Case Digest (G.R. No. 45828)
Facts:
Domingo S. Castro and Hermogenes Buencamino v. Roman Ozaeta, G.R. No. 45828, March 04, 1938, the Supreme Court En Banc, Diaz, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Domingo S. Castro and Hermogenes Buencamino sought relief by certiorari against Roman Ozaeta, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, alleging abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction in permitting an amendment to the information charging them with illegal possession of counterfeit bank notes.The criminal action began with a complaint filed in the Justice of the Peace Court of Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, for illegal possession of counterfeit notes purporting to be issued by the Philippine National Bank; a preliminary investigation followed in which the alleged counterfeit notes were presented. Based on that investigation the provincial fiscal filed an information in Criminal Case No. 9291 before the Court of First Instance, charging the same crime. During the formal trial, after the prosecution had presented part of its oral and documentary evidence, the respondent judge observed that the notes introduced were not National Bank one-hundred-peso notes but rather certificates of deposit or notes of the Insular Treasury.
Acting on that observation, the provincial fiscal requested and was granted leave a few minutes later to amend the information to allege that the counterfeit instruments were “treasury certificates of the Philippine Islands’’ instead of “bogus bills purporting to have been issued by the Philippine National Bank.’’ The petitioners objected, excepted to the order permitting the amendment, and announced their intention to petition the judge within nine days. They then filed the present certiorari petition in the Supreme Court seeking to have the amendment declared illegal as contrav...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge abuse his discretion or exceed his jurisdiction in allowing the amendment of the information after the prosecution had presented part of its evidence in violation of section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (General Orders No. 58)?
- Was the amendment one of form rather than substance, and if so, did it prejudice the petitioners’ rights such that it ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)