Title
Guinto vs. Veluz
Case
G.R. No. L-980
Decision Date
Dec 21, 1946
A Filipino citizen, Jose Guinto, charged with treason for aiding Japanese forces, contested an amended information filed post-deadline. The Supreme Court ruled it a valid amendment, not a new charge, upholding jurisdiction and dismissing his petition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-980)

Facts and Charges

The original information, filed on March 6, 1946, charged Guinto with treason for acting as a spy and informer for the Japanese Military Police, helping in the capture and subsequent deaths or disappearances of guerrillas and pro-American elements in Manila during the Japanese occupation. Specifically, it alleged that Guinto arrested Ernesto Simpao, a guerrilla, who was then executed by the Japanese. On May 25, 1945, prior to Guinto’s plea, an amended information was filed, specifying additional overt acts of treason involving the arrest and disappearance of several other guerrillas, including Albino Rutao, Ariston Tamon and an accomplice, and Felix de Leon.

Legal Issue Presented

The central issue was whether the filing of an amended information after the initial information—alleging new overt acts of treason but not charging a distinct new offense—was permissible under Commonwealth Act No. 682. The petitioner argued that the amendment, which introduced additional overt acts, was effectively a new charge filed after the prescribed six-month period following the Act's passage, thus depriving the People’s Court of jurisdiction to entertain them.

Relevant Statutory Provisions

Commonwealth Act No. 682, Section 2, grants the People’s Court jurisdiction over crimes against national security committed between December 8, 1941, and September 2, 1945, only if cases are filed within six months from the passage of the Act; otherwise, jurisdiction lies with the regular Courts of First Instance. Section 22 of the Act mandates that proceedings shall be governed by existing laws and the Rules of Court unless otherwise specified.

Rule 106, Section 13 of the Rules of Court allows the amendment of an information in substance or form without leave of court at any time before the defendant pleads.

Court’s Analysis on the Amended Information

The Supreme Court held that the amended information did not constitute a new criminal charge but merely specified additional overt acts to better particularize the original charge of treason. Because treason is a continuous offense that may be committed through several overt acts, all acts supporting the singular crime constitute one offense. The amendment thus related back to the date of filing the original information, which was within the six-month jurisdictional period.

Legal Principles on Overt Acts and Treason

The decision emphasized that proof of treason requires specific overt acts to be alleged and proven, as general allegations of giving aid and comfort to the enemy are insufficient. The defendant must be informed not only of the offense but also the particular acts constituting it to guarantee due process, as mandated by Section 1 (b), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.

Procedural Due Process and Jurisdiction

Allowing amendment to specify additional overt acts before plea under Rule 106, Section 13 conformed to procedural rules. Since the amendment was made before Guinto’s plea, it was proper and did not violate the jurisdictional time limit under Commonwealth Act No. 682.

The Court reasoned that rejecting

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.