tee hank evs ma dayag

7/31/2019 Tee Hank Evs Ma Dayag

1/5

EN BAN C

[G.R. No. 103102, M arch 06, 1992]

CLAU DIO J. TEEHAN KEE, JR., PETITIONER, VS. HON . JOB B. M ADA YAG A ND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPOND ENTS.

D E C I S I O N

REGALADO, J.:

In th is special c ivil act ion f or cert iorar i , p roh ib i t ion and m a n d a m u s , pet i t ion er pr incipal ly seeks: (1) to n ul l i fy the o rder[1 ]

o f

respondent judge admi t t ing th e amended in form at ion fo r m urder f i led in Cr imina l Case No. 91-4606; (2 ) to nu l l i f y the

ar ra ignment and t he p lea o f no t gu i l t y en tered by order o f respondent jud ge when pet i t ioner re fused to be ar ra igned on th e

amended in form at ion fo r lack o f p re l im inary invest iga t ion there for ; (3 ) to nu l l i f y the appo in tm ent o f a counse l de of ic io /PAO

lawyer to represent pe t i t ioner ; (4 ) to proh ib i t respondent judge f rom "over -speedy and pre ferent ia l schedu l ing o f the t r ia l o f

the a forem ent ioned cr imina l case; " and (5) to com pel respondent judge to ord er a pre l im inary invest iga t ion o f th e cr ime

charged in the amended in form at ion .

Pet i t ioner w as or iginal ly charged on July 19, 1991 in an inform at ion

[2 ]

fo r the cr ime o f f rus t ra ted m urder a l leged ly com mi t t ed asfo l lows:

"That on or about the 13th day o f Ju ly 1991, in the M unic ipal i t y o f M akat i , M et ro M ani la, Ph i l ipp ines, and wi th in t he ju r isd ic t ion

of th is Honorab le Cour t , th e above-named accused, wh i le armed w i th a handgun, w i th in ten t to k i l l , t reachery and ev ident

premedi ta t ion , d id then and there w i l l fu lly , un law fu l ly , and fe lon ious ly a t tack, assau l t and shoot one M aureen Navar ro Hu l tman

on t he head, thereby in f l i c t ing gunshot w ounds, wh ich ord inar i ly wo u ld have caused the death o f sa id M aureen Navar ro

Hul tm an, thereby per forming a l l the acts o f execut ion wh ich w ou ld have produced the cr ime o f M urder as a consequence, bu t

never the less d id not p roduce i t by reason o f cause or causes independent o f h er w i l l , tha t is , due to t he t im e ly and ab le medica l

ass is tance rendered to said M aureen Navar ro Hu l tm an w hich prevented her d eath . "

A f te r the prosecut ion h ad res ted i ts case, pe t i t ioner was a l low ed to f i le a mot ion fo r leave to f i le a dem ur rer to ev idence.

How ever , before the sa id mot ion cou ld be f i led , Maureen Navar ro Hu l tman d ied .

Consequen t ly, pr ivate prosecutor Rogel io A. Vinluan f i led an omn ibus mot ion[3 ]

fo r leave o f cour t to f i le an amended

in format ion and to adm i t sa id amended in form at ion . The amended in form at ion ,[4 ]

f i led on Octo ber 31, 1991, reads:

"That on or about the 13th day o f Ju ly , 1991, in the M unic ipal i t y o f M akat i , M et ro M ani la, Ph i l ipp ines and w i th in the ju r isd ict ion

o f t h i s Hono r ab le Cou r t , t he sa id Claud io Teehankee, Jr . y Javie r, a r med w i t h a handgun , w i t h i n t en t t o k i ll and ev iden t

premedi ta t ion and by means o f t reachery , d id then and there wi l l fu l ly , un lawfu l ly and fe lon iously a t tack, assau l t and

sh o o t w i t h t h e sa id h an d gu n M a ur e en Na va rr o

H u lt m a n w h o w a s h i t i n t h e h e ad , t h e re b y i n fl ic t in g m o r t a l w o u n d s w h i ch d i re ct l yc au se d t h e d e at h o f sa id M a u re en H u lt m a n ."

Pet i t ioner f i led an op pos i t ion[5 ]

ther eto, as wel l as a rejoinder[6 ]

to the rep ly[7 ]

of the p rosecut ion . On Novem ber 13, 1991, the

t r ia l cour t issued the quest ioned order admi t t ing the amended in form at ion .

