Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FEDERICO A. POBLETE v. JUSTICES EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 166510 2008-07-23	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN 'KOKOY' T. ROMUALDEZ BRION, J.
The determinative test in appreciating a motion to quash under this rule is the sufficiency of the averments in the information, that is, whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the offense as defined by law without considering matters aliunde.[32] As Section 6, Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure requires, the information only needs to state the ultimate facts;[33] the evidentiary and other details can be provided during the trial.[34]
	GR No. 157472 2007-09-28	SSGT. JOSE M. PACOY v. AFABLE E. CAJIGAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Section 14, Rule 110 also provides that in allowing formal amendments in cases in which the accused has already pleaded, it is necessary that the amendments do not prejudice the rights of the accused. The test of whether the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or information is whether a defense under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made; and when any evidence the accused might have would be inapplicable to the complaint or information.[22] Since the facts alleged in the accusatory portion of the amended Information are identical with those of the original Information for Homicide, there could not be any effect on the prosecution's theory of the case; neither would there be any possible prejudice to the rights or defense of petitioner.
	GR NO. 169509 2006-06-16	JOCELYN E. CABO v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
x x x x In Poblete v. Sandoval,[26] the Court explained that an amendment is only in form when it merely adds specifications to eliminate vagueness in the information and does not introduce new and material facts. Amendment of an information after the accused has pleaded thereto is allowed, if the amended information merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the original information and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged.
	GR NO. 167474 2005-11-15	CONRADO BANAL III v. DELIA H. PANGANIBAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As laid down by this Court, an amendment is only in form when it merely adds specifications to eliminate vagueness in the information and not to introduce new and material facts, and merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the original information and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged.[15] In the case of People v. Casey,[16] we laid down the test in determining whether an amendment is a matter of form or substance, thus:The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment of an information has been said to be whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other. A look into Our jurisprudence on the matter shows that an amendment to an information introduced after the accused has pleaded not guilty thereto, which does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein, does not expose the accused to a charge which could call for a higher penalty, does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to be one of form and not of substance not prejudicial to the accused, and therefore, not prohibited by Section 13, Rule 110 (now Section 14) of the Revised Rules of Court.[17]
	GR NO. 165751 2005-04-12	DATU GUIMID P. MATALAM v. SECOND DIVISION OF SANDIGANBAYAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The following have been held to be merely formal amendments: (1) new allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty that the court might impose in the event of conviction; (2) an amendment which does not charge another offense different or distinct from that charged in the original one; (3) additional allegations which do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume; (4) an amendment which does not adversely affect any substantial right of the accused;[17] (5) an amendment that merely adds specifications to eliminate vagueness in the information and not to introduce new and material facts, and merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the original information and which adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged.[18]