134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL.

207, MARCH 6, 1992 135

Teehankee, Jr. vs. Madayag Teehankee, Jr. vs. Madayag

G.R. No. 103102. March 6, 1992.

*
4. An amended information refers to the same offense charged in the
original information or to an offense which necessarily includes or is
CLAUDIO J. TEEHANKEE, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. JOB B. necessarily included in the original charge, hence substantial amendments
MADAYAG and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. to the information after the plea has been taken cannot be made over the
objection of the accused, for if the original information would be
Criminal Procedure; Information; Amendment and substitution, withdrawn, the accused could invoke double jeopardy. On the other
distinguished.It may accordingly be posited that both amendment and hand, substitution requires or presupposes that the new information
substitution of the information may be made before or after the involves a different offense which does not include or is not necessarily
defendant pleads, but they differ in the following respects: 1. included in the original charge, hence the accused cannot claim double
Amendment may involve either formal or substantial changes, while jeopardy.
substitution necessarily involves a substantial change from the original Same; Same; Identity of offenses charged in original and amended
charge; 2. Amendment before plea has been entered can be effected information.Going now to the case at bar, it is evident that frustrated
without leave of court, but substitution of information must be with leave murder is but a stage in the execution of the crime of murder, hence the
of court as the original information has to be dismissed; 3. Where the former is necessarily included in the latter. It is indispensable that the
amendment is only as to form, there is no need for another preliminary essential element of intent to kill, as well as qualifying circumstances such
investigation and the retaking of the plea of the accused; in substitution of as treachery or evident premeditation, be alleged in both an information
information, another preliminary investigation is entailed and the accused for frustrated murder and for murder, thereby meaning and proving that
has to plead anew to the new information; and
________________ the same material allegations are essential to the sufficiency of the
* EN BANC. informations filed for both. This is because, except for the death of the
17 People v. Sison, G.R. No. 86455, 189 SCRA 643 (1990). victim, the essential elements of consummated murder likewise constitute
the essential ingredients to convict herein petitioner for the offense of
frustrated murder. In the present case, therefore, there is an identity of
offenses charged in both the original and the amended information. What
is involved here is not a variance in the nature of different offenses
charged, but only a change in the stage of execution of the same offense
from frustrated to consummated murder. This being the case, we hold
that an amendment of the original information will suffice and,
consequent thereto, the filing of the amended information for murder is
proper.
Same; Same; Substantial and formal amendments.A substantial
amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense
charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All other
matters are merely of form. Thus, the following have been held to be
merely formal amendments, viz.: (1) new allegations which relate only to
the range of the penalty that the court might impose in the event of
conviction; (2) an amendment which does not charge another offense
different or distinct from that charged in the original one; (3) additional
allegations which do not alter the prosecutions theory of the case so as to
cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or
will assume; and (4) an amendment which does not adversely affect any
substantial right of the accused, such as his right to invoke prescription.
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 207, MARCH 6, 1992 137
Teehankee, Jr. vs. Madayag Teehankee, Jr. vs. Madayag
Same; Same; Nature of offense originally charged not changed in mitted as follows:
amended information.An objective appraisal of the amended
information for murder filed against herein petitioner will readily show That on or about the 13th day of July 1991, in the Municipality of
that the nature of the offense originally charged was not actually Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
changed. Instead, an additional allegation, that is, the supervening fact of Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with a
the death of the victim was merely supplied to aid the trial court in handgun, with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, did then
determining the proper penalty for the crime. That the accused and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and shoot
committed a felonious act with intent to kill the victim continues to be the one Maureen Navarro Hultman on the head, thereby inflicting gunshot
prosecutions theory. There is no question that whatever defense herein wounds, which ordinarily would have caused the death of said Maureen
Navarro Hultman, thereby performing all the acts of execution which
petitioner may adduce under the original information for frustrated would have produced the crime of Murder as a consequence, but
murder equally applies to the amended information for murder. Under nevertheless did not produce it by reason of cause or causes independent
the circumstances thus obtaining, it is irremissible that the amended of her will, that is, due to the timely and able medical assistance rendered
information for murder is, at most, an amendment as to form which is to said Maureen Navarro Hultman which prevented her death.
allowed even during the trial of the case.
After the prosecution had rested its case, petitioner was allowed to
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for certiorari, prohibition and file a motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence. However,
mandamus to review the order of the Regional Trial Court of before the said motion could be filed, Maureen Navarro Hultman
Makati, Metro Manila, Br. 145. Madayag, J. died.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Consequently,3
private prosecutor Rogelio A. Vinluan filed an
Rodolfo U. Jimenez Law Office for petitioner. omnibus motion for leave of court to file an amended information
and to admit4
said amended information. The amended
REGALADO, J.: information, filed on October 31, 1991, reads:
In this special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and 1
That on or about the 13th day of July, 1991, in the Municipality of
mandamus, petitioner principally seeks: (1) to nullify the order of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
respondent judge admitting the amended information for murder Honorable Court, the said Claudio Teehankee, Jr. y Javier, armed with
filed in Criminal Case No. 91-4606; (2) to nullify the arraignment a handgun, with intent to kill and evident premeditation and by means of
treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
and the plea of not guilty entered by order of respondent judge assault and shoot with the said handgun Maureen Navarro Hultman who
when petitioner refused to be arraigned on the amended was hit in the head, thereby inflicting mortal wounds which directly
information for lack of preliminary investigation therefor; (3) to caused the death of said Maureen Hultman.
nullify the appointment of a counsel de oficio/PAO lawyer to Petitioner
5 6
filed an opposition thereto, as well as a rejoinder to the
represent petitioner; (4) to prohibit respondent judge from over- reply
7
of the prosecution. On November 13, 1991, the trial
speedy and preferential scheduling of the trial of the ________________
aforementioned criminal case; and (5) to compel respondent judge 3 Annex C, id,; ibid., 22-23.
to order a preliminary investigation of the crime charged in the 4 Annex G, id,; ibid., 37-38.
amended information. 5 Annex D, id,; ibid., 27-29.
6 Annex F, id,; ibid., 34-36.
Petitioner2 was originally charged on July 19, 1991 in an 7 Annex E, id,; ibid., 30-33.
information for the crime of frustrated murder allegedly com-
________________
1 Annex A, Petition; Rollo, 18-19.
2 Annex B, id,; ibid., 20-21.
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 207, MARCH 6, 1992 139
Teehankee, Jr. vs. Madayag Teehankee, Jr. vs. Madayag
court issued the questioned order admitting the amended Navarro Hultman who was hit in the head, thereby inflicting
information. mortal wounds which directly caused the death of said Maureen
At the scheduled arraignment on November 26, 1991, Hultman x x x constitutes a substantial amendment since it
petitioner refused to be arraigned on the amended information for involves a change in the nature of the offense charged, that is, from
lack of a preliminary investigation thereon. By reason of such frustrated to consummated murder. Petitioner further submits that
refusal, respondent judge ordered that a plea of not guilty be (t)here is a need then to establish that the same mortal wounds,
entered for petitioner. which were initially frustrated (sic) by timely and able medical
assistance, ultimately caused the death of the victim, because it
Thereafter, respondent judge ordered the prosecution to present could have been caused by a supervening act or fact which is not
its evidence. When petitioners counsel manifested that he would imputable to the offender.9 From this, he argues that there being a
not take part in the proceedings because of the legal issue raised, substantial amendment, the same may no longer be allowed after
the trial court appointed a counsel de oficio to represent herein arraignment and during the trial. Corollary thereto, petitioner then
petitioner. postulates that since the amended information for murder charges
Petitioner now raises the following issues before us: an entirely different offense, involving as it does a new fact, that is,
(a) Whether or not an amended information involving a substantial the fact of death whose cause has to be established, it is essential
amendment, without preliminary investigation, after the prosecution that another preliminary investigation on the new charge be
has rested on the original information, may legally and validly be conducted before the new information can be admitted.
admitted;
We find no merit in the petition. There are sufficient legal and
(b) Whether or not a counsel de oficio may legally and validly be
appointed to represent an accused who is represented by counsel of jurisprudential moorings for the orders of the trial court.
choice who refuses to participate in the proceedings because of a Section 14, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
perceived denial of due process and after a plea for appellate provides:
remedies within a short period is denied by the trial court; and Sec. 14. Amendment.The information or complaint may be amended,
(c) Whether or not a particular criminal case may legally and validly be in substance or form, without leave of court, at any time before the
rushed and preferentially scheduled for trial over and 8at the expense accused pleads; and thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of
and sacrifice of other, specially older, criminal cases. form, by leave and at the discretion of the court, when the same can be
In our resolution of January 14, 1992, we required the Solicitor done without prejudice to the rights of the accused.
General to file a comment to the basic petition. It appearing from a If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been
further review of the record that the operative facts and made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original
complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging the
determinant issues involved in this case are sufficiently presented proper offense in accordance with Rule 119, Section 11, provided the
in the petition and the annexes thereto, both in regard to the accused would not be placed thereby in double jeopardy and may also
respective positions of petitioner and respondents, the Court has require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the trial.
decided to dispense with the aforesaid comment to obviate needless The first paragraph provides the rules for amendment of the
delay in fairness to petitioner. information or complaint, while the second paragraph refers to
I. Petitioner avers that the additional allegation in the amended _______________
information, as herein underscored, that the accused . . . did then 9 Ibid., 10.
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
shoot with the said handgun Maureen
_______________
8 Rollo, 4-5.
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 207, MARCH 6, 1992 141
Teehankee, Jr. vs. Madayag Teehankee, Jr. vs. Madayag
the substitution of the information or complaint. attempt to commit or a frustration of, or when it necessarily
It may accordingly be posited that both amendment and includes or is necessarily included in, the offense charged in the
substitution of the information may be made before or after the first information. In this connection, an offense may be said to
defendant pleads, but they differ in the following respects: necessarily include another when some of the essential elements or
1. Amendment may involve either formal or substantial changes, while
ingredients of the former, as this is alleged in the information,
substitution necessarily involves a substantial change from the constitute the latter. And, vice-versa, an offense may be said to be
original charge; necessarily included in another when the essential ingredients of 10

2. Amendment before plea has been entered can be effected without the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter.
leave of court, but substitution of information must be with leave of Going now to the case at bar, it is evident that frustrated murder
court as the original information has to be dismissed; is but a stage in the execution of the crime of murder, hence the
3. Where the amendment is only as to form, there is no need for former is necessarily included in the latter. It is indispensable that
another preliminary investigation and the retaking of the plea of the the essential element of intent to kill, as well as qualifying
accused; in substitution of information, another preliminary circumstances such as treachery or evident premeditation, be
investigation is entailed and the accused has to plead anew to the alleged in both an information for frustrated murder and for
new information; and murder, thereby meaning and proving that the same material
4. An amended information refers to the same offense charged in the allegations are essential to the sufficiency of the informations filed
original information or to an offense which necessarily includes or for both. This is because, except for the death of the victim, the
is necessarily included in the original charge, hence substantial essential elements of consummated murder likewise constitute the
amendments to the information after the plea has been taken cannot
be made over the objection of the accused, for if the original essential ingredients to convict herein petitioner for the offense of
information would be withdrawn, the accused could invoke double frustrated murder.
jeopardy. On the other hand, substitution requires or presupposes In the present case, therefore, there is an identity of offenses
that the new information involves a different offense which does charged in both the original and the amended information. What is
not include or is not necessarily included in the original charge, involved here is not a variance in the nature of different offenses
hence the accused cannot claim double jeopardy. charged, but only a change in the stage of execution of the same
In determining, therefore, whether there should be an amendment offense from frustrated to consummated murder. This being the
under the first paragraph of Section 14, Rule 110, or a substitution case, we hold that an amendment of the original information will
of information under the second paragraph thereof, the rule is that suffice and, consequent thereto, the filing of the amended
where the second information involves the same offense, or an information for murder is proper.
offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the Petitioner would insist, however, that the additional allegation
first information, an amendment of the information is sufficient; on the fact of death of the victim Maureen Navarro Hultman
otherwise, where the new information charges an offense which is constitutes a substantial amendment which may no longer be
distinct and different from that initially charged, a substitution is in allowed after a plea has been entered. The proposition is erroneous
order. and untenable.
There is identity between the two offenses when the evidence to As earlier indicated, Section 14 of Rule 110 provides that an
support a conviction for one offense would be sufficient to warrant amendment, either of form or substance, may be made at any
a conviction for the other, or when the second offense is exactly the _______________
same as the first, or when the second offense is an 10 Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. 766 (1950); Section 5, Rule 120, 1985 Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 207, MARCH 6, 1992 143
Teehankee, Jr. vs. Madayag Teehankee, Jr. vs. Madayag
time before the accused enters a plea to the charge and, thereafter, accused committed a felonious act with intent to kill the victim
as to all matters of form with leave of court. continues to be the prosecutions theory. There is no question that
A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts whatever defense herein petitioner may adduce under the original
constituting the offense charged and determinative of the information for frustrated murder equally applies to the amended
jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form.
11
information for murder. Under the circumstances thus obtaining, it
Thus, the following have been held to be merely formal is irremissible that the amended information for murder is, at most,
amendments, viz.: (1) new allegations which relate only to the an amendment as to form which is allowed even during the trial of
range of the12 penalty that the court might impose in the event of the case.
conviction; (2) an amendment which does not charge another13 It consequently follows that since only a formal amendment
offense different or distinct from that charged in the original one; was involved and introduced in the second information, a
(3) additional allegations which do not alter the prosecutions preliminary investigation is unnecessary and cannot be demanded
theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the accused and affect by the accused. The filing of the amended information without the
the form of defense he has or will assume; and (4) an amendment requisite preliminary investigation does not violate petitioners
which does not adversely affect any substantial 14
right of the right to be secured against hasty, malicious and oppressive
accused, such as his right to invoke prescription. prosecutions, and to be protected from an open and public
We repeat that after arraignment and during the trial, accusation of a crime, as well as from the trouble, expenses and
amendments are allowed, but only as to matters of form and anxiety of a public trial. The amended information could not
provided that no prejudice is caused to the rights of the accused.
15
conceivably have come as a surprise to petitioner for the simple
The test of whether an amendment is only of form and an accused and obvious reason that it charges essentially the same offense as
is not prejudiced by such amendment has been said to be whether that charged under the original information. Furthermore, as we
or not a defense under the information as it originally stood would have heretofore held, if the crime originally charged is related to
be equally available after the amendment is made, and whether or the amended charge such that an inquiry into one would elicit
not any evidence the accused might have would be equally substantially the same facts that an inquiry into the other17
would
applicable to the information in the one form as in the other; if the reveal, a new preliminary investigation is not necessary.
answer is in the
16
affirmative, the amendment is one of form and not We find nothing irregular in the appointment by the trial court
of substance. of a counsel de oficio for herein petitioner whose counsel of record
Now, an objective appraisal of the amended information for refused to participate in the proceedings because of an alleged legal
murder filed against herein petitioner will readily show that the issue. Such issue having been demonstrated herein as baseless, we
nature of the offense originally charged was not actually changed. apprehend his refusal to participate in the trial as causative of or
Instead, an additional allegation, that is, the supervening fact of the contributive to the delay in the disposition of the case. And, finally,
death of the victim was merely supplied to aid the trial court in for as long as the substantial rights of herein petitioner and other
determining the proper penalty for the crime. That the persons charged in court are not prejudiced, the scheduling of cases
_______________ should be left to the sound discretion of the trial court.
11 Almeda vs. Villaluz, et al., 66 SCRA 38 (1975). WHEREFORE, it being clearly apparent that respondent judge
12 Id., ibid. did not commit the errors speciously attributed to him, the
13 Guinto vs. Veluz, et al., 77 Phil. 801 (1946). ________________
14 Vega vs. Panis, et al., 117 SCRA 269 (1982). 17 People vs. Magpale, 70 Phil. 176 (1940).
15 People vs. Montenegro, et al., 159 SCRA 236 (1988).
16 42 C.J.S., Indictment and Information 1250.
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Ramos
extraordinary writs prayed for are hereby DENIED and the instant
petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (C.J.), Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz,
Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea,
Davide, Jr., Romero and Nocon, JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., Did not take part in the deliberations.
Writs denied; petition dismissed.
Note.The amendment of a complaint for physical injuries
which does not change the material facts or the nature of the
offense charged is not prejudicial. (Caparas vs. Gonzales, 7
SCRA 182.)
o0o