Pangilinan v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Donato Pangilinan was charged with twelve (12) Informations for violations of Section 9, in relation to Section 39, of Presidential Decree No. 957 before the Regional Trial Court (Branch 73), Antipolo, Rizal. The Informations alleged that Pangilinan constructed dwelling units that were defective, causing damage to complainants, and that he failed to comply with a ruling by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board to make necessary repairs. Procedural History: Seven (7) additional Informations were later filed, bringing the total to nineteen (19). The prosecution sought to amend all Informations to correct the construction date from August 15, 1993, to around 1981. Pangilinan opposed this amendment for the first twelve Informations, arguing it was substantial and impermissible after his plea. The trial court initially granted the amendment, then corrected an error in the date, and denied Pangilinan's motion for reconsideration. Pangilinan then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed for failure to attach certified true copies of the assailed orders. This Court directed the Court of Appeals to resolve the petition on its merits. The Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed the petition, affirming the trial court's ruling that the amendment was formal, not substantial. Pangilinan's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Pangilinan filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with this Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals and the trial judge. He contends that the amendment changing the construction date to "in the vicinity of 1981" is substantial and vague, prejudicing his right to know the nature and cause of the accusations. He argues that the trial court could not amend the first twelve Informations after his plea. This Court, treating the petition as a Rule 45 review, found the amendment to be formal and not prejudicial, as the offense charged was based on defective construction, not the specific date of completion, which was undisputed to be around 1981.
Issue(s)
Whether the amendment of the Informations changing the date of the commission of the offense from "on or about August 15, 1993" to "in the vicinity of 1981" constitutes a substantial amendment, rendering it impermissible after the petitioner had entered his plea. Whether the phrase "in the vicinity of 1981" is a vague and defective allegation that would prejudice the petitioner's right to know the nature and cause of the accusations against him.
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of substantial amendment: The Court held that the amendment changing the date of construction from "on or about August 15, 1993" to "in the vicinity of 1981" was merely a formal amendment. The basis of the charge under PD 957 was not the specific date of construction but the defective construction of the housing units, which caused damage to the complainants. It was impossible to complete the construction of all 46 units in a single day. The amendment to "in the vicinity of 1981" was proper, supported by documentary proof of completion in that year, a fact not disputed by the petitioner. Such an amendment did not alter the nature of the offense charged and therefore did not prejudice the petitioner's rights. The Court reiterated that after a plea, only formal amendments are allowed without leave of court, and substantial amendments require leave of court and must not prejudice the accused. On the vagueness of the amended date: The Court found that the amended date "in the vicinity of 1981" was not vague or defective to the point of prejudicing the petitioner. The core of the offense was the defective construction, not the precise date. The petitioner was aware of the nature of the accusations, which stemmed from the construction of the units and their subsequent defects, as evidenced by the HLRB ruling. The amendment merely corrected the timeframe to reflect the actual completion of the units, which was a factual matter supported by evidence and not contested by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner's claim of being unduly exposed to surprises during trial was unsubstantiated.
Main Doctrine
An amendment to an information changing the date of the commission of the offense from "on or about August 15, 1993" to "in the vicinity of 1981" is a formal amendment, not a substantial one, when the basis of the charge is the defective construction of housing units, not the specific date of construction, and such amendment does not prejudice the rights of the accused.