GR L 980; (December, 1946) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-980; December 21, 1946
JOSE GUINTO, petitioner, vs. JOSE P. VELUZ, SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS, and EUSEBIO M. LOPEZ, Judges of the People’s Court, respondents.
FACTS
An original information for treason was filed against petitioner Jose Guinto in the People’s Court on March 6, 1946, within the six-month period prescribed by Commonwealth Act No. 682 . It alleged that, between November 1, 1944, and February 3, 1946, in Manila, Guinto adhered to the enemy by acting as a spy/informer for the Japanese Military Police, with one specific overt act: the arrest and killing of guerrilla Ernesto Simpao on or about December 15, 1944. Before Guinto pleaded, the prosecution filed an “Amended information by way of a Bill of particulars” on May 25, 1945, which added three more specific overt acts of aiding the enemy in the arrests of Albino Rutao, Ariston Tamon (and a companion), and Felix de Leon, occurring on or about October 29, 1944, and January 24, 1945. Guinto moved to quash the amendment, arguing it constituted a new information filed after the six-month jurisdictional period had elapsed. The People’s Court denied the motion and the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Guinto then filed this petition for certiorari, alleging the court acted in excess of jurisdiction by admitting the amended information.
ISSUE
Whether the People’s Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by admitting an amended information that alleged additional overt acts of treason after the six-month filing period prescribed by Commonwealth Act No. 682 had expired, where the original information was filed within the period.
RULING
The People’s Court acted within its jurisdiction. The amended information is not a new information charging a different offense. Treason is a single, continuous offense, regardless of the number of overt acts committed to aid the enemy. The additional overt acts specified in the amendment are merely a more particular specification of the same general charge of treason (adhering to the enemy, giving aid and comfort) alleged in the original information. As such, the amendment relates back to the date of the original filing, which was within the six-month period. The amendment was procedurally proper under Section 13, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court (which applies via Section 22 of Act No. 682 ), allowing amendment before plea. To rule otherwise would improperly split a single crime of treason and could subject the accused to double jeopardy. The petition for certiorari is dismissed.