A t the schedu led ar raignment on Novemb er 26, 1991, pe t i t ioner re fused to be ar ra igned on the amend ed in form at ion fo r lack

of a p re l im inary invest iga t ion thereon. By reason o f such re fusal , respondent judge ordered t ha t a p lea o f "no t gu i lt y " be

entered fo r pe t i t ioner .

Thereaf te r , respondent judge ordered t he prosecut ion to present i t s ev idence. When pet i t ioner ' s counse l man i fes ted tha t he

w ould not take par t in the pr oceed ings because o f the lega l issue raised, the t r ia l cour t appo in ted a counse l de of ic io to

represent here in pet i t ioner .


2/5

Peti t ioner no w r aises the fo l low ing issues befor e us:

" (a) Whether or no t an am ended in form at ion invo lv ing a substant ia l amendm ent , wi th out p re l im inary invest iga t ion , a f te r the

prosecut ion has rested o n t he or ig ina l in fo rmat ion , m ay legal ly and va l id ly be adm i t ted ;

(b) W hether or n o t a counse l de o f icio may lega lly and va lid ly be appo in ted to represent an accused w ho is represented by

counsel o f cho ice w ho re fuses to par t ic ipa te in the proceed ings because o f a perce ived den ia l o f due pr ocess and a f te r a p lea

for appe l la te remedies wi th in a shor t per iod is den ied by t he t r ia l cour t ; and

(c) Whet her or no t a par t icu lar c r imina l case m ay lega l ly and va lid ly be rushed and pre ferent ia l ly schedu led fo r t r ia l over and a t

the expense and sacr i f ice of o ther , special ly older, cr im inal cases."[8 ]

In our reso lu t ion o f January 14, 1992, we requ i red the So l ic i to r Genera l to f i le a comm ent t o t he bas ic pe t i t ion . I t appear ing

f rom a fu r ther rev iew o f the record tha t the o pera t ive facts and determ inant issues invo lved in th is case are su f f ic ien t ly

presented in the pet i t ion and t he annexes there to , bo t h in regard to the respect ive posi t ions o f pe t i t ioner and respondents , the

Cour t has decided to d ispense wi th the a foresa id comm ent t o obv ia te need less de lay in fa i rness to pet i t ioner .

I . Pet i t ioner avers tha t t he add i t iona l a l legat ion in t he am ended in form at ion , as herein underscored, th a t th e accused " . . . d id

then and t here wi l l fu l ly , un lawfu l ly and fe lon ious ly a t tack, assau l t and shoot w i th the sa id handgun M aureen Navar ro

Hul tm anwho w as h i t in the head, thereby in f l ic t ing mor ta l wo unds wh ich d i rec t ly caused the death o f sa id Maureen Hu l tm an x

x x" const i tu tes a substant ia l amend ment s ince i t invo lves a change in the nature of th e o f fense charged, tha t is, f rom f rus t ra ted

to consumm ated mur der . Pet i t ioner fu r ther submi t s tha t " ( t )here is a need then to estab l ish tha t t he same m or ta l wo unds,

w hich wer e ini t ia l ly f rustrated (sic) by t imely and able med ical assistance, ul t im ately caused the deat h of th e vict im,

because i tcou ld have been caused by a superven ing act o r fac t w h ich is no t im putab le to the o f fend er . "[9 ]

From this, he argues

that t here be ing a substant ia l amendm ent , the same m ay no longer be a l low ed a f te r a r ra ignm ent and dur ing the t r ia l.

Coro l la ry there to , pe t i t ioner t hen postu la tes tha t s ince the am ended in form at ion fo r m urder charges an ent i re ly d i f fe rent

of fen se, involving as i t does a new f act , that is, the fact o f death w hose cause has to b e establ ished, i t is essent ial that ano ther

pre l im inary invest iga t ion on the new charge be conducted before the new in format ion can be admi t t ed .

We f ind no mer i t in the p et i t ion . There are su f f icien t legal and ju r isprudent ia l moor ings fo r the o rders o f the t r ia l cour t .

