SUSAN FRONDA-BAGGAO,
Petitioner, -
versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
G.R. No. 151785
Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, *YNARES-SANTIAGO, Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, JJ. Promulgated: December 10, 2007 |
x
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
|
|
|
Before us is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the
Decision[1] dated
The facts are:
Sometime in 1989, the Provincial
Prosecutor of Abra filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch
1, Bangued, same province, four separate Informations for
illegal recruitment against Susan Fronda-Baggao, petitioner, and Lawrence Lee,
docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 744, 745, 746 and 749.
Petitioner eluded arrest for more than
a decade; hence, the cases against her were archived. On
On
On
Accordingly, the
Order dated
Moreover, considering
that illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in a large scale
shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage,
let this case be forwarded to RTC, Branch 2, a Special Criminal Court.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration, but it was denied by the trial court in its Order dated
On
In its Decision dated
Hence, the present petition.
The issue for our resolution is whether the four Informations for illegal
recruitment could be amended and lumped into one Information for illegal
recruitment in large scale.
Petitioner contends that (a) Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure refers to an amendment of one Information only, not four,
which cannot be joined in only one Information; and that (b) the amendment of
the four Informations for illegal recruitment into a single Information for a
graver offense violates her substantial rights.
Respondent, on the other hand, prays that the petition be denied for lack
of merit.
Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
Section 14. Amendment
or substitution. – A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in
substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his
plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be
made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to
the rights of the accused.
However, any
amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or
excludes any accused from the complaint or information, can be made only upon
motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of
court. The court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of
its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended party.
If it appears at any
time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper
offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the
filing of a new one charging the proper offense in accordance with section 19,
Rule 119, provided the accused would not be placed in double jeopardy. The
court may require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the trial.
(Emphasis ours)
Simply stated, before the accused enters his plea, a formal or
substantial amendment of the complaint or information may be made without leave
of court. After the entry of a plea, only a formal amendment may be made
but with leave of court and only if it does not prejudice the rights of the
accused. After arraignment, a substantial amendment is proscribed except
if the same is beneficial to the accused.[3]
Following the above provisions and considering that petitioner has not
yet entered her plea, the four Informations could still be amended.
Petitioner also contends that the above Rule refers to an amendment of
one Information only, not four or multiple Informations which cannot be joined
into only one Information.
We disagree.
A careful scrutiny of the above Rule shows that although it uses the
singular word complaint or information, it does not mean that two
or more complaints or Informations cannot be amended into only one Information.
Surely, such could not have been intended by this Court. Otherwise, there can
be an absurd situation whereby two or more complaints or Informations could no
longer be amended into one or more Informations. On this point, Section 6, Rule
1 of the Revised Rules of Court is relevant, thus:
SEC. 6. Construction.
- These Rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
In fact, in Galvez v. Court of Appeals,[4] before
the accused were arraigned, this Court allowed the amendment of three original Informations
for homicide and frustrated homicide into four Informations for murder,
frustrated murder and illegal possession of firearms.
Petitioner contends that the amendment of the four Informations for
illegal recruitment into a single Information for illegal recruitment in large
scale violates her substantial rights as this would deprive her of the right to
bail which she already availed of. Such
contention is misplaced. Obviously,
petitioner relies on Section 14 of the same Rule 110 which provides that “after
the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave
of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the
accused.” As stated earlier, petitioner
has not yet been arraigned. Hence, she
cannot invoke the said provision.
WHEREFORE, we DENY
the petition. The challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 58270 are AFFIRMED. Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
*
Designated
to sit as additional Member of the First Division under Special Order No. 474
dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.
[2] Lawrence Lee is still at large.
[3] Matalam v. Sandiganbayan, Second Division, G.R. No. 165751, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 736, 746, citing People v. Janairo, 311 SCRA 58, 67 (1999).
[4] G.R. No. 114046,