G.R. No. L-9397; March 30, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE VAYSON, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Jose Vayson was charged with a violation of the Election Law. The original information alleged that on or about June 4, 1912, in Misamis, he knowingly and unlawfully voted in the general elections while being delinquent in the payment of his land taxes for the years 1908 to 1911, amounting to P56.88. The information initially cited paragraph 4, section 30 of the Election Law. Upon arraignment on September 29, 1913, Vayson pleaded guilty. On the same day, the trial court, upon the fiscal’s recommendation for leniency (based on Vayson being “poor” and “ignorant”), sentenced him to one month imprisonment and costs.

On October 3, 1913, before Vayson had begun serving his sentence, the fiscal moved to amend the information to correct clerical errors: changing the surname “Baison” to “Vayson” and the cited provision from “paragraph 4” to “paragraph 1” of section 30. The court granted the motion. During further inquiry, the court learned that Vayson had been the elected vice-president of Misamis and was a candidate for that office at the time he voted illegally. The court then revoked its original one-month sentence and imposed a new sentence of six months imprisonment. Vayson appealed, questioning the severity of the increased penalty and the court’s authority to modify its judgment.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court had the authority to set aside its original judgment and impose a heavier penalty after the defendant had pleaded guilty but before he began serving the sentence.
2. Whether the amendment of the information after the plea of guilty prejudiced the rights of the accused.
3. Whether the six-month imprisonment penalty imposed was excessive.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the trial court.

1. On the Court’s Authority to Modify the Judgment: The Court held that a trial court retains plenary control over its judgments in criminal cases until they become final (i.e., before the expiration of the period for appeal), provided the defendant has not begun to serve the sentence. Citing American authorities and its own civil jurisprudence, the Court ruled that during this period, the court may, in the exercise of sound discretion, revise its judgment by either increasing or decreasing the penalty, so long as it remains within the limits prescribed by law. Since Vayson had not begun serving his one-month sentence when it was revoked and increased, the trial court acted within its authority.

2. On the Amendment of the Information: The Court ruled that the amendments made were mere corrections of clerical errors that did not change the nature of the offense charged. The original allegations clearly described the act of voting while knowing oneself to be disqualified due to tax delinquency, which is penalized under paragraph 1, not paragraph 4, of section 30 of the Election Law. The correction thus caused no prejudice to Vayson’s substantial rights.