Sect ion 14, Rule 110 of t he 1985 Rules on Cr iminal Procedure pro vides:

"Sec. 14 . Amendm ent . - The in form at ion or com pla in t may be amended, in substance or fo rm , wi thou t leave o f cour t , a t any

t im e before th e accused p leads; and t hereaf te r and dur ing the t r ia l as to a l l mat t ers o f fo rm, by leave and a t t he d iscre t ion of

the cour t , w hen the same can be done w i thout p re jud ice to the r igh ts o f the accused.

I f i t appears at any t ime before judgment t ha t a m istake has been made in charg ing the proper o f f ense, the cour t sha l l d ismiss

the or ig ina l compla in t o r in form at ion upon the f i l ing o f a new one charg ing the pro per o f fense in accordance wi th Ru le 119,

Sect ion 11, p rov ided th e accused wou ld not be p laced thereby in doub le jeopardy and m ay a lso requ i re t he w i tnesses to g ive

ba i l fo r th e i r appearance a t th e t r ia l . "

The f ir s t paragraph prov ides the ru les fo r amendm ent o f the in form at ion or comp la in t , wh i le the second paragraph re fers to

t he subst i t u t i on o f t he i n f o r ma t i on o r comp la in t .

I t may accord ing ly be posi ted tha t bo t h amendm ent and subst i tu t ion o f th e in format ion m ay be made before or a f te r the

defendant p leads, bu t th ey d i f fe r in t he fo l low ing respects:

1 . Amendm ent m ay invo lve e ither fo rm al o r substant ia l changes, wh i le subst i tu t ion necessar i ly invo lves a substant ia l change

f rom the o r ig ina l charge;


3/5

2. Amendm ent be fore p lea has been entered can be e f fec ted wi thout leave o f cour t , bu t subst i tu t ion o f in fo rm at ion must be

w i th leave o f cour t as the or ig inal in fo rm at ion has to be d ismissed;

3 . Wh ere the amendm ent is on ly as to fo rm , there is no need fo r anoth er pre l im inary invest iga t ion and the re tak ing o f the p lea

of t he accused; in subst i tu t ion o f in fo rmat ion , anot her pre l im inary invest iga t ion is en ta i led and the accused has to p lead anew

to t he new i n f o r ma t ion ; and

4. An amended in form at ion re fers to the same o f fense charged in the or ig inal in fo rmat ion or to an o f fense wh ich necessar i ly

includes or is necessar i ly included in the or iginal charge, hence substant ial amend m ents to th e inform at ion af t er the plea has

been taken cannot be m ade over the ob jec t ion o f t he accused, fo r i f the o r igina l in fo rmat ion w ou ld be w i thdraw n, the accused

cou ld invoke doub le jeopardy. On the o t her hand, subst i tu t ion requ i res or p resupposes tha t the new in format ion invo lves a

dif feren t of f ense which do es not include or is not n ecessar i ly included in t he or iginal charge, hence th e accused cannot claim

doub le jeopardy.

In determ in ing , there fore , wh ether t here shou ld be an amendm ent und er the f i r st paragraph o f Sect ion 14, Ru le 110, o r a

subst i tu t ion o f in fo rm at ion under the secondparagraph thereof , the ru le is tha t w here the second in form at ion invo lves the

same o f fense, or an of fense wh ich necessar i ly includes or is necessar i ly included in the f i r s t in fo rm at ion , an amend ment o f the

in format ion is su f f ic ien t ; o therw ise , where the n ew in fo rmat ion charges an of fense wh ich is d ist inc t and d i f fe rent f rom that

ini t ia l ly charged, a subst i tut ion is in order.

There is ident i ty be tw een the tw o o f fenses w hen the ev idence to suppor t a conv ic t ion fo r one o f fense wo u ld be su f f icien t to

w ar rant a conv ict ion fo r the o ther , o r w hen th e second o f fense is exact ly the same as the f i r s t , o r w hen th e second o f fense is an

at tem pt to comm i t o r a f rus t ra t ion o f , o r w hen i t necessar i ly includes or is necessar i ly inc luded in , t he o f fense charged in t he

f i rst in fo rm at ion . In th is connect ion , an o f fense may be sa id to necessar i ly inc lude anot her w hen some o f t he essent ia l

elemen ts or ingredients of the fo rm er, as this is al leged in the info rm at ion, const i tu te the lat t er . And, vice-versa, an of fense

may be sa id to be necessar i ly included in another w hen the essent ia l ingred ients o f the fo rmer const i tu te o r fo rm a par t o f

those const i tu t ing the la t te r .[10 ]

