d. Amendment and Substitution

Requirement for Substitution

Substitution of the deceased by his representative or heir is effected by the order of substitution and its service, and not by the amendment of the pleading.

Non-compliance with the rule on substitution of a deceased party renders the proceedings and judgment of the trial court inform, because the trial court acquired no jurisdiction over the persons of the legal representatives or of the heirs on whom the trial and judgment would be binding on. (Brioso v. Rili-Mariano, G.R. No. 132765, 2003)

CONTROL OF PROSECUTION

AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION

Test as to whether a Defendant is Prejudiced by the Amendment

• Whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made; and
• Whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the new form as in the other (People v. Borromeo, G.R. No. L-62737 June 29, 1983).

When an amendment is formal or substantial

The amendment is formal when it does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein, or affect the essence of the offense, or cause surprise; or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment. (Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160451, 2007)

An amendment which does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein, does not expose the accused to a charge which could call for a higher penalty, does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to be one of form and not of substance-not prejudicial to the accused and, therefore, not prohibited by Section 14, Rule 110. (People v. Casey, G.R. No. L-30146, 1981)

Changing the word “Homicide” to “Murder” in the caption of the case, without any change in the facts constituting the offense charged, is purely a formal amendment. (Pacoy v. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, 2007)

An amendment is merely formal if it did not change the essence of the offense or cause surprise as to deprive petitioner of the opportunity to meet the new information. If the amendment only states with precision something that was already included in the original Information, it is merely a formal amendment. (Omar Villarba v. CA, G.R. No. 227777, 2020)

The amendment is substantial “when a defense of the accused, under the original complaint or information, would no longer be available after the amendment is made, and when any evidence the accused might have would be inapplicable to the complaint or information, as amended. (Kummer v. People, G.R. No. 174461, 2013)

General Rule: After arraignment, the prosecutor may no longer amend the information which changes the nature of the crime, as it will prejudice the substantial rights of the accused (Mendez v. People, G.R. No. 179962, June 11, 2014).

Exception: When a fact supervenes which changes the nature of the crime charged in the information or upgrades it to a higher crime, the prosecutor, with leave of court, may amend the information to allege such supervening fact and upgrade the crime charged to the higher crime brought about by such supervening fact provided it will not prejudice the rights of the accused.

HOWEVER, if the supervening event which changes the nature of the crime to a more serious one occurred after the accused has been convicted, which makes the amendment of the information no longer the remedy of the prosecution, the prosecution can and should charge the accused for such more serious crime, without placing the accused in double jeopardy, there being no identity of the offense charged in the first information and in the second one.

Substitution of the Complaint or Information

• Before Plea – double jeopardy does not arise.
• Anytime AFTER Plea – (no double jeopardy and bail for witness)
• Mistake has been made in charging the proper offense or the accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged,
• Court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one,
• Provided, accused will not be placed in double jeopardy

When it becomes manifest at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense and the accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or any other offense necessarily included therein, the accused shall not be discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. In such case, the court shall commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and dismiss the original case upon the filing of the proper information.

Note: A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form.

The following have been held to be mere formal amendments: (1) new allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty that the court might impose in the event of conviction; (2) an amendment which does not charge another offense different or distinct from that charged in the original one; (3) additional allegations which do not alter the prosecution’s theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume; (4) an amendment which does not adversely affect any substantial right of the accused; and (5) an amendment that merely adds specifications to eliminate vagueness in the information and not to introduce new and material facts, and merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the original information and which adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged.

The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment is whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other. An amendment to an information which does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to be one of form and not of substance. (Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160451, 9 February 2007)

Amendment vs. Substitution