Topic: Amendment or substitution of complaint or information
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESA vs. ELBERTO TUBONGBANUA y PAHILANGA
GR No. 171271 | August 31, 2006
Doctrine: The test as to whether an amendment is only of form and an accused is not prejudiced
by such amendment is whether or not a defense under the information as it originally stood
would be equally available after the amendment is made, and whether or not any evidence
which the accused might have would be equally applicable to the information in one form as in
the other; if the answer is in the affirmative, the amendment is one of form and not of
substance.
FACTS:
Accused was employed as a family driver by Atty. Evelyn Sua-Kho since 1998. On February 12,
2001, at around 6:00 o’clock in the evening, the accused drove Atty. Sua Kho to her
condominium unit at 1702 Platinum 2000, Anapolis St., Greenhills, San Jun M.M. Shortly
thereafter, Marrisa heard her employer screaming, and she saw the accused stabbing her with
their kitchen knife. She tried to stop the accused, shouting "Kuya Bert!", but the latter continued
to stab Atty. Sua-Kho. When Marcelino Sua arrived, he saw Marissa and a security guard in
front of the condominium unit. When they entered, they saw the bloodied and unmoving body of
Atty. Sua-Kho sprawled on the floor. Marcelino then brought his daughter to the Cardinal Santos
Memorial Hospital, where doctors tried to revive her, but failed. The accused, meanwhile, fled,
using the victim’s car. He was arrested soon afterwards in Calapan, Mindoro, while on his way
to his home province.
An Information was charged against him which was later amended to include the aggravating
circumstances of dwelling, and insult to the rank, sex and age of the victim. These amendments
to the information were only made after the presentation by the prosecution of its evidence. The
RTC found him guilty. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC but modified it with
regard to the posited amendments. The amendments were disregarded.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in not allowing the amendments in the information regarding the
aggravating circumstances of dwelling and insult or disregard of the respect due to rank, age or
sex.
HELD:
YES. The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in not allowing the amendments in the
information regarding the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and insult or disregard of the
respect due to rank, age or sex. Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, provides that an
amendment after the plea of the accused is permitted only as to matters of form, provided leave
of court is obtained and such amendment is not prejudicial to the rights of the accused. A
substantial amendment is not permitted after the accused had already been arraigned.
In Teehankee, Jr. v. Madayag, we had the occasion to distinguish between substantial and
formal amendments:
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
different or distinct from that charged in the original one; (3) additional allegations which
Page 1 of 2
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.
The test as to whether an amendment is only of form and an accused is not prejudiced by such
amendment is whether or not a defense under the information as it originally stood would be
equally available after the amendment is made, and whether or not any evidence which the
accused might have would be equally applicable to the information in one form as in the other; if
the answer is in the affirmative, the amendment is one of form and not of substance.
Tested against these guidelines, the insertion of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and
insult or disregard of the respect due to rank, age, or sex of the victim is clearly a formal, not a
substantial, amendment. These amendments do not have the effect of charging another offense
different or distinct from the charge of murder as contained in the original information. They
relate only to the range of the penalty that the court might impose in the event of conviction. The
amendment did not adversely affect any substantial right of appellant. Besides, appellant never
objected to the presentation of evidence to prove the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and
insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of rank, age or sex.
Without any objection by the defense, the defect is deemed waived.
Page 2 of 2
