Castro v. Ozaeta
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioners, Domingo S. Castro and Hermogenes Buencamino, were charged with the crime of illegal possession of counterfeit bank notes. Initially, the complaint alleged that the counterfeit notes purported to have been issued by the Philippine National Bank. These same notes were later presented at the formal trial. 2. Procedural History: A criminal action was initiated based on a complaint filed in the justice of the peace court of Cabanatuan, Province of Nueva Ecija. A preliminary investigation was conducted, and subsequently, a formal trial commenced in criminal case No. 9291 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, with an information filed by the provincial fiscal. During the trial, the respondent judge noticed a discrepancy between the alleged counterfeit notes (Philippine National Bank notes) and the actual counterfeit notes found in the petitioners' possession (Insular Treasury certificates). The fiscal, with the judge's permission, amended the information to reflect the correct nature of the counterfeit notes. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a certiorari proceeding, alleging that the respondent judge abused his discretion and exceeded his jurisdiction by permitting the amendment of the information after the prosecution had presented part of its evidence. They contend that the amendment, changing the nature of the counterfeit notes from Philippine National Bank notes to Insular Treasury certificates, was a matter of substance and prejudiced their rights, violating Section 9 of General Orders No. 58 and the Code of Criminal Procedure. They seek to have the amendment declared illegal.
Issue(s)
Whether the amendment of the information, changing the description of the counterfeit notes from "bogus bills purporting to have been issued by the Philippine National Bank" to "treasury certificates of the Philippine Islands," constitutes a substantial amendment that cannot be made after the prosecution has presented part of its evidence. Whether the amendment, if allowed, was made without prejudice to the rights of the defendants.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The amendment to the information was declared legal and valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the amendment: The Court held that the amendment, which changed the description of the counterfeit notes from "bogus bills purporting to have been issued by the Philippine National Bank" to "treasury certificates of the Philippine Islands," was a matter of form and not of substance. This conclusion was based on the fact that Article 166 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the same penalty for the falsification of both National Bank notes and certificates of deposit or notes of the Insular Treasury. Furthermore, Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code, which deals with the illegal possession of false instruments, refers to instruments covered by preceding articles, including those related to National Bank notes and treasury certificates. The Court emphasized that the counterfeit notes in question were the same notes presented in both the justice of the peace court and the Court of First Instance, and the petitioners were aware of the true nature of the charge from the beginning. On prejudice to the rights of the defendant: The Court found that the amendment was made without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners. The petitioners' contention that they were not given time to know the true nature of the charge and prepare their defense was deemed unfounded. They were fully aware of the facts and the nature of the charge when they first appeared in the justice of the peace court and subsequently in the Court of First Instance. The amendment merely corrected the description of the counterfeit items, which they already knew were treasury certificates, not National Bank notes. Therefore, their rights were not impaired by the amendment.
Main Doctrine
An amendment to an information, changing the description of the counterfeit notes from "bogus bills purporting to have been issued by the Philippine National Bank" to "treasury certificates of the Philippine Islands," is a matter of form and not of substance, and may be allowed during the trial without prejudice to the rights of the defendant, especially when the counterfeit notes themselves were the same ones presented during the preliminary investigation and the trial, and the penalties prescribed for the illegal possession of both types of counterfeit instruments are the same.