Title
People vs. Bautista
Case
G.R. No. L-26057
Decision Date
Apr 25, 1968
Rosita Dabu charged with falsifying birth certificates; prosecution sought formal amendments, denied by trial court. Supreme Court ruled amendments non-prejudicial, allowed corrections.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 161803)

Facts:

People of the Philippines and Quinciano de Vera v. Hon. Pedro JL. Bautista, Judge of First Instance of Rizal, Branch III, Pasay City, and Rosita Flores Dabu, G.R. Nos. L-26057 and L-26092, April 25, 1968, Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.

The City Fiscal's Office of Pasay City (petitioners, together with complainant Quinciano de Vera) filed two criminal informations in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City Branch (Crim. Nos. 6708‑P and 6709‑P) charging Rosita Flores Dabu (respondent) with falsification of public documents by false narration of facts under Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code. The informations alleged that the accused prepared and filed birth certificates purporting to show that certain children were legitimate issue of a marriage between the complainant and the accused when, in fact, no such marriage existed.

After arraignment and a plea of not guilty, the prosecution moved before the respondent trial court to amend each information to correct certain particulars: in Crim. No. 6708‑P, the filing date in the Civil Register and the entry number; and in Crim. No. 6709‑P, the child’s date of birth (by one day) and the identity of a birth certificate that would be produced through the Civil Registrar as witness. The accused objected, and the trial court, respondent Judge Pedro J.L. Bautista, denied the prosecutor’s motions and later denied reconsideration, effectively refusing to allow the proposed amendments.

The fiscal petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari seeking annulment of the trial court’s interlocutory orders and also sought a writ o...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Is certiorari the proper remedy to challenge the trial court’s interlocutory orders denying the prosecution’s motions to amend the informations?
  • Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in refusing to allow the proposed amendments, that is, were the amendments merely formal/clerical and therefore non‑pr...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.