People vs. Montenegro

After a plea of not guilty, an information may be amended only as to matters of form and only if no prejudice is caused to the accused; an amendment that changes the offense to one carrying a higher penalty, substitutes entirely different stolen articles, or introduces conspiracy is substantial and cannot be allowed.

Private respondents were members of the Quezon City police force. The procedural question was governed by Section 14, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (formerly Section 13, Rule 110 of the old Rules), which regulates amendments to an information before and after plea.

On 20 September 1976, the City Fiscal of Quezon City, through Assistant Fiscal Virginia G. Valdez, filed an Information for "Robbery" before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV-B, Quezon City, docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-6821, against Antonio Cimarra, Ulpiano Villar, Bayani Catindig, and Avelino de Leon. All four were members of the Quezon City police force and were charged as accessories-after-the-fact in a robbery committed by minor Ricardo Cabaloza, who had already pleaded guilty and been convicted in Criminal Case No. QF-76-051 before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City. Cabaloza's conviction was for the robbery of items, articles, and jewelries belonging to Ding Velayo, Inc. valued at P75,591.40, the same items enumerated in the original Information against private respondents, including a .22 caliber Arminius revolver with six ammunition, gold rings, ID plates, bracelets, pendants, a Minolta camera, a pink handbag, and a bunch of keys.

On 25 October 1976, all accused were arraigned and pleaded "not guilty." Trial on the merits was scheduled. Before trial could proceed, the prosecuting fiscal filed a Motion to Admit Amended Information dated 28 December 1976. The motion sought to amend the original Information by (a) changing the offense from "Robbery" to "Robbery in an Uninhabited Place," (b) alleging conspiracy among all the accused, and (c) deleting all the items, articles, and jewelries alleged stolen in the original Information and substituting a different set of items valued at P71,336.80. The new list included ID plates, anniversary pendants, signet rings, bracelets, necklaces, ring and earring mountings, diamond earrings, Sput-nik crosses, loose diamonds, cameras, cash, and other jewelry.

Private respondents opposed admission of the Amended Information. The respondent court, presided by Judge Eduardo Montenegro, denied the proposed amendments in its order dated 10 February 1977. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the respondent court denied the motion on 22 February 1977. Petitioner then filed the present petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order. On 21 March 1977, the SC issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the respondent court from proceeding to hear and decide the case until further orders.

• Amendment of Information After Arraignment: Whether the respondent court correctly denied the motion to admit the amended information after the accused had entered a plea of not guilty, where the amendments changed the offense from Robbery to Robbery in an Uninhabited Place, substituted a different set of stolen articles, and alleged conspiracy.

• Amendment of Information After Arraignment: No. The amendments were substantial, not merely matters of form, and would prejudice the accused because they changed the offense to one carrying a higher penalty, substituted entirely different stolen articles, and introduced conspiracy, requiring new defenses after plea.

• Amendment of Information After Arraignment: Section 14, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (formerly Section 13, Rule 110 of the old Rules) allows amendment at any time before the accused enters a plea. After plea and during trial, amendments may be allowed only as to matters of form, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused's rights. The test of prejudice is whether a defense under the original information would no longer be available after the amendment and whether evidence the accused might have would be inapplicable to the amended information. An amendment that merely states with additional precision something already contained in the original information, and adds nothing essential for conviction, is an amendment to form and may be made at any time. The proposed amendments here were clearly substantial. Changing the charge from "Robbery" under Article 209 to "Robbery in an Uninhabited Place" under Article 302 of the Revised Penal Code exposed private respondents to a higher penalty than the offense originally charged, to which they had already pleaded "not guilty." The substitution of entirely different items, articles, and jewelries for those originally alleged affected the essence of the imputed crime and would deprive the accused of the opportunity to meet all the allegations in the amended information in preparing their defenses. The allegation of conspiracy, absent from the original information, was also a substantial amendment saddling the respondents with the need for a new defense. Citing People vs. Zulueta, the SC explained that an allegation of conspiracy enables the prosecution to attribute to an accused all the acts, knowledge, admissions, and omissions of a co-conspirator, widens the battlefront, and may allow the use of newly discovered weapons, making it inequitable to sanction such a tactical movement at that stage. The respondent court therefore correctly denied the amended information; the petition was dismissed and the orders affirmed.

• Amendment of Information After Plea — Under Section 14, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (formerly Section 13, Rule 110 of the old Rules), an information may be amended at any time before the accused enters a plea; after plea and during trial, only as to matters of form, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. The SC applied this to bar the proposed amendments after arraignment.
• Test of Prejudice in Amendments — The accused's rights are prejudiced when a defense under the original information would no longer be available after the amendment, and when evidence the accused might have would be inapplicable to the amended information. The SC used this test to hold that the changes were substantial.
• Form vs. Substantial Amendment — An amendment that merely states with additional precision something already contained in the original information, and adds nothing essential for conviction, is an amendment to form and may be made at any time. By contrast, an amendment that changes the crime, increases the penalty, substitutes the stolen items, or adds conspiracy is substantial and cannot be allowed after plea.
• Conspiracy Allegation as Substantial Amendment — An allegation of conspiracy added after plea is substantial because it enables the prosecution to attribute to an accused the acts, knowledge, admissions, and omissions of co-conspirators, widens the battlefront, and requires a new defense; the SC adopted this reasoning from People vs. Zulueta.

• "Amendment of an information under Sec. 14, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (formerly, Section 13, Rule 110 of the old Rules on Criminal Procedure) may be made at any time before the accused enters a plea to the charge. Thereafter and during the trial, amendments to the information may also be allowed, as to matters of form, provided that no prejudice is caused to the rights of the accused." — The SC states the governing rule on amendments before and after plea.
• "The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or information is when a defense under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made, and when any evidence the accused might have, would be inapplicable to the complaint or information as amended." — This is the SC's controlling test for prejudice in amendments.
• "On the other hand, an amendment which merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the original information, and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged is an amendment to form that can be made at anytime." — The SC distinguishes a formal amendment from a substantial one.
• "The proposed amendments in the amended information, in the instant case, are clearly substantial and have the effect of changing the crime charged from "Robbery" punishable under Article 209 to "Robbery in an Uninhabited Place" punishable under Art. 302 of the Revised Penal Code, thereby exposing the private respondents-accused to a higher penalty as compared to the penalty imposable for the offense charged in the original information to which the accused had already entered a plea of "not guilty" during their arraignment." — The SC applies the rule to the change of offense in this case.

• People vs. Zulueta, 89 Phil. 755 — Cited and quoted for the rule that an allegation of conspiracy added after plea is a substantial amendment because it enables the prosecution to attribute to the accused the acts, knowledge, admissions, and omissions of a co-conspirator and requires a new defense.
• US vs. Alabot, 38 Phil. 698 — Cited for the rule that an amendment merely stating with additional precision something already contained in the original information, and adding nothing essential for conviction, is an amendment to form that may be made at any time.

• Section 14, Rule 110, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (formerly Section 13, Rule 110, old Rules) — Governs amendment of an information; applied to allow amendments before plea and only matters of form after plea absent prejudice, thus barring the proposed substantial amendments.
• Article 209, Revised Penal Code — Defines Robbery, the offense originally charged in the Information.
• Article 302, Revised Penal Code — Defines Robbery in an Uninhabited Place, the offense proposed in the amended Information and carrying a higher penalty.