Going now t o the case a t bar , it i s ev ident t ha t f rus t ra ted m urder is bu t a s tage in the execut ion o f the cr im e o f m urder , hence

the fo rm er is necessar i ly included in t he lat ter . It is indispensable that th e essent ial e lement o f intent to ki l l , as w el l asqual i fy ing

c i rcumstances such as t reachery or ev ident p rem edi ta t ion , be a l leged in bo th an in format ion fo r f rus t ra ted m urder and fo r

mu rder , thereby m eaning and p rov ing tha t t he same m ater ia l al legat ions are essent ia l to t he su f f iciency o f the in format ionsf i led fo r bo th . Th is is because, except fo r th e death o f t he v ic t im, the essent ia l e lements o f consum mated mur der l i kewise

const i tu t e the essent ia l ingred ients to conv ic t here in pet i t ioner fo r the o f f ense o f f ru s t ra ted murd er .

In the present case, there fore , there is an ident i ty o f o f fenses charged in bo th t he or ig ina l and t he amended in format ion . W hat

is involved her e is not a var iance in the n ature o f di f feren t of fenses charged, but on ly a change in the stage of execut ion o f the

same o f fense f rom f rus t ra ted to consumm ated m urder . Th is be ing the case, we ho ld t ha t an amendm ent o f t he or ig ina l

in format ion w i l l su f f ice and, consequent t here to , the f i l ing o f the amended in form at ion fo r m urder is p roper .

Pet i t ioner w ou ld ins is t , however , tha t the add i t iona l a l legat ion on the fac t o f death o f the v ic t im M aureen Navar ro Hu l tm an

const i tu t es a substant ia l amend ment wh ich may no lon ger be a l low ed a f te r a p lea has been entered. The propos i t ion is

er roneous and untenab le .

As ear l ier ind ica ted, Sect ion 14 o f Ru le 110 prov ides tha t an amendm ent , e i ther o f fo rm or substance, may be m ade a t any t im e

before the accused enters a p lea to t he charge and, thereaf te r , as to a l l m at ters o f fo rm wi t h leave o f cour t .

A substant ia l amendm ent cons ists o f t he rec i ta l o f fac ts const i tu t ing the o f fense charged and d eterminat ive o f the ju r isd ic t ion

of the cour t . A l l o ther mat t ers are mere ly o f fo rm .[11 ]

Thus, the fo l low ing have been he ld t o be m ere ly fo rmal amendm ents , v iz .:

(1 ) new a l legat ions wh ich re la te on ly to t he range o f the pena l ty tha t t he cour t m ight impose in the event o f conv ict ion ;[12 ]

(2 )

an amendm ent w h ich does not charge another o f fense d i f fe rent o r d is t inct f rom that charged in the or ig inal one;[13 ]

(3 )

addit io nal al legat ion s w hich do no t al ter t he prosecut ion 's theo ry of t he case so as to cause surpr ise to the accused and af fect


4/5

the fo rm o f de fense he has or wi l l assum e; and (4) an am endm ent w h ich does not adverse ly a f fect any substant ial r igh t o f t he

accused, such as his r ight t o invo ke prescr ipt ion.[14 ]

We repeat th a t a f te r a r ra ignment and du r ing the t r ia l , amendm ents are a l low ed, bu t on ly as to m at ters o f fo rm and prov ided

that no pr ejudice is caused to t he r ights of the accused.[15 ]

The test o f wh ether an amendm ent is on ly o f fo rm and an accused is

not p re jud iced by such amendm ent has been said to be w hether or no t a defense under the in form at ion as i t o r ig inal ly stood

w ould be equa l ly ava i lab le a f te r the amendm ent is made, and wheth er or no t any ev idence the accused might h ave wou ld beequa l ly app l icab le to the in format ion in the one fo rm as in the o ther ; i f the answ er is in the a f f i rmat ive , the amendm ent is one

of fo rm and not o f substance.[16 ]

Now , an ob ject ive appra isa l o f the amend ed in form at ion fo r m urder f i led against here in pet i t ioner w i l l read i ly show that t he

natu re of th e of fense or iginal ly charged was not actual ly changed. Instead, an addit io nal al legat ion , that is, the superven ing fact

o f the d eath o f th e v ict im was mere ly supp l ied to a id th e t r ia l cour t in d e termin ing the pro per pena l ty fo r th e cr ime. That the

accused com mi t t ed a fe lon ious act wi th in ten t to k i l l the v ic t im cont inues to be the prosecut ion 's theory . There is no quest ion

that w hatever de fense here in pet i t ioner m ay adduce under the or ig inal in fo rmat ion fo r f rus t ra ted m urder equa l ly app l ies to t he

amended in form at ion fo r m urder . Under the c i rcumstances thus obta in ing, i t i s i r remissib le tha t the am ended in form at ion fo r

mu rder is, a t most , an amendm ent as to fo rm wh ich is a l low ed even dur ing the t r ia l o f the case.

