The RTC granted the motion to amend the information to add Carlito Corpuz Jr. as an accused in a murder case, alongside Amado Corpuz Jr. Samonte, the original accused, objected because he had already entered a plea of self-defense at arraignment. The Supreme Court ruled that allowing the amendment would prejudice Samonte, as his defense and evidence would no longer apply under the new allegation of conspiracy. While generally a formal amendment can be allowed after plea, adding an allegation of conspiracy changed the nature of the case such that Samonte's rights would be violated. Therefore, the amendment was not permitted in this case.
The RTC granted the motion to amend the information to add Carlito Corpuz Jr. as an accused in a murder case, alongside Amado Corpuz Jr. Samonte, the original accused, objected because he had already entered a plea of self-defense at arraignment. The Supreme Court ruled that allowing the amendment would prejudice Samonte, as his defense and evidence would no longer apply under the new allegation of conspiracy. While generally a formal amendment can be allowed after plea, adding an allegation of conspiracy changed the nature of the case such that Samonte's rights would be violated. Therefore, the amendment was not permitted in this case.
The RTC granted the motion to amend the information to add Carlito Corpuz Jr. as an accused in a murder case, alongside Amado Corpuz Jr. Samonte, the original accused, objected because he had already entered a plea of self-defense at arraignment. The Supreme Court ruled that allowing the amendment would prejudice Samonte, as his defense and evidence would no longer apply under the new allegation of conspiracy. While generally a formal amendment can be allowed after plea, adding an allegation of conspiracy changed the nature of the case such that Samonte's rights would be violated. Therefore, the amendment was not permitted in this case.
The RTC granted the motion to amend the information to add Carlito Corpuz Jr. as an accused in a murder case, alongside Amado Corpuz Jr. Samonte, the original accused, objected because he had already entered a plea of self-defense at arraignment. The Supreme Court ruled that allowing the amendment would prejudice Samonte, as his defense and evidence would no longer apply under the new allegation of conspiracy. While generally a formal amendment can be allowed after plea, adding an allegation of conspiracy changed the nature of the case such that Samonte's rights would be violated. Therefore, the amendment was not permitted in this case.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Corpus v.
Pamular Despite Florendo taking over the case, Bonifacio still issued a September 5, 2018 | Leonen | Amendment/Substitution (Sec. Review Resolution where he reinstated RTC Reso and affirmed 14) dismissal of murder complaint against Corpus. Meanwhile, Florendo filed Motion to Amend Information praying for FACTS: admission of amended information. Angelito Espinosa was shot by Samonte at Corpuz St., Nueva Ecija, causing his death. Samonte was caught in the act and Samonte and Corpus was arrested. After inquest proceedings, Information of murder - Judge Pamular’s action was premature considering that was filed against him. Upon arraignment, Samonte admitted Motion to Amend Information has yet to be scheduled the killing but pleaded self-defense. for hearing. - Samonte was already arraigned. Based on an affidavit executed by Alexander Lozano, Corpuz - Filed a petition for review in DOJ and Manifestation was the one who instructed Samonte to kill Angelito. Florendo and Motion with RTC asking it to desist from acting found probable cause to indict Corpus for Angelito’s murder, further on Amended Information. and directed the filing of an amended information before RTC. It now states: Depsite manifestation, Judge Pamular issued an order grating the motion to amend information and to admit attached “Undersigned accuses Carlito and Amado Corpuz, Jr.” amended information.
“That on or about the 4th day of June, 2008 at around 10:30 Priscilla: a.m. at Corpuz St., Dist., in the Municipality of Cuyapo, RTC is correct in granting motion to admit amended info Province of Nueva Ecija, Phillippines (sic), and within the because no effect on Samonte’s case and reasoned that: jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- named 1. Only an addition of another accused accused, conspiring and confederating together, did then and 2. Amendment will not cause any prejudice to the rights of there, with malice aforethought and with deliberate intent to accused take [the] life of ANGELITO ESPINOSA, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, treacherously and taking advantage Corpus: of superior strength attack the latter and shot with an - Due to theory of conspiracy in amended information, unlicensed rearm (1 Colt .45 cal. Pistol with SN 217815), Samonte will have additional burden of setting up a thereby inicting upon him gunshot wounds, which directly new defense on any acts of his co-accused since “act of caused the death of said Angelito Espinosa, to the damage and one is act of all.” prejudice of his heirs.” - Rule 110, Sec. 14 prohibits substantial amendment of information that’s prejudicial to rights of the Since only Samonte was arraigned, only he can invoke this accused after his/her arraignment. rule. Corpus can’t invoke because not yet arraigned. - P v. Montenegro – allegation of of conspiracy that wasn’t previously included in original information constitutes a substantial amendment. IV-C ISSUE: Any amendment to an Info which only states with precision Whether or not Judge Pamualr committed GADALEJ when he something already included in original Info, and adds nothing allegedly admitted Amended Information in clear defiance of crucial for conviction of crime charged is only a formal law and jurisprudence, which proscribes substantial amendment that can be made at anytime. Doesn’t alter amendment of information prejudicial to right of accused nature of the crime.
RULING: No. A substantial amendment consists of recital of facts
constituting offense charged and determinative of jurisdiction 1. Petitioners question inclusion of Corpus and insertion of the court. In this case, facts alleged in accusatory part are of “conspiring and confederating together” in similar to original Info except as to inclusion of Corpus as amendment information in prohibition of Rule 110 of Samonte’s co-accused and insertion of phrase “conspiring and Sec. 14 which prohibits substantial amendment of confederating together.” Allegation of conspiracy doesn’t informatin that’s prejudicial to rights of accused after alter the basic theory of prosecution that Samonte willfully their arraignment. shot Angelito, therefore, amendment is merely formal. 2. P v. Montenegro – allegation of conspiracy was a substantial amendment. IV-D
Before accused enters their plea, either formal or substantial Zulueta is inapplicable. Court declined admission of amended amendment may be made without leave of court. info because it would change nature of crime and prosec’s theory. Montenegro also inapplicable because amendment to After plea, only formal amendment can be made provided: Info was considered as substantial due to effect of changing 1. With leave of court original crime from Robbery to Robbery in an Uninhabited 2. Doesn’t prejudice rights of accused Place, which proscribes a higher imposable penalty.
After arraignment, no substantial amendment except if it’s IV-E
beneficial to accused. Rule 110, Sec. 14 provide that in permitting formal amendments when accused already entered their plea, it’s important that amendment doesn’t prejducie rights of accused. P v. Casey, Court laid down test in determining whether an accused in prejudiced by amendment – whether a defense under Info as it originally stood would be available after amendment is made and whether anyevidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to Information in one form as in the other.
Upon arraignment under original info, Samonte admitted
killing but pleaded self-defense. While conspiracy is a formal amendment, Samote will be prejudiced if amendment will be allowed after his plea. Applying test, his defense and evidence will not be compatible with allegation of conspiracy in new info. Therefore, such formal amendment after plea isn’t allowed.
