CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 – 2014) ATTY.

TRANQUIL SALVADOR

G.R. No. 157472 September 28, 2007 The Court Ruled that petitioner confused amendment with substitution
(referred to in the last paragraph of Sec. 14, Rule 110). In the present
case, there was no dismissal of the case for the filing of the proper
PACOY v. HON. CAJIGAL
complaint (substitution of complaint) and the change of the offense
charged from Homicide to Murder is merely a formal amendment and
Plaintiffs: JOSE M. PACOY
not a substantial amendment or a substitution. Furthermore, the
amendment did not prejudice his rights and is therefore valid.
Defendant: HON. AFABLE E. CAJIGAL, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and
OLYMPIO L. ESCUETA
DOCTRINE/APPLICATION: A mere change in the designation of the
crime without changing the accusative portion of the complaint is a
Ponente: Austria-Martinez, J.
mere formal amendment to the complaint.
CASE: An information for homicide was filed in the RTC against
BACKGROUND:
petitioner alleging that accused shot and killed his commanding officer
On July 4, 2002, an information for homicide was filed in the RTC against
2Lt. Frederick Esquita, with the aggravating circumstance of killing
petitioner alleging that on 18 March 2002, in the Municipality of
Esquita in disregard of his rank. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the
Mayantoc, Tarlac, accused shot and killed his commanding officer 2Lt.
charge of homicide. On the same day, the respondent judge issued
Frederick Esquita, with the aggravating circumstance of killing Esquita in
another order, directing the trial prosecutor to correct and amend the
disregard of his rank.
information to Murder in view of the aggravating circumstance of
disregard of rank. Acting upon such Order, the prosecutor entered his
On 12 September 2002, upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty
amendment by crossing out the word “Homicide” and instead wrote the
to the charge of homicide. On the same day, the respondent judge
word “Murder” in the caption and in the opening paragraph of the
issued another order, directing the trial prosecutor to correct and
Information. The accusatory portion remained exactly the same as that
amend the information to Murder in view of the aggravating
of the original Information for Homicide.
circumstance of disregard of rank. Acting upon such Order, the
prosecutor entered his amendment by crossing out the word
Petitioner was to be rearraigned for the crime of Murder. Counsel for
“Homicide” and instead wrote the word “Murder” in the caption and in
petitioner objected on the ground that the latter would be placed in
the opening paragraph of the Information. The accusatory portion
double jeopardy, considering that his Homicide case had been
remained exactly the same as that of the original Information for
terminated without his express consent, resulting in the dismissal of the
Homicide.
case. Petitioner filed for certiorari. He argued that the amendment
and/or correction ordered by the respondent judge was substantial; and
On 8 October 2002, petitioner was to be rearraigned for the crime of
under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
Murder. Counsel for petitioner objected on the ground that the latter
this cannot be done, since petitioner had already been arraigned and he
would be placed in double jeopardy, considering that his Homicide case
would be placed in double jeopardy (refer to last paragraph of Sec. 14,
had been terminated without his express consent, resulting in the
Rule 110).
dismissal of the case.

Castelo Gana Gutierrez Lao Lopez Miclat Mercado Sales Salagubang Tan Tecson Valdez Varela Villanueva
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 – 2014)
On 28 October 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash on the ground
of double jeopardy. He alleged that in the Information for Homicide, he
was validly indicted and arraigned before a competent court, and the
case was terminated without his express consent; that when the case
for Homicide was terminated without his express consent, the
subsequent filing of the Information for Murder in lieu of Homicide
placed him in double jeopardy.
The respondent judge denied the Motion to Quash. Subsequently,
petitioner filed a Motion to Inhibit with attached Motion for
Reconsideration. In his MR, petitioner reiterated that the case against
him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent, which constitutes a ground to quash the information for
murder; and that to try him again for the same offense constitutes
double jeopardy.
Petitioner also stated that contrary to respondent judge's conclusion
that disregard of rank qualifies the killing to Murder, it is a generic
aggravating circumstance which only serves to affect the imposition of
the period of the penalty.
Lastly, petitioner argued that the amendment and/or correction
ordered by the respondent judge was substantial; and under Section
14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, this cannot be
done, since petitioner had already been arraigned and he would be
placed in double jeopardy (refer to last paragraph of Sec. 14, Rule
110).
In his Order dated December 18, 2002, the respondent judge denied the
Motion to Inhibit and granted the Motion for Reconsideration, finding
that under Article 248 of the RPC, “disregard of rank” is merely a generic
aggravating circumstance and should not elevate the crime of homicide
to murder.
Castelo Gana Gutierrez Lao Lopez Miclat Mercado Sales Salagubang Tan Tecson Valdez Varela Villanueva
ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR
For not dismissing the case against him, petitioner filed a petition for
certiorari.
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED:
Issue 1: Whether or not respondent committed grave abuse of
discretion in amending the information after petitioner had pleaded
guilty to the charge of homicide, albeit allegedly constituting double
jeopardy (proscribed in last par. Of Sec. 14, Rule 110).
Issue 2: Whether or not there was double jeopardy.
RESOLUTIONS AND ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1  Whether or not respondent committed grave abuse of
discretion in amending the information after petitioner had pleaded
guilty to the charge of homicide, albeit allegedly constituting double
jeopardy (proscribed in last par. Of Sec. 14, Rule 110).  NO.
Major Point 1: The argument of petitioner that “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, without violating the
prohibition against double jeopardy” is not plausible. Petitioner
confused amendment with substitution (referred to in the last
paragraph of Sec. 14, Rule 110).
In the present case, the change of the offense charged from Homicide
to Murder is merely a formal amendment and not a substantial
amendment or a substitution.
While the amended Information was for Murder, a reading of the
Information shows that the only change made was in the caption of the
case; and in the opening paragraph or preamble of the Information,
with the crossing out of word “Homicide” and its replacement by the
word “Murder.” There was no change in the recital of facts constituting
the offense charged or in the determination of the jurisdiction of the
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS (2013 – 2014) ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR

court. Thus, the amendment made in the caption and preamble is

purely formal.

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. 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.

Issue 2  Whether or not there was double jeopardy.  NO.

There was no termination of the case; the Order of Respondent Judge

was merely to amend the information.

It was the same original that was amended by merely crossing out the
word “Homicide” and writing the word “Murder,” instead; this showed
that there was no dismissal of the homicide case.

Castelo Gana Gutierrez Lao Lopez Miclat Mercado Sales Salagubang Tan Tecson Valdez Varela Villanueva