G.R. No. L-26057 and L-26092; April 25, 1968
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and QUINCIANO DE VERA, petitioners, vs. HON. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA, Judge of First Instance of Rizal, Branch III, Pasay City, and ROSITA FLORES DABU, respondents.

FACTS

The City Fiscal’s Office of Pasay City filed two informations against Rosita Flores Dabu for falsification of public documents through false narration of facts (Criminal Cases Nos. 6708-P and 6709-P). The informations alleged that Dabu prepared and filed certificates of live birth for two children, Susan Dabu de Vera and Quinciano Dabu de Vera, Jr., making it appear that she and complainant Quinciano de Vera were married on September 23, 1958, in Lubao, Pampanga, and that the children were their legitimate offspring entitled to bear the surname “de Vera,” when in truth no such marriage ever took place. After arraignment and plea of not guilty, but before trial, the prosecution moved to amend the informations to correct clerical details: in Case No. 6708-P, to change the filing date from March 20, 1961, to March 29, 1961, and the entry number from 907 to 807; in Case No. 6709-P, to change the child’s birth date from September 13, 1962, to September 12, 1962, and to correct the witness list by specifying the correct birth certificate. The accused objected, and the respondent judge refused to allow the amendments. The prosecution then filed a petition for certiorari and preliminary injunction with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the prosecution’s motion to amend the informations, which sought to correct clerical errors in dates and entry numbers, on the ground that such amendments would prejudice the rights of the accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, annulled the respondent judge’s orders, and directed the court to permit the amendments. The Court held that the proposed amendments were merely formal and did not prejudice the accused’s rights. In Criminal Case No. 6708-P, amending the filing date and entry number was formal because the date of filing in the Civil Registry was not an element of the crime of falsification by false narration of facts, as the offense was complete before filing, and the entry number, assigned by the Civil Registrar, did not affect the offense or any defense. In Criminal Case No. 6709-P, changing the child’s birth date by one day was immaterial and irrelevant to the charged offense of falsely alleging legitimacy, and correcting the witness list did not alter the body of the information, as the prosecution is not bound to disclose all evidence beforehand. The denial of these amendments constituted grave abuse of discretion, and certiorari was proper as no appeal lay from an interlocutory order and no other adequate remedy was available.