Case Summary (G.R. No. 103102)
Key Dates
• July 13, 1991 – Alleged commission of frustrated murder
• July 19, 1991 – Original information (frustrated murder) filed
• October 31, 1991 – Amended information (murder) filed without new preliminary investigation
• November 13, 1991 – Trial court admits amended information
• November 26, 1991 – Petitioner refuses arraignment; “not guilty” plea entered; counsel de oficio appointed
• January 14, 1992 – Supreme Court dispenses with Solicitor General’s comment
• March 6, 1992 – Decision date (1987 Constitution applicable)
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14 – Right to due process; protection against oppressive and hasty prosecutions; right to counsel
• 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 110, Sec. 14 – Distinction between amendment and substitution of information
Factual Background
Petitioner was first charged with frustrated murder for shooting Hultman. After the prosecution rested, Hultman died. The private prosecutor moved to file and admit an amended information upgrading the charge to murder without holding a new preliminary investigation. The trial court granted the motion, entered a not‐guilty plea over petitioner’s refusal to be arraigned, and appointed a public defender when petitioner’s retained counsel abstained. Petitioner then petitioned for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to nullify these actions and compel a preliminary investigation.
Issues Presented
(a) Whether upgrading the charge from frustrated to consummated murder by amended information, filed after plea, is valid without a new preliminary investigation.
(b) Whether the appointment of a counsel de oficio is proper when petitioner’s counsel of choice refuses to participate.
(c) Whether the trial court may preferentially schedule petitioner’s trial over older criminal cases.
Legal Analysis and Rationale
- Amendment vs. Substitution
- Under Rule 110, Sec. 14, an information may be amended in substance without leave before plea; after plea, amendments are limited to matters of form with leave. Substitution (charging a different offense) requires dismissal of the original information, leave of court, and a fresh preliminary investigation.
- Identity of Offenses
- Frustrated murder is a stage of the crime of murder; both require intent to kill and qualifying circumstances (treachery, premeditation). The supervening fact of the victim’s death does not create a distinct offense but completes the same criminal act.
- Formal Amendment
- Adding the fact of death is a formal amendment that does not alter the theory of the prosecution or prejudice petitioner’s defense. Under the 1987 Constitution, petitioner’s due process rights were preserved because the essential elements remained unchanged and no double jeopardy arose.
- Preliminary Investigation
- A new preliminary investigation is unnecessary when the amended charge is formally related to the original and relies on the same facts. Requiring another hearing would impose needless delay.
Appointment of Counsel de Oficio
Because petitioner’s counsel of choice abstained, impeding the orderly conduct of trial, the trial court properly appointed a public defender to secure petitioner’s right to counsel
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 103102)
Parties and Nature of the Action
- Petitioner: Claudio J. Teehankee, Jr.
- Respondents: Hon. Job B. Madayag (trial judge) and the People of the Philippines
- Relief sought: issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
- Principal prayers:
- Nullify order admitting amended information for murder
- Annul arraignment and plea of not guilty on amended information
- Nullify appointment of counsel de oficio
- Prohibit expedited trial scheduling
- Compel preliminary investigation on amended charge
Factual Background
- Original information (July 19, 1991): charged petitioner with frustrated murder of Maureen Navarro Hultman in Makati
- Allegations: petitioner, armed with a handgun, with intent to kill, treachery, and premeditation, shot Hultman in the head; survival due to timely medical assistance
- Prosecution rested; demurrer to evidence not yet filed
- Victim’s death occurred before demurrer could be filed
Procedural History
- Private prosecutor filed an omnibus motion (October 31, 1991) to amend the information to murder
- Amended information alleged the same facts plus the victim’s death caused directly by petitioner’s act
- Petitioner filed opposition and rejoinder; prosecution filed reply
- Trial court admitted the amended information (November 13, 1991)
- Petitioner refused arraignment for lack of preliminary investigation; court entered a not guilty plea for him
- Upon private counsel’s refusal to proceed, court appointed counsel de oficio
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via special civil action
Issues Presented
- Whether a substantial amendment from frustrated to consummated murder, without new preliminary investigation after trial commencement, is permissible
- Whether appointment of counsel de oficio is valid when petitioner’s chosen counsel refuses to continue
- Whether the trial court’s scheduling amounts to over-speedy and preferential trial