Facts:
Claudio J. Teehankee, Jr. v. Hon. Job B. Madayag and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 103102, March 06, 1992, the Supreme Court En Banc, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Teehankee was originally charged by information dated July 19, 1991 with
frustrated murder for shooting Maureen Navarro Hultman on July 13, 1991. After the prosecution rested, petitioner sought leave to file a demurrer to evidence, but before that motion could be filed the victim died. Private prosecutor Rogelio A. Vinluan then filed a motion for leave to file an amended information and to admit an amended information (filed October 31, 1991) charging
murder (consummated) by alleging that the gunshot wounds directly caused the victim’s death. Petitioner opposed the motion and filed a rejoinder to the prosecution’s reply. On November 13, 1991 the trial court admitted the amended information.
At arraignment on November 26, 1991 petitioner refused to be arraigned on the amended information, insisting that the murder charge required a new preliminary investigation; the trial judge ordered a plea of “not guilty” entered for petitioner. The trial court then directed the prosecution to proceed with presentation of evidence; when petitioner’s retained counsel refused to participate for reasons grounded on the alleged denial of due process, the trial court appointed a counsel de oficio to represent petitioner. Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in the Supreme Court challenging (1) the admission of the amended information for murder without preliminary investigation, (2) the entry of plea and arraignment proceedings, (3) the appointment of a counsel de oficio, (4) alleged “over‑speedy and preferential” scheduling of trial, and (5) seeking an order compell...
(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May an amended information effecting what the accused contends is a substantial amendment — changing the charge from frustrated murder to consummated murder — be admitted after trial has begun and after the prosecution has rested, without a new preliminary investigation?
- May a trial court lawfully appoint a counsel de oficio to represent an accused whose counsel of choice refuses to participate in proceedings on grounds of a perceived denial of due process?
- May a trial court “rush” or preferentially schedule a particular criminal case for trial ove...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: