Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > October 1981 Decisions > G.R. No. L-55357 October 30, 1981 - ROLANDO DIONALDO v. AUXENCIO DACUYCUY:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-55357. October 30, 1981.]

ROLANDO DIONALDO, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE AUXENCIO DACUYCUY, Judge, Court of First Instance, Branch IV, Province of Leyte, Respondent.

Andres S. Santos for Petitioner.

Hon. Auxencio Dacuycuy in his own behalf.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioner was charged before the court a quo with homicide. After pleading not guilty to the crime, the prosecution filed a motion for leave to amend the information, attaching thereto an amended one charging the accused with murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation. Counsel for the accused opposed said motion invoking the first paragraph of Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court which provides that by leave and at the discretion of the court, only amendments as to matters of form may be allowed after the defendant has pleaded. The respondent judge granted the motion relying on the second paragraph of the same rule which provides that before judgment and in case where a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the court may dismiss the original complaint or information and order the filing of the proper offense provided the defendant would not be placed in double jeopardy.

The Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered the setting aside of the amended information ruling that an amendment changing the crime charged from homicide to murder is not only a matter of form but one of substance; that said amendment cannot be justified as the provision relied upon by respondent Judge speaks not of amendment but of dismissal of the information; and that the existing information for homicide cannot be dismissed to as another charge could be filed instead for to do so would put the accused in double jeopardy.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; INFORMATION, AMENDMENT; A CHANGE OF THE CHARGE FROM HOMICIDE TO MURDER AFTER PLEA OF NOT GUILTY SUBSTANTIAL IN NATURE; NOT ALLOWED UNDER FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 13, RULE 110 OF THE RULES OF COURT. — To amend the information so as to change the crime charged from homicide to the more serious offense of murder after the petitioner had pleaded not guilty to the former is indubitably prescribed by the first paragraph of Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court which allows only amendments as to matters of form after the defendant has pleaded. For certainly a change from homicide to murder is not a matter of form; it is one of substance with very serious consequences.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED UNDER SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SEC. 13, RULE 110 OF THE RULES OF COURT. — The second paragraph of Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court which allows the court to dismiss an information and order the filing of a new one charging the proper offense where a mistake has been committed contemplates the filing of a substitute, not an amended information. For the petitioner having pleaded not guilty to homicide, to dismiss the charge against him so as to file another charge for murder will place him thereby in double jeopardy.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


In this petition We are asked to rule whether an information for the crime of homicide can be amended so as to charge the crime of murder after the accused had entered a plea of not guilty.

Petitioner Rolando Dionaldo stands charged with the crime of homicide in Criminal Case No. 3835 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch IV, presided by the respondent judge. After the accused had entered a plea of not guilty, the prosecution filed a motion for leave to amend the information, attaching thereto an amended information charging the accused with murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation — a more serious offense. No explanation was given in the motion for alleging evident premeditation but as to the allegation of treachery it was explained that, "the affidavit of the complaining witness indicates that the attack was sudden and it was only after they sustained the wounds consequent to the treacherous attack that they were forced to fight back to repel further aggression." It can thus be seen that all along this claimed circumstance was known to the prosecution but it was not alleged.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Counsel for the accused opposed the motion to amend the information but the respondent judge granted the motion; hence the petition to nullify the action of the Respondent.

The petition is impressed with merit.

It is admitted that the provision which is relevant to the problem is Rule 110, Sec. 13 of the Rules of Court which stipulates:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 13. Amendment. — The information or complain may be amended, in substance or form, without leave of court, at any time before the defendant pleads; and thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of form, by leave and at the discretion of the court, when the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the defendant.

"If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the court may dismiss the original complaint or information and order the filing of a new one charging the proper offense, provided the defendant would not be placed thereby in double jeopardy, and may also require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the trial."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioner invokes the first paragraph, whereas the respondent relies on the second.

To amend the information so as to change the crime charged from homicide to the more serious offense of murder after the petitioner had pleaded not guilty to the former is indubitably proscribed by the first paragraph of the above-quoted provision. For certainly a change from homicide to murder is not a matter of form; it is one of substance with very serious consequences.

But can the amendment be justified under the second paragraph? The answer is, No. For the provision speaks not of amendment but of dismissal of the information. In other words the provision contemplates the filing of a substitute, not an amended information. But, it may be asked, can not the information for homicide against the petitioner be dismissed since no judgment has yet been rendered and another information for murder be filed? The answer, again, is, No. For the petitioner having pleaded not guilty to homicide, to dismiss the charge against him so as to file another charge for murder will place him thereby in double jeopardy.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

We have not overlooked the fact that People of the Philippines, thru the Solicitor General, should have been made a party to this case. But the participation of the People while necessary is not indispensable under the circumstances. Besides an early resolution of this case is necessary to provide affirmative justice to the petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and the order of the respondent admitting the amended information is hereby set aside. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, Concepcion, Jr. and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


AQUINO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur in the result. Respondent judge relied on Dimalibot v. Salcedo, 107 Phil. 843, where the amendment of the charge from homicide to murder, after the accused had pleaded guilty, was allowed.

