Jose Pacoy Vs Judge Afable Cajigal - Digest

SECTION 14, RULE 110
Section 14. Amendment or substitution. — 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.
However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or excludes any
accused from the complaint or information, can be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the
offended party and with leave of court. The court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its
order shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended party. (n)
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 section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall not be placed in double jeopardy. The court may
require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the trial. (14a)
SSGT. JOSE PACOY VS JUDGE AFABLE CAJIGAL, 157472, 09/28/2007

 Correcting the info of homicide to murder
Doctrine:
FORMAL AMENDMENT OF INFORMATION: the change of the offense charged from Homicide to
Murder is merely a formal amendment and not a substantial amendment or a substitution.
Here, there was no change in the recital of facts constituting the offense charged or in the determination of the
jurisdiction of the court.
SECTION 14 ----- 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.
TEST OF WHETHER RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED ARE PREJUDICED BY THE

AMENDMENT OF A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION --------- 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 evidenced the accused might have would be inapplicable to the complaint or information.
FACTS:
Main: petition for certiorari under Rule 65, wants to annul and set side aside the order of Presiding Judge Cajigal of RTC.
 info of homicide was filed in RTC against Pacoy

 Upon Arraignment ---- pleaded not guilty… respondent judge set pre-trial conference in October 2002.
 on the same day of the arraignment--- respondent judge issued an order directing trial prosecutor to correct and
amend the info homicide to murder because of AC of disregard of rand alleged in the info.
 Prosecutor ------ entered his amendment by crossing out the word “homicide” and instead wrote “murder” in the
caption and in opening paragraph of the information. --------- accusatory portion remain the same.
 Petitioner was to be re-arraigned for crime of murder.
 Petitioner --- objected because it would be placed in double jeopardy as homicide case has been terminated without
his express consent, resulting in dismissal of the case.
 Petitioner ------- refused to enter plea on the amended info ----- public respondent enter for him a plea of not guilty.
------- filed motion to quash with motion to suspend proceedings pending the resolution of the instant motion --
-- ground --- double jeopardy.
 Denied by RTC.. ----- petitioner was never acquitted or convicted of homicide since the information for homicide was
merely corrected before trial commenced and did not terminate the same
----- information for homicide was patently insufficient in substance ---- no valid proceedings could be taken
 Petitioner filed motion for reconsideration ------- disregard of rank qualifies the killing of murder, a generic AC which
only serve to affect the imposition of the period of the penalty…..
----- argued amendment was substantial, that under Rule 110, Section 14 ------ this cannot be done, since he
was already arraigned and he would be placed in double jeopardy.
 This was denied by RTC.
ISSUE:
1. WON the ordering of amendment of the information from homicide to murder
RULING:
The petitioner was not meritorious. Under Rules 110, Section 14 ----- after the pleas 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. It 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.
Here, the change of the offense charged from Homicide to Murder is merely formal amendment and not a substantial
amendment or a substitution. There was no change in the recital of facts constituting the offense changed or in the
determination of the jurisdiction of the court. Thus , the amendment made in the caption and preamble from Homicide
to murder as purely formal.

Jose Pacoy Vs Judge Afable Cajigal - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jose Pacoy Vs Judge Afable Cajigal - Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jose Pacoy Vs Judge Afable Cajigal - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECTION 14, RULE 110

Section 14. Amendment or substitution. — A complaint or information may be amended, in form

SSGT. JOSE PACOY VS JUDGE AFABLE CAJIGAL, 157472, 09/28/2007

TEST OF WHETHER RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED ARE PREJUDICED BY THE

 info of homicide was filed in RTC against Pacoy

1. WON the ordering of amendment of the information from homicide to murder

You might also like