Case
Digest by
Ma. Riffy
Cerezo Balingit
JD II
SSGT. JOSE M. PACOY v. HON. AFABLE E.
CAJIGAL, PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES and OLYMPIO L. ESCUETA
G.R. No. 157472, September 28, 2007,
In determining whether the change affected an
amendment or a substitution of the information, the test is that where the
second information involves the same offense or an offense which necessarily
includes or is necessarily included in the first information, an amendment of
the information is sufficient.
FACTS:
Information for homicide was filed, alleging that SSGT. Jose M.
Pacoy “with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously shot his commanding officer x x x.” The information likewise
contains the statement, “With the aggravating circumstance of killing [his
commanding officer] in disregard of his rank.” The accused pleaded not guilty
to the charge of homicide.
On the same day after the arraignment, Hon. Afable E. Cajigal
ordered the prosecutor to amend the information to murder, based on the Judge’s
view that the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank qualified the crime
to murder. The designation of the offense in the information was amended
accordingly.
ISSUE:
Whether
the change in the designation of the offense requires another preliminary
investigation
RULING:
No. the
new information charges an offense that is distinct from that initially
charged, a substitution is in order, which results in the dismissal of the
original information, the conduct of another preliminary investigation, and
another arraignment under the new information.
A change in the designation of the offense as found in the
caption of the information constitutes a mere formal amendment and not a
substantial amendment or a substitution of the original information. Apart from
the caption containing the designation of the offense, no other change was made
regarding the recital of facts that constitute the offense charged or determine
the jurisdiction of the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment