GR 186403; (September, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 186403. September 05, 2018
MAYOR “JONG” AMADO CORPUS, JR. AND CARLITO SAMONTE, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUDGE RAMON D. PAMULAR OF BRANCH 33, GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, MRS. PRISCILLA ESPINOSA, AND NUEVA ECIJA PROVINCIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FLORO FLORENDO, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
An Information for Murder was filed against Carlito Samonte for the shooting death of Angelito Espinosa. Samonte pleaded not guilty, claiming self-defense, and trial ensued. Subsequently, the victim’s wife, Priscilla Espinosa, filed a complaint-affidavit and submitted witness statements, including an affidavit from Alexander Lozano alleging that Mayor Amado Corpus, Jr. instructed Samonte to commit the killing. Provincial Prosecutor Floro Florendo, after reviewing the new evidence, found probable cause against Corpus and directed the filing of an Amended Information to include Corpus as a co-accused, alleging conspiracy.
The prosecution filed a Motion to Admit the Amended Information before the trial court. Petitioners Corpus and Samonte opposed, arguing the amendment was substantive and prejudicial, especially since Samonte had already pleaded and trial had begun. Respondent Judge Ramon D. Pamular granted the motion and issued a warrant for Corpus’s arrest. Petitioners filed this Petition for Certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion for allowing a substantive amendment after plea.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to amend the Information to include a new accused based on an allegation of conspiracy after the original accused had already pleaded.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The amendment was formal, not substantive. The test for a formal amendment is whether it is prejudicial to the rights of the accused. An amendment is merely formal if a defense available under the original information remains available under the amended one, and evidence presented remains applicable.
Here, the amendment only added Corpus as a co-accused and alleged conspiracy. The core allegation—that the accused willfully shot the victim—remained unchanged. Samonte’s defense of self-defense, which concedes the killing but seeks to justify it, remains perfectly available to him under the amended Information. The amendment did not alter the nature of the offense charged or the facts constituting the crime of Murder. The allegation of conspiracy did not introduce a new theory of criminal liability that fundamentally altered the prosecution’s case; it merely expanded the scope of participation. Therefore, the amendment was formal and permissible under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. The trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the amended Information and issuing a warrant based on the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause.