Pacoy v Cajigal

２ Date: September 28, 2007 GR No. 157472 Austria-Martine

z
Vince
Petitioners Respondents:
Hon.Afable Cajigal,
Staff Sergeant Jose Pacoy
People of the Philippines
Olympio Escueta
Doctrine:
In determining, therefore, whether there should be an amendment under the first paragraph
of Section 14, Rule 110, or a substitution of information under the second paragraph thereof,
the rule is that where the second information involves the same offense, or an offense which
necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first information, and amendment of the
information is sufficient; otherwise, where the new information charges an offense which is
distinct and different from that initially charges, a substitution is in order.
Facts:
1. An Information for Homicide was filed in the RTC against petitioner which says (break
down)

Date of Commision On or about March 18, 2009

Place of Commission Municipality of Mayantoc, Tarlac, PH and within the

jurisdiction of this honorable court

Designation of Offense Homicide

Acts Complained of Accused, with intent to kill, shot his commanding

officer with an armalite. This lead to Esquita’s death

Identity of Offended Party 2nd Lieutenant Frederick Esquita 1

Attendant Circumstances In disregard of rank

2. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty

3. On the same day however, respondent judge ordered the proesecutor to correct and
amend the Information to Murder because of the aggravating circumstance of
“disregard of rank”
4. The prosecutor amended the Information by crossing out “homicide” and instead
wrote “Murder” in the caption. The accusatory portion remained exactly the same
5. Counsel for petitioner objected to re-arraignment invoking the right against double
jeopardy because the homicide case had been terminated without his express
consent, resulting in the case’s dismissal

1
Actually Escueta, the original Info had a typo
Other Procedural Stuff
1. Oct 28, 2002. Motion to Quash by petitioner on the ground of double jepardy. He
alleged that in the Information of Homicide, he was validly indicted and arraigned.
2. The judge denied such motion
3. Motion for Reconsideration by Petitioner, reiterating the same arguments.
4. It was granted because the judge realized that “disregard of rank” is only a generic
aggravating circumstance under Art 14 of RPC
5. April 30, 2003. Petition for Certiorari before the SC alleging grave abuse of discretion
on the part of respondent judge when he ordered the amendment of the Information.

Arguments of Petitioner
1. Disregard of rank is merely a generic aggravating circumstance
2. even assuming it qualifies homicide to murder, such a substantial amendment is not
allowed after petitioner has entered his plea
3. the Homicide case was already terminated without his express consent, hence he
cannot anymore be charged and arraigned for Murder
Issue/s: Ruling:
1. W/N judge committed GAOD in amending the Information after 1. NO
petitioner had already pleaded not guilty to Homicide

Ratio:

Applicable Rules and Discussion

Rule 110, Sec 14.

Amendment - A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance, without

leave of court, at anytime 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.

Substitution - If it appears at anytime before judgement that a mistake has been made in
charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information
upon filing of a new one charging the proper offense in accordance with rule 119, Sec 11,
provided the accused would not be placed thereby in double jeopardy, and may also require
the witness to give bail for their appearance at the trial.
Distinction between the two

Amendment Substitution

Formal or substantial changes Substantial change of original charge

Before plea, can be effected without leave Must be with leave of court as original
of court2 information has to be dismissed

Amendment to form, no need for Another preliminary investigation is needed

preliminary investigation and retaking of and accused has to plead anew
plea

Refers to either presupposes that the new information

- same offense charged in the original involves a different offense, hence the
info accused cannot invoke Double Jeopardy
- offense necessarily includes or is
included in the original charge

Substantial amendments after plea cannot

be made over objection of accused

As applied to this case

● The change from Homicide to Murder is merely a formal amendment and not a
substantial amendment
● There was no change in the facts constituting the offense. The acts complained of are
exactly the same (killing escueta)

Further Requirement
● The rules of court also require that such amendments do not prejudice the rights of
accused
● The test for this is “whether a defense under the complaint or information would no
longer be available after the amendment is made”
● The facts alleged in the accusatory portion are identical as those of the original
information for homicide, hence the defenses petitioner can set up in homicide are
the same as that in murder.

2
Leave of Court = permission from court to do something.