Corpus v. Pamular
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Angelito Espinosa was shot and killed by Carlito Samonte on June 4, 2008. Samonte was caught in flagrante delicto and arrested. An Information for murder was filed against Samonte, who pleaded self-defense. Subsequently, Mrs. Priscilla Espinosa, wife of the deceased, filed affidavits implicating Mayor Amado Corpus, Jr. as the one who instructed Samonte to kill Angelito. Based on these affidavits, Provincial Prosecutor Floro Florendo found probable cause to indict Corpus and directed the filing of an amended information charging both Samonte and Corpus with murder, alleging conspiracy. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the complaint against Corpus. However, upon motion for reconsideration, the prosecutor's office reconsidered and found probable cause to indict Corpus. An amended information was filed. Despite this, another prosecutor issued a resolution reinstating the dismissal of the complaint against Corpus. The prosecutor's office then filed a motion to amend the information, which was opposed by Corpus and Samonte. The RTC, through Judge Ramon D. Pamular, granted the motion to amend the information and ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest against Corpus. This order was assailed before the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari. The Petition: Petitioners Corpus and Samonte sought to annul the RTC's February 26, 2009 Order and the warrant of arrest, arguing that the RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion by proceeding with the amended information and issuing the warrant despite the pendency of a Petition for Review before the Department of Justice (DOJ) and that the amendment was substantial and prejudicial to Samonte's rights after his arraignment. They also questioned the judge's personal determination of probable cause.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Ramon Pamular committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he conducted further proceedings on the Amended Information and issued a warrant of arrest against petitioner Amado Corpus, Jr. despite the pendency of his and petitioner Carlito Samonte's Petition for Review before the Department of Justice. Whether the arraignment of petitioner Amado Corpus, Jr. may proceed after the lapse of the maximum 60-day period suspension provided for under Rule 116, Section 11(c) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Whether respondent Judge Ramon Pamular committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he allegedly admitted the Amended Information in clear defiance of law and jurisprudence, which proscribes substantial amendment of information prejudicial to the rights of the accused. Whether respondent Judge Ramon Pamular has personally determined, through evaluation of the Prosecutor's report and supporting documents, the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against petitioner Amado Corpus, Jr.
Ruling
The Petition for Certiorari is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Guimba, Nueva Ecija for its preliminary examination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and thereafter proceed to the arraignment of petitioner Amado Corpus, Jr. The Supreme Court noted that the Department of Justice, in a subsequent resolution dated September 8, 2009, granted the motion for reconsideration and directed the withdrawal of the information against Corpus.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of pendency of DOJ review and suspension of proceedings: The Court reiterated that Rule 116, Section 11 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure pertains to the suspension of arraignment, not the execution of a warrant of arrest for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction. While the RTC judge erred in denying the motion to suspend arraignment, the 60-day period for suspension had already lapsed. The Court also clarified that the trial court's jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost despite a pending review by the Secretary of Justice. However, the Court noted that the DOJ later directed the withdrawal of the information against Corpus, rendering the issue of his arraignment moot. On the issue of substantial amendment of the information: The Court held that a substantial amendment to an information after arraignment is prohibited if it prejudices the rights of the accused. However, the amendment alleging conspiracy, when it does not alter the prosecution's basic theory that Samonte willfully and intentionally shot Angelito, is considered a formal amendment. The Court distinguished this from cases where conspiracy fundamentally changes the nature of the crime or the defense required. The Court found that the allegation of conspiracy in this case did not alter the basic theory of the prosecution and was therefore a formal amendment. However, it noted that such a formal amendment after plea could still be prejudicial to Samonte, as his defense of self-defense might not be compatible with the allegation of conspiracy. On the issue of the judge's personal determination of probable cause: The Court reiterated that while a judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and witnesses, the judge must personally evaluate the prosecutor's resolution and supporting evidence to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The judge must satisfy himself or herself that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty. The Court found that Judge Pamular had conducted a hearing and reviewed the documents, indicating an independent evaluation, and thus did not commit grave abuse of discretion on this point. On the procedural issue of failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration: The Court found that the petitioners failed to file a Motion for Reconsideration with the RTC before filing the Petition for Certiorari. This failure is generally fatal to a petition for certiorari, as a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non unless there is a compelling reason to dispense with it. The Court found no such compelling reason presented by the petitioners, thus deeming the petition dismissible on this procedural ground. However, the Court proceeded to rule on the substantive issues.
Main Doctrine
A substantial amendment to an information after arraignment, which prejudices the rights of the accused, is prohibited. However, an amendment alleging conspiracy, when it does not alter the prosecution's basic theory that the accused willfully and intentionally committed the crime, is considered a formal amendment and may be allowed if not prejudicial. The issuance of a warrant of arrest by a judge is a judicial determination of probable cause, independent of the prosecutor's finding, and the judge's jurisdiction is not lost despite a pending review by the Department of Justice.