I t consequent ly fo l lows tha t since on ly a form al amend ment was invo lved and in t rodu ced in the second in form at ion , a

pre l im inary invest iga t ion is unnecessary and cannot be dem anded by t he accused. The f i l ing o f th e amend ed in form at ion

w i thout the requ isi te pre l im inary invest igat ion does not v io late pet i t ioner ' s r igh t to be secured aga inst hasty , m al icious and

oppressive prosecut ions, and to b e pro tected f rom an open and pub l ic accusat ion o f a cr ime, as w el l as f rom the t roub le ,

expenses and anx ie ty o f a pub l ic t r ia l . The am ended in form at ion cou ld not conce ivab ly have com e as a surpr ise to pet i t ioner fo r

the simp le and obvious reason th at i t charges essent ial ly the same of fense as that charged und er the or iginal infor m at ion.

Fur therm ore, as we have here to for e he ld , i f the cr ime or ig ina lly charged is re la ted to the am ended charge such tha t an inqu i ry

in to one w ou ld e l ici t substant ia l ly the same fac ts tha t an inqu i ry in to the o t her wo u ld revea l, a new pre l im inary invest iga t ion is

not necessary.[17 ]

We f ind noth ing i r regu lar in the appo in tm ent by the t r ia l cour t o f a counsel de of ic io for here in pet i t ioner whose counse l o f

record ref used to p art ic ipate in t he pro ceedings because of an al leged legal issue. Such issue having been d emo nstrated herein

as baseless, we apprehend h is re fusal to par t ic ipa te in t he t r ia l as causat ive o f o r cont r ibu t ive to the de lay in t he d isposi t ion o f

the case. And, f ina l ly , fo r as long as the substant ia l r igh ts o f here in pet i t ioner and o th er persons charged in cour t a re n otprejud iced, the schedul ing of cases should be lef t t o the sound d iscret io n of th e tr ia l court .

W HEREFORE, i t be ing clear ly apparent tha t respondent judge d id not comm i t the er rors spec iously a t t r ibu ted t o h im , the

extraord inary w r i ts prayed fo r are hereb y DENIED and th e instant p et i t io n is DISM ISSED for lack of m er i t .

SO ORDERED.

Nar vasa, C.J., M elencio-Herr era, Gutier rez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano , Padilla , Bidin, Grio-Aqui no, M ediald ea, Davide, Jr.,

Romero, an d No con , JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., no par t .

[1 ]Annex A, Pet i t ion; Rollo, 18-19.

[2 ]Annex B, id.; ib id., 20-21.

[3 ]Ann ex C, id,; ib id., 22-23.


5/5

[4 ]Annex G, id.; ib id., 37-38.

[5 ]Annex D, id.; ib id. , 27 -29 .

[6 ]Ann ex F, id.; ib id. , 34 -36 .

[7 ] Ann ex E, id.; ib id., 30-33.

[8 ]Rollo, 4-5.

[9 ]Ibid., 1 0 .

[10 ]M e l o vs. People, 85 Phi l . 766 (1950); Sect ion 5, Rule 120, 1985 Rules of Cr iminal Procedur e.

[11 ]Almeda vs. Villaluz, et al., 66 SCRA 38 (197 5).

[12 ]Id., ib id.

[13 ]Guin to vs. Veluz, et al., 77 Phil. 801 (1946).

[14 ]Vega vs. Panis, et al., 117 SCRA 269 (1982 ).

[15 ]People vs. M ont enegro, et al . , 159 SCRA 236 (1988).

[16 ]42 C.J.S., Indictm ent and Inform at ion 1 250.

[17 ]People vs. M agpale, 70 Phi l . 176 (1940).

tee hank evs ma dayag

Documents