Chapter 10 Searches and seizures Case # 30Full description
Civil Procedure Case DigestFull description
Jarantilla Jr. vs. Jarantilla-Digests
case
Important facts from the case of Simon VS CHR
case digest
Admis law
digest
behaviour safety
crimpro casesFull description
Case digestFull description
hFull description
Full description
This is a really shortened digest of G.R No. 181359, August 5, 2013.
TEEHANKEE JR.vs. MADAYAG March 6, 1992
FACTS: Here, Claudio Teehankee, Jr. was originally charged for the crime of frustrated murder for shooting Hultman who was comatosed some time. In the course of the trial, Hultman died. The prosecution sought to change the information from frustrated murder to consummated murder. Teehankee Jr. questioned the new new charge for lack of preliminary preliminary investigation thereon . There are three (3) questions to be answered here: ISSUE #1: Was there an amend ment of the information or substitut ion when the information was changed from frustrated murder to consummated murder? HELD: There is an amendment. ³There is an identity of offenses charged in both the original and the amended information [murder pa rin!]. What is involved here is not a variance of the nature of different offenses charge, 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.´ ISSUE #2: What kind of o f amendment? Formal or substantial? HELD: Formal. ³An objective appraisal of the amended amended information for for murder filed filed against herein petitioner will readily show that the nature of the offense originally charged was not actually changed. Instead, an additional allegation, that is, the supervening fact of the death of the victim was merely supplied to aid the trial court in determining the proper penalty for the crime. That the accused committed a felonious act with intent to kill the victim continues to be the prosecution's theory. There is no question q uestion that whatever defense herein petitioner may adduce under the original information for frustrated murder equally applies to the amended information for murder.´ So halimbawa sabihin ng prosecutor: ³You shot Hultman who almost died.´ Teehankee Jr.:³W ala man ako du¶n ba! I was at home asleep!´ Alibi ang defense niya ba. Now, namatay si Hultman. Ano man ang depensa mo? Mao man gihapon: ³Wala man ako du¶n!´ The accused is not prejudiced since the t he same defense is still available to him. SSUE #3: Is there a need of a preliminary investigation on the new charge? HELD: No need because you have not changed the crime. If you change the crime or when there is substitution, kailangan ng preliminary investigation. Since it is only a formal amendment, preliminary investigation is not necessary. ³The amended information could not conceivably have come as a surprise to petitioner for the simple and obvious reason that it charges essentially the same offense as that charged under the original information. Furthermore, as we have heretofore held, if the crime originally charged is related to the amended charge such that an inquiry into one would elicit substantially the same facts that an inquiry into the other would reveal, a new preliminary investigation is not necessary.´
The world’s largest digital library
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
The world’s largest digital library
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
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 offense different or distinct from from that charged in the original original one; (3) additional allegations which do not alter the prosecution's 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.
