Regala v. Juez Del Juzgado Del Primera Instancia De Bataan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioner, Ceferino M. Regala, was charged with murder in criminal case No. 4307. He pleaded not guilty to the original information on May 20, 1946. The prosecution intended to present witnesses Wenceslao Cruz and Conrado Manalac. 2. Procedural History: On the scheduled hearing date, June 6, 1946, the Provincial Fiscal filed an amended information, including Wenceslao Cruz and Conrado Manalac as co-accused. The court admitted the amended information and discharged Cruz and Manalac to be used as prosecution witnesses, citing Article 9, Rule 115. Regala filed a notice of appeal against this order, which was denied. A motion for reconsideration was also denied. Regala then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Regala seeks to annul the orders of June 6 and July 11, 1946, arguing that the amendment of the information after his plea constituted a substantial change and an abuse of discretion, as it altered the nature of the charge and increased his potential liability. He contends that this substantial amendment, made after his plea, was impermissible under Rule 106, Section 13, and that appeal would not be a speedy and adequate remedy given the irreparable damage to his rights.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the amendment of the information after the petitioner had pleaded. Whether the amendment to the information was substantial or merely formal. Whether an appeal, rather than certiorari, is the proper remedy for the alleged error of procedure.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The Court held that the amendment to the information was merely formal and did not alter the nature of the offense or the extent of the petitioner's liability. The Court further ruled that even if the amendment constituted an error of procedure, it was correctible by appeal after final judgment, and not by certiorari, as there was a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the amendment of the information: The Court held that the amendment was merely formal. It did not alter the nature of the crime, as the offense would remain the same regardless of which accused inflicted the fatal wound. Furthermore, the alleged conspiracy and mutual aid meant that the liability of the petitioners would be the same, whether one or the other inflicted the wound. Therefore, the amendment did not substantially affect the information or the rights of the accused. The Court cited Arevalo and Arevalo v. Nepomuceno to support the view that amendments relating to the form of execution, especially when conspiracy is alleged, are formal. On the issue of whether the amendment to the information was substantial or merely formal: The Court reiterated that the amendment was purely formal. The change in the information, which involved the specific roles of the accused in inflicting the wound (e.g., who was armed with a penknife and who with a revolver), did not change the substance of the crime charged. The allegation of conspiracy and mutual aid ensured that all accused would be held responsible to the same extent, regardless of who directly inflicted the fatal injury. The Court distinguished this from situations where the nature of the offense itself is altered. On the issue of whether an appeal, rather than certiorari, is the proper remedy for the alleged error of procedure: The Court emphasized that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only when a tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The Court found that any error committed by the judge in allowing the amendment was an error of procedure, not an excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Such procedural errors are generally correctible by appeal after final judgment. To allow certiorari for every procedural error would lead to interminable litigation. The Court cited Rule 67, Section 1, of the Rules of Court in support of this principle.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari will not lie to correct an error of procedure, such as the erroneous admission of an amended information, if such error can be corrected by appeal after final judgment. Certiorari is only available when a court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.