G.R. No. 103102 March 6, 1992
CLAUDIO J. TEEHANKEE,
JR.
vs.
HON. JOB B. MADAYAG and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
HON. JOB B. MADAYAG and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS:
Petitioner, Tehankee, Jr. was charged with the crime of
frustrated murder for the act of shooting Maureen Navarro Hultman on the head,
which would have caused her death if not for the timely medical intervention.
Trial ensued. After the
prosecution had rested its case, petitioner was allowed to file a motion for
leave to file a demurrer to evidence. However, before the said motion could be
filed, Maureen Navarro Hultman died.
The prosecution then filed an
omnibus motion for leave of court to file an amended information. The amended
information was filed, however, the petitioner refused to be arraigned on the
said amended information for lack of preliminary investigation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an amended
information involving a substantial amendment, without preliminary
investigation, after the prosecution has rested on the original information,
may legally and validly be admitted.
HELD:
Yes, the amendment is legal and valid.
Amendments are allowed after arraignment and during the
trial but only as to matters of form and provided that no prejudice is caused
to the rights of the accused. An objective appraisal of the amended information
for murder 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. Under the circumstances thus obtaining, it is irremissible that the
amended information for murder is, at most, an amendment as to form which is
allowed even during the trial of the case. It consequently follows that since
only a formal amendment was involved and introduced in the second information,
a preliminary investigation is unnecessary and cannot be demanded by the
accused. The filing of the amended information without the requisite
preliminary investigation does not violate petitioner's right to be secured
against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecutions, and to be protected from
an open and public accusation of a crime, as well as from the trouble, expenses
and anxiety of a public trial.