Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Amendment or Substitution
A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at
any time before the accused enters his plea.
After the plea and during the trial, a formal
amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing
prejudice to the rights of the accused.
However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the offense charged in
or excludes any accused from the complaint or information, can be made only upon motion by the
prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court. The court shall state its
reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the
offended party. (n)
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper
offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one
charging the proper offense in accordance with section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall not
be placed in double jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at
the trial. (14a)
Section 19, Rule 119. When mistake has been made in charging the proper offense - When it becomes
manifest at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense and the
accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or any other offense necessarily included therein, the
accused shall not be discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. In such case, the court shall
commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and dismiss the original case upon the filing of the
proper information.
Before Plea:
Amendment (form and substance) without leave of court is
allowed except: if amendment downgrades the nature of the
offense and if it excludes any of the accused from the
complaint or information.
Arraignment
When confronted with a motion to withdraw an information on the ground of lack of probable cause based on a
resolution of the secretary of justice, the bounden duty of the trial court is to make an independent assessment of
the merits of such motion. Having acquired jurisdiction over the case, the trial court is not bound by such resolution
but is required to evaluate it before proceeding further with the trial. While the secretarys ruling is persuasive, it is
not binding on courts. A trial court, however, commits reversible error or even grave abuse of discretion if it
refuses/neglects to evaluate such recommendation and simply insists on proceeding with the trial on the mere
pretext of having already acquired jurisdiction over the criminal action. - Ledesma v CA
In Marcelo vs. Court of Appeals,[31] this Court ruled that, although it is more prudent to wait for a final resolution of a
motion for review or reinvestigation from the secretary of justice before acting on a motion to dismiss or a motion
to withdraw an information, a trial court nonetheless should make its own study and evaluation of said motion and
not rely merely on the awaited action of the secretary. The trial court has the option to grant or deny the motion to
dismiss the case filed by the fiscal, whether before or after the arraignment of the accused, and whether after a
reinvestigation or upon instructions of the secretary who reviewed the records of the investigation; provided that
such grant or denial is made from its own assessment and evaluation of the merits of the motion.
In Martinez vs. Court of Appeals,[32] this Court overruled the grant of the motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting
fiscal upon the recommendation of the secretary of justice because such grant was based upon considerations other
than the judges own assessment of the matter. Relying solely on the conclusion of the prosecution to the effect that
there was no sufficient evidence against the accused to sustain the allegation in the information, the trial judge did
not perform his function of making an independent evaluation or assessment of the merits of the case.
In Marcelo, the dismissal of the criminal action upon the favorable recommendation of the Review Committee,
Office of the City Prosecutor, was precipitate in view of the pendency of private complainants appeal to the
secretary of justice. In effect, the secretarys opinion was totally disregarded by the trial court. In contrast,
in Martinez the dismissal of the criminal action was an erroneous exercise of judicial discretion as the trial court
relied hook, line and sinker on the resolution of the secretary, without making its own independent determination of
the merits of the said resolution.
c.
d.
Amendment may involve either formal or substantial changes, while substitution necessarily
involves a substantial change from the original charge;
Amendment before plea has been entered can be effected without leave of court, but
substitution of information must be with leave of court as the original information has to be
dismissed;
Where the amendment is only as to form, there is no need for another preliminary investigation
and the retaking of the plea of the accused; in substitution of information, another preliminary
investigation is entailed and the accused has to plead anew to the new information; and
An amended information refers to the same offense charged in the original information or to an
offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the original charge, hence,
substantial amendments to the information after the plea has been taken cannot be made over
the objection of the accused, for if the original information would be withdrawn, the accused
could invoke double jeopardy. On the other hand, substitution requires or presupposes that the
new information involves a different offense which does not include or is not necessarily
included in the original charge, hence, the accused cannot claim double jeopardy.