Case Digest (G.R. No. 103102)
Facts:
In Claudio J. Teehankee, Jr. v. Hon. Job B. Madayag and People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 103102, March 6, 1992), petitioner Claudio J. Teehankee, Jr. was originally charged by information dated July 19, 1991 in Makati, Metro Manila, with frustrated murder for shooting Maureen Navarro Hultman on July 13, 1991. After the prosecution rested, petitioner sought to file a demurrer to evidence, but before action could be taken, the victim died. Thereupon, private prosecutor Rogelio A. Vinluan filed an omnibus motion, and on October 31, 1991 an amended information for murder was lodged without a new preliminary investigation. On November 13, 1991 the trial court admitted the amended information, and on November 26, 1991 petitioner refused arraignment for lack of preliminary investigation, prompting the court to enter a plea of “not guilty” on his behalf and to appoint a counsel de oficio when his chosen counsel declined to participate. Petitioner then filed a special civil action fo
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 103102)
Facts:
- Case Background
- G.R. No. 103102, entitled Claudio J. Teehankee, Jr. v. Hon. Job B. Madayag and People of the Philippines, decided March 6, 1992, En Banc.
- Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to nullify several trial court orders.
- Trial Court Proceedings
- Original Information (July 19, 1991)
- Charged petitioner with frustrated murder of Maureen Navarro Hultman: armed attack with intent to kill, treachery, evident premeditation, causing gunshot wounds which did not cause death due to timely medical aid.
- Prosecution rested; petitioner sought leave to file demurrer to evidence.
- Amended Information (October 31, 1991)
- Motion by private prosecutor to amend charge to consummated murder, alleging same attack directly caused victim’s death.
- Petitioner opposed; filed opposition and rejoinder.
- Trial Court Orders
- November 13, 1991: respondent judge admitted the amended information without another preliminary investigation.
- November 26, 1991: petitioner refused arraignment on amended information; judge entered plea of not guilty.
- Upon petitioner’s counsel’s refusal to participate, the court appointed a counsel de oficio/PAO lawyer.
- Petitioner’s Prayer
- Nullify admission of amended information, arraignment, plea, and de oficio appointment;
- Prohibit overspeedy scheduling;
- Compel preliminary investigation on amended charge.
Issues:
- Amendment of Information
- Whether an amended information converting frustrated murder into consummated murder—filed after prosecution rested—may be admitted without a new preliminary investigation.
- Whether the change in the stage of execution (additional allegation of death) constitutes a substantial amendment requiring fresh proceedings.
- Appointment of Counsel de Oficio
- Whether the trial court validly appointed a counsel de oficio when petitioner’s retained counsel refused to participate.
- Whether such appointment infringes petitioner’s right to counsel of choice.
- Case Scheduling
- Whether the trial court’s “over-speedy and preferential” scheduling of petitioner’s case over older cases is legal.
- Whether such scheduling violates petitioner’s and other litigants’ rights or prejudices the administration of justice.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)