The Dimalibot case is different from the instant case. The plea in the Dimalibot case was made during the preliminary investigation to a complaint for homicide filed in the justice of the peace court. That is not the plea contemplated in Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. The plea in the instant case was made to an information filed in the Court of First Instance.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1981 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-47579 October 9, 1981 - EDUARDO JALANDONI v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. Nos. L-50674-75 October 9, 1981 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-55213 October 9, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-52306 October 12, 1981 - ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-2095 October 23, 1981 - ELISEO M. TENZA v. RODOLFO M. ESPINELLI

  • G.R. No. L-25003 October 23, 1981 - LIWAYWAY PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. PERMANENT CONCRETE WORKERS UNION

  • G.R. No. L-27177 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMUALDO CAPILLAS

  • G.R. No. L-31641 October 23, 1981 - MAYOR EULOGIO E. BORRES v. MATEO CANONOY

  • G.R. No. L-32557 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO C. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-32886 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AVELINO S. PISALVO

  • G.R. Nos. L-36436-38 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURO VERGES

  • G.R. No. L-37604 October 23, 1981 - EASTERN AND AUSTRALIAN STEAMSHIP CO., LTD v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

  • G.R. No. L-37908 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN K. ONG

  • G.R. No. L-38180 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR CRISOSTOMO

  • G.R. No. L-38287 October 23, 1981 - ANTONIO MACADANGDANG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-38625 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ROSALES

  • G.R. No. L-41704 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO TAPAO

  • G.R. No. L-42149 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EWALDO CABATLAO

  • G.R. No. L-49149 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO TAYLARAN

  • G.R. No. L-50874 October 23, 1981 - JOSE VALENZUELA, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR CARMELO NORIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51565 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO U. GALLANO

  • G.R. No. L-53790 October 23, 1981 - ONE HEART SPORTING CLUB, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-55694 October 23, 1981 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO v. BENIGNO M. PUNO

  • G.R. No. L-56919 October 23, 1981 - MAXIMO PLENO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-56921 October 23, 1981 - GOTARDO FLORDELIS v. BENJAMIN MARCIAL

  • G.R. No. L-57041 October 23, 1981 - NEGROS DISTRICT CONFERENCE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-58064 October 23, 1981 - EMITERIA L. VILLABER v. BALBINO V. DIEGO

  • A.M. No. 983-MJ October 27, 1981 - FELIPE FERRER v. ADORADO S. LIM

  • G.R. No. L-47533 October 27, 1981 - FORTUNATO AISPORNA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. 1037-CJ October 28, 1981 - MARTIN LANTACO, SR., ET AL. v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS

  • A.M. No. 1092-MJ October 30, 1981 - ROMEO S. GEOCADIN v. REMEGIO M. PEÑA

  • A.M. No. P-1472 October 30, 1981 - MARCIAL O. T. BALGOS v. CONSTANCIO VELASCO

  • A.M. No. 1888-CFI October 30, 1981 - FRANCISCO I. PULIDO v. MAGNO B. PABLO

  • A.M. No. P-2363 October 30, 1981 - NENA TORDESILLAS v. HUMBERTO BASCO

  • A.M. No. P-2403 October 30, 1981 - ALBERTO O. VILLARAZA v. CATALINO Y. ATIENZA

  • G.R. No. L-24881 October 30, 1981 - MELENCIO PAGKATIPUNAN v. ATILANO C. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-32477 October 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO APOSAGA

  • G.R. No. L-34666 October 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ITONG AMISTAD

  • G.R. No. L-35915 October 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO A. PIZARRAS

  • G.R. No. L-41088 October 30, 1981 - ARTEMIO B. PACANA v. DAVID M. CONSUNJI

  • G.R. No. L-44928 October 30, 1981 - JOSE M. ALEJANDRINO v. FRANCISCO S. TANTUICO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-45487 October 30, 1981 - ANTONIO A. NEPOMUCENO v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE

  • G.R. No. L-46410 October 30, 1981 - ERNESTO BALBIN v. PEDRO C. MEDALLA

  • G.R. No. L-47200 October 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS CLARIN

  • G.R. No. L-47859 October 30, 1981 - SAN MAURICIO MINING COMPANY v. CONSTANTE A. ANCHETA

  • G.R. No. L-48744 October 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CENTENO

  • G.R. No. L-50563 October 30, 1981 - GABRIEL ABAD, ET AL. v. PHILAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-53525 October 30, 1981 - BIENVENIDO SASI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-53766 October 30, 1981 - MARIA C. RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-55357 October 30, 1981 - ROLANDO DIONALDO v. AUXENCIO DACUYCUY

  • G.R. No. L-57250 October 30, 1981 - NEVILLE Y. LAMIS ENTS. v. ALFREDO J. LAGAMON

  • G.R. No. L-58184 October 30, 1981 - FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT