Corpus

G.R. No.
186403, September 05, 2018
MAYOR "JONG" AMADO CORPUS, JR. AND CARLITO

SAMONTE, Petitioners, v. HON. JUDGE RAMON D. PAMULAR OF
BRANCH 33, GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, MRS. PRISCILLA
ESPINOSA,* AND NUEVA ECIJA PROVINCIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
FLORO FLORENDO, Respondents.
J Leonen
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari assailing the order and warrant of arrest
issued by Judge Ramon D. Pamular (Judge Pamular) of Branch 33, Regional
Trial Court, Guimba, Nueva Ecija in Civil Case No. 2618-G. The assailed
Order granted the prosecution's Motion to Amend the Original Information
for murder filed against Carlito Samonte (Samonte) to include Mayor Amado
"Jong" Corpus (Corpus) as his co-accused in the crime charged.
Furthermore, it directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest against Corpus.
Angelito Espinosa (Angelito) was shot by Samonte at Corpuz Street,

Cuyapo, Nueva Ecjia on June 4, 2008, causing his death. Samonte was
caught in flagrante delicto and thereafter was arrested. Upon arraignment,
Samonte admitted the killing but pleaded self defense. On trial, an affidavit
of Alexander Lozano states that it was Corpus who instructed Samonte to kill
Angelito. Pros. Florendo found probable cause to indict Corpus for Angelito's
murder. He directed the filing of an amended information before the
Regional Trial Court. Judge Pamular issued the assailed February 26, 2009
Order, which granted the motion to amend the information and to admit the
attached amended information.
Petitioners question the inclusion of Corpus and the insertion of the phrase
"conspiring and confederating together" in the amended information. They
contend :that Rule 110, Section 14 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure prohibits substantial amendment of information that is prejudicial
to the rights of the accused after his or her arraignment.
ISSUES:
Whether or not double jeopardy will set in?
RULING:
In a criminal case, due process entails, among others, that the
accusation must be in due form and that the accused is given the
opportunity to answer the charges against him or her. There is a need for
the accused to be supplied with the necessary information as to "why he [or
she] is being proceeded against and not be left in the unenviable state of
speculating why he [or she] is made the object of a prosecution, it being the
fact that, in criminal cases, the liberty, even the life, of the accused is at
stake.
Apart from violating the right of the accused to be informed of the

nature and cause of his or her accusation, substantial amendments to the
information after plea is prohibited to prevent having the accused put twice
in jeopardy.
Article III, 169 Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution provides: Section

21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the
same act. The Constitutional provision on double jeopardy guarantees the
invocation of the law not only against the danger of a second punishment or
a second trial for the same offense, "but also against being prosecuted twice
for the same act where that act is punishable by . . . law and an ordinance."
170 When a person is charged with an offense and the case against him or
her is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other way
without his or her consent, he or she cannot be charged again with a similar
offense. 171 Thus, "[t]his principle is founded upon the law of reason,
justice and conscience.
The constitutionally mandated right against double jeopardy is

procedurally bolstered by Rule 117, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, 173 which reads: RULE 117 Motion to Quash Section 7.
Former Conviction or Acquittal; Double Jeopardy. - When an accused has
been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction,
upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in
form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had
pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the
dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense
charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for
any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
offense charged in the former complaint or information.
In substantiating a claim for double jeopardy, the following requisites

should be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the
second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3)
the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as in the first. With
regard the first requisite, the first jeopardy only attaches:
(a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after
arraignment; ( d) when a valid plea has been entered; and ( e) when the
accused was acquitted or convicted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.
The test for the third requisite is "whether one offense is identical with
the other or is an attempt to commit it or a frustration thereof; or whether
the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged
in the first information." Also known as "res judicata in prison grey," the
mandate against double jeopardy forbids the "prosecution of a person for a
crime of which he [or she] has been previously acquitted or convicted." This
is to "set the effects of the first prosecution forever at rest, assuring the
accused that he [or she] shall not thereafter be subjected to the danger and
anxiety of a second charge against him [or her] for the same offense."
Double jeopardy is a fundamental constitutional concept which

guarantees that an accused may not be harassed with constant
charges or revisions of the same charge arising out of the same facts
constituting a single offense. When an accused traverses the
allegations in the information by entering a plea during the
arraignment, he or she is already put in jeopardy of conviction.
Having understood the charges, the accused after entering a plea
prepares for his or her defense based on the possible evidence that
may be presented by the prosecution. The protection given to the
accused by the double jeopardy rule does not attach only after an
acquittal or a conviction. It also attaches after the entry of plea and
when there is a prior dismissal for violation of speedy trial.
Any amendment to an information which only states with precision

something which has already been included in the original information, and
therefore, adds nothing crucial for conviction of the crime charged is only a
formal amendment that can be made at anytime. It does not alter the
nature of the crime, affect the essence of the offense, surprise, or divest the
accused of an opportunity to meet the new accusation. 186 Thus, the
following are mere formal amendments: (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 prosecution's 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.
On the other hand, "[a] substantial amendment consists of the recital

of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction
of the court. The facts alleged in the accusatory part of the amended
information are similar to that of the original information except as to the
inclusion of Corpus as Samonte's co-accused and the insertion of the phrase
"conspiring and confederating together." The allegation of conspiracy does
not alter the basic theory of the prosecution that Samonte willfully and
intentionally shot Angelita. Hence, the amendment is merely formal.
It is undisputed that upon arraignment under the original information,

Samonte admitted the killing but pleaded self-defense. While conspiracy is
merely a formal amendment, Samonte will be prejudiced if the amendment
will be allowed after his plea. Applying the test, his defense and
corresponding evidence will not be compatible with the allegation of
conspiracy in the new information. Therefore, such formal amendment after
plea is not allowed.
Furthermore, respondent Judge Pamular has a working knowledge of

the circumstances regarding the amended information that constrained him
to find probable cause in issuing the warrant. Apart from respondent judge's
personal examination of the amended information and supporting
documents, the hearing conducted on February 13, 2009 enabled him to find
probable cause prompting him to issue the warrant of arrest. Settled is the
rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. These matters are left to the lower
courts, which have "more opportunity and facilities to examine these
matters." This Court is not a trier of facts and cannot receive new evidence
that would aid in the speedy resolution of this case. It is not this Court's
function to "analyze and weigh the evidence all over again.

Corpus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corpus

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Corpus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

186403, September 05, 2018

MAYOR "JONG" AMADO CORPUS, JR. AND CARLITO

Angelito Espinosa (Angelito) was shot by Samonte at Corpuz Street,

Apart from violating the right of the accused to be informed of the

Article III, 169 Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution provides: Section

The constitutionally mandated right against double jeopardy is

In substantiating a claim for double jeopardy, the following requisites

Double jeopardy is a fundamental constitutional concept which

Any amendment to an information which only states with precision

On the other hand, "[a] substantial amendment consists of the recital

It is undisputed that upon arraignment under the original information,

Furthermore, respondent Judge Pamular has a working knowledge of

You might also like