People vs Labatete G.R. No.

L-12917
Facts:
A criminal case was filed against the accused for maliciously transferring by way of mortgage, to
the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation the properties and improvements and products previously
encumbered to complainant Genoveva Malinao, without first discharging said previous indebtedness and
mortgage of the improvements and products to complainant Genoveva Malinao.
On January 7, 1957, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, so the trial was commenced
on the same date with the presentation of the offended party as a witness. The testimony of the offended
party, however, was suspended because, the accused presented a motion to dismiss the information
(dated January 11, 1957), on the ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute a crime.
The motion to dismiss was set for hearing with the opposition of the fiscal and the court on
February 4, 1957 held that the facts alleged in the information do not constitute the crime of estafa. It,
therefore, ordered the information.
A motion to reconsider the order of dismissal was presented but the same was denied, so the
fiscal presented a motion to admit an amended information which states that the accused gave as
security for the payment of his loan the land under Original Certificate of Title No. 484, not only the
products and improvements thereon, while the indebtedness in favor of the offended party was still unpaid
and unsatisfied, and that, there after, the accused mortgaged the property to the RFC of Naga City.
At first the court admitted the amended in formation, no objection, no objection having been filed,
but subsequently, upon motion of the accused, it reconsidered its order admitting the said amended
information. The fiscal tried to have this order denying the admission of the amended information revoked,
but to no avail, hence this appeal.
Issue:
WON the amendment given by the fiscal is substantial.
Held:
Yes the amendment was substantial
A reading of both the original and the amended information clearly shows that the latter changes
the facts or the ground of responsibility for which the accused is indicted; for whereas in the original
information only the improvements and products are alleged to have been mortgaged, in the amended
information both the land and the products and improvements are alleged to have been mortgaged to the
offended party. This is a substantial amendment changing the acts imputed to the accused as constituting
an offense and is not allowed as held in the case of People vs. Zulueta, 89 Phil., 880. If the amended
information were to be admitted, the accused will be deprived of his defense of double jeopardy because
by the amended information he is sought to be made responsible for the same act of borrowing on a
mortgage for which he had already began to be tried and acquitted by the dismissal of the original
information. As the law permits amendment only when amendment can be done without prejudice to the
rights of the defendant, it is very clear that the admission of the amended information would prejudice the
rights of the defendant, more especially his right to the defense of double jeopardy.
Wong vs Yatco G.R. No. L-9525

Facts:
Petitioner was charged before the court with a violation of Commonwealth Act No. 104 for
allowing more than 400 laborers to works in a room of 3,427.20 cubic meters space, during the period
from May 3, 1954 to October 11, 1954. After the accused had pleaded not guilty, he filed a motion to
quash on the ground that at the time of the alleged violation the regulations implementing the law had not
yet been published in the Official Gazette as required by law.
When the case was called for hearing on March 17, 1955, the first assistant city attorney of
Quezon City appeared and made a verbal motion for the dismissal of the charge on the same grounds
mentioned in the motion for dismissal filed. Instead of approving this motion, the court made a surprise
visit to the place where the alleged violation was taking place, conducting an ocular inspection of the
premises and found that indeed the accused is violating Commonwealth act no. 104 and denied the
verbal motion of the fiscal and ordered him to file an amended information.
The amended information alleged that the commission of the violation took place on January 2,
1954 to October 11, 1954, petitioner reiterated his original motion to quash. The judge had ordered the
fiscal to file an opposition to the motion to quash, but the fiscal instead of doing so filed an amended
information on March 31, 1955, changing the period of the supposed violation to that from January 2,
1955 to March 17, 1955. On June 28, 1955 the judge denied the motion to quash filed by the accused
alleging that the said amended information was substantial and he would be prejudiced.
Issue:
WON the changing of the date is a substantial amendment
Held:
The amendment is certainly on a matter of substance because in 1954 the act was not
punishable yet. The amendment cannot be allowed because the accused, petitioner herein, had already
pleaded not guilty to the original information. Another reason is the fact that when the original information
was filed the violation was not yet subject to prosecution because the law had not yet subject to
prosecution because the law had not yet been published. It is true that since the information was filed the
law had become effective; but the law can have no retroactive effect. Since an amended information is
supposed to retroact to the time of the filing of the original information, and at the time of the filing of the
original information the offense was not yet punishable, the proper course would have been not to amend
the previous information but to file another one.
An information filed before the effectivity of a law punishing an offense may not be amended after
the law punishing the crime had come into effect to charge a violation after the law had come into effect.
As an amendment retroacts to the time of the presentation of the amended pleading, the amended
information would contain a violation committed after its filing. A crime charged should have been
committed prior to the filing of the information. In the case at bar the court should have dismissed the
original information and authorized the presentation of a new one.

