G.R. No. L-45772 March 25, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. Hon. EDUARDO MONTENEGRO, Presiding Judge, Branch IV-B, CFI Rizal, Quezon City; ANTONIO CIMARRA, ULPIANO VILLAR, BAYANI CATINDIG, and AVELINO DE LEON, respondents.

FACTS

The City Fiscal of Quezon City filed an Information for Robbery against respondents Antonio Cimarra, Ulpiano Villar, Bayani Catindig, and Avelino de Leon, all Quezon City police officers. They were charged as accessories-after-the-fact to a robbery committed by minor Ricardo Cabaloza, who had already been convicted for stealing a specific list of items valued at P75,591.40 from Ding Velayo, Inc. The respondents pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, and trial was scheduled.
Before trial commenced, the prosecution filed a Motion to Admit Amended Information. The proposed amendments sought to: (1) change the offense from Robbery to Robbery in an Uninhabited Place; (2) allege conspiracy among all the accused; and (3) delete the original list of stolen items and substitute an entirely different set of articles valued at P71,336.80. The respondents opposed the motion. The respondent court denied the admission of the Amended Information, a ruling it upheld upon the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration, prompting the People to file this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the prosecution’s Motion to Admit Amended Information.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The denial was legally sound as the proposed amendments were substantial, not merely formal, and were filed after the accused had already pleaded not guilty. Under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, amendments as a matter of form are permissible after a plea, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. An amendment is prejudicial and substantial if a defense available under the original information is no longer viable under the amended one, or if evidence already prepared by the defense becomes inapplicable.
Here, the amendments were substantial. Changing the crime from Robbery to Robbery in an Uninhabited Place altered the nature of the offense. More critically, replacing the entire list of stolen items with a completely different set of articles changed the very essence of the imputed crime, as the items stolen constitute a fundamental element of the charge. This would deprive the accused of the opportunity to meet the new allegations and would force them to prepare an entirely new defense. Furthermore, alleging conspiracy, which was absent in the original information, would radically alter the prosecution’s theory, making each accused liable for the acts of all others, thereby necessitating a completely different defense strategy. The Court cited People v. Zulueta, which held that such a tactical shift after plea is inequitable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the respondent court’s orders were affirmed.