G.R. No. L-15012; April 28, 1960
ANTONIO DIMALIBOT, petitioner-appellant, vs. ARSENIO N. SALCEDO, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

On February 20, 1958, Ramon Dimalibot and others were charged with homicide before the Justice of the Peace Court of Candelaria, Quezon, for the killing of Bartolome Hernandez. After a preliminary investigation found probable cause, the court issued a warrant for their arrest, setting bail at P8,000.00 each. The accused posted bail and were released. During the second stage of the preliminary investigation, the accused pleaded not guilty and waived their right to present evidence, leading the court to forward the case to the Court of First Instance. The provincial fiscal, upon reviewing the affidavits of prosecution witnesses, found that the killing involved qualifying circumstances (treachery, superior strength, and means to weaken defense) indicative of murder. The fiscal petitioned the court to return the record to the justice of the peace court so the chief of police could reinvestigate and file an amended complaint for murder. The court granted the petition. On October 7, 1958, the chief of police filed an amended complaint for murder. The justice of the peace court found probable cause for the new charge and ordered the re-arrest of the accused without bail, as murder is a capital offense. On December 3, 1958, Antonio Dimalibot filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the accused, arguing the amended complaint was illegal and their confinement unlawful. The Court of First Instance of Quezon denied the petition, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance erred in ordering the return of the case for reinvestigation and the filing of an amended complaint for murder, thereby authorizing the re-arrest of the accused, and whether such amendment was authorized by law.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, holding that the amendment of the complaint was proper and authorized under Section 13, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court. The rule allows amendment of an information or complaint in substance or form without leave of court before the defendant pleads. It further provides that if a mistake is made in charging the proper offense before judgment, the court may dismiss the original complaint and order the filing of a new one, provided the defendant is not placed in double jeopardy. In this case, the accused had not yet been arraigned in the competent court when the amendment from homicide to murder was made. The amendment was justified because the evidence (affidavits of prosecution witnesses) available from the inception of the case showed qualifying circumstances for murder, indicating a mistake in the initial charge of homicide. The Court cited Melo vs. The People of the Philippines (85 Phil., 766) to support the allowance of such amendments to conform to the true nature of the crime committed, as long as double jeopardy is not incurred. Therefore, the warrant for re-arrest issued based on the amended complaint was lawful, and the confinement was not illegal. The petition for habeas corpus was correctly denied.