the trial court as long as the substantial rights of the accused are not prejudiced.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Amendments of the information or complaint may be made before or after the defendant pleads.

  • Amendment may involve either formal or substantial changes, while substitution necessarily involves a substantial change from the original charge.

  • Amendment before plea has been entered can be effected without leave of court, but substitution of information must be with leave of court as the original information has to be dismissed.

  • An amended information refers to the same offense charged in the original information or to an offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the original charge.

  • Substitution of information presupposes that the new information involves a different offense which does not include or is not necessarily included in the original charge.

  • An offense may be said to necessarily include another when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the information, constitute the latter.

  • There is identity between two offenses when the evidence to support a conviction for one offense would be sufficient to warrant a conviction for the other, or when the second offense is exactly the same as the first, or when the second offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of, or when it necessarily includes or is necessarily included in, the offense charged in the first information.

Note: The given text seems to be an excerpt from a longer case. The missing part may contain additional issues, rulings, and principles.

  • Amendments to an information are allowed after arraignment and during trial, but only as to matters of form and provided that no prejudice is caused to the rights of the accused.

  • The test of whether an amendment is only of form is whether a defense under the original information would be equally available after the amendment is made and whether any evidence the accused might have would be equally applicable to both forms.

  • A preliminary investigation is not necessary for a formal amendment if the original and amended charges are related.

  • The appointment of a counsel de oficio may be made if the counsel of record refuses to participate in the proceedings and causes delay.

  • The trial court has discretion in scheduling cases as long as the substantial rights of the accused are not prejudiced.