Almeda vs Villaluz G.R. No. L-31665

Facts:
The petitioner Leonardo Almeda (alias Nardong Paa) was charged, together with five others, with
the crime of qualified theft of a motor vehicle.
At the hearing of February 18, 1970, Almeda asked the trial court to allow him to post a surety
bond in lieu of the cash bond required of him. This request was denied, and so was an oral motion for
reconsideration, on the ground that the amended information imputed habitual delinquency and recidivism
on the part of Almeda. At the same hearing, the respondent city fiscal, thru his assistant, reiterated his
oral motion made at a previous hearing for amendment of the information so as to include allegations of
recidivism and habitual delinquency in the particular case of Almeda.
The latter vigorously objected, arguing that (a) such an amendment was premature since no
copies of prior conviction could yet be presented in court, (b) the motion to amend should have been
made in writing in order to enable him to object formally, and (c) the proposed amendment would place
him in double jeopardy considering that he had already pleaded not guilty to the information. The trial
court nevertheless granted the respondent fiscal's motion in open court. An oral motion for
reconsideration was denied.
Immediately thereafter, the assistant fiscal took hold of the original information and, then and
there, entered his amendment by annotating the same on the back of the document. The petitioner
forthwith moved for the dismissal of the charge on the ground of double jeopardy, but this motion and a
motion for reconsideration were denied in open court.
Issue:
WON the amendment to the information, after a plea of not guilty thereto, was properly allowed in
both substance and procedure.
Held:
Yes, the amendment made was valid and in no way violates his right to be fully apprised before
trial of the charges against him.
Under section 13 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the trial court has discretion to allow
amendments to the information on all matters of form after the defendant has pleaded and during the trial
when the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the defendant. What are prohibited at this
stage of the proceedings are amendments in substance. And the substantial matter in a complaint or
information is the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of
the court. All other matters are merely of form.
The additional allegations of habitual delinquency and recidivism do not have the effect of
charging another offense different or distinct from the charge of qualified theft (of a motor vehicle)
contained in the information. Neither do they tend to correct any defect in the jurisdiction of the trial court
over the subject-matter of the case. The said new allegations relate only to the range of the penalty that
the court might impose in the event of conviction. They do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case
nor possibly prejudice the form of defense the accused has or will assume. Consequently, in authorizing
the amendments, the respondent judge acted with due consideration of the petitioner's rights and did not
abuse his discretion.

People vs Opemia Gr no. L-7987 March 26, 1956

Facts:
An information was filed charging four persons with the theft of a large cattle to have been
commited on or about June 18,1952. After the defendants pleaded not guilty and in the course of the trial
the caretaker of the cattle was put to the witness stand and declared that the crime was committed
sometime in july 1947, whereupon the fiscal asked for permission to amend the information to make it
conform with the evidence presented regarding the date of commission.
The defendants objected to the proposed amendement and irritirated that if an amendment would
be made their substaintial rights would be violated. The trial court sustained the objection. The defendants
then moved to quash the information alleging that there is a variance between the allegations and the
evidence presented. The trial court moved to dismiss the Complaint upon the motion of the defendants.
Issue:
WON amending the date is substantial or a formal amendment.
Held:
An amendment that would change the date of the commission of the offense in this case
constitutes as a substantial in nature and not only as to form. The difference in the date could not be
attributed to a clerical error, because the possibility of such an error is ruled out by the fact that the
difference is not only in the year but also in the month and in the last two digits of the year. It is apparent
that the proposed amendment concerns with the material facts constituting the offense and consequently
it would be prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendants.