Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4017)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines, et al. v. Jose C. Zulueta, G.R. No. L-4017, August 30, 1951, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J., writing for the Court.
The prosecution filed an information on October 15, 1949 in Criminal Case No. 11232 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, charging Jose C. Zulueta (the accused/respondent) with malversation of public property under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code for permitting or by abandonment consenting that 3,000 kegs of nails of the Surplus Property Commission be taken and converted by Beatriz Poblete. The original information alleged that Zulueta either deceived Commissioner Angel Llanes into approving a bargain sale or, alternatively, by abandonment permitted the misappropriation.
Zulueta was arraigned on November 24, 1949 and pleaded not guilty. On January 14, 1950 the prosecution filed an amended information that largely reproduced the original pleading but added a significant allegation that Zulueta had connived and conspired with Commissioner Llanes—who was separately charged in Criminal Case No. 11727—for the same misappropriation. The accused objected that the amendment introduced allegations constituting another offense and that the changes were substantial and prejudicial.
Judge Juan R. Liwag of the Court of First Instance admitted the amended information by order dated February 28, 1950; a motion for reconsideration was denied. Zulueta petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari to annul the trial court's order admitting the amended information. The Court of Appeals granted the petition and annulled the trial court's admission of the amended information.
The People (petitioners/appellants) sought review in the Supreme Court by a petition for review, which the Court gave due...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- After the accused has pleaded, was the January 14, 1950 amended information a permissible amendment "as to matters of form" or was it a substantial amendment prejudicial to the rights of the accused?
- Was certiorari proper despite the existence of an adequa...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)