Pacoy v. Cajical (2007)
 On October 28, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash with Motion
Petition: Certiorari
Petitioner: SSGT Jose M. Pacoy
Respondent: Hon. Aable E. Cajical, People of the Philippines, Olympio L.
Escueta
Ponencia: Austria-Martinez, J.
DOCTRINE:
The test of whether the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment
of a complaint or information is whether a defense under the complaint or
information, as it originally stood, 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.
FACTS:
 On July 4, 2002, an Information for Homicide was filed in the RTC
against petitioner:
o “That on or about the 18th day of March 2002, in the Municipality of
Mayantoc, Province of Tarlac, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused with intent to kill, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot his commanding officer
2Lt. Frederick Esquita with his armalite rifle hitting and sustaining
upon 2Lt. Frederick Esquita multiple gunshot wounds on his body
which caused his instantaneous death.
With the aggravating circumstance of killing, 2Lt. Frederick
Esquita in disregard of his rank.”
 On September 12, 2002, upon arraignment, petitioner, pleaded not
guilty to the charge of Homicide. Case was set for pre-trial conference
and trial on October 8, 2002.
 However, on the same day and after the arraignment, the respondent
judge issued another Order, directing the trial prosecutor to correct
and amend the Information to Murder in view of the aggravating
circumstance of disregard of rank alleged in the Information which
public respondent registered as having qualified the crime to Murder.
o Prosecutor entered his amendment by crossing out the word
“Homicide” and instead wrote the word “Murder” in the
caption and in the opening paragraph of the Information.
The accusatory portion remained exactly the same as that
of the original Information for Homicide, with the correction
of the spelling of the victim’s name from “Escuita” to “Escueta.”
 On the date scheduled for pre-trial conference and trial, petitioner was
to be re-arraigned for the crime of Murder.
o Petitioner refused to enter his plea on the amended Information
for Murder
o Public respondent entered for him a plea of not guilty.
to Suspend Proceedings Pending the Resolution of the Instant
Motion on the ground of double jeopardy.
o That in the Information for Homicide, he was validly indicted and
arraigned before a competent court,
o The case was terminated without his express consent;
o When the case for Homicide was terminated without his express
consent, the subsequent filing of the Information for Murder in lieu of
Homicide placed him in double jeopardy.
 Respondent Judge denied ruling that
o A claim of former acquittal or conviction does not constitute double
jeopardy and cannot be sustained unless judgment was rendered
acquitting or convicting the defendant in the former prosecution;
o Petitioner was never acquitted or convicted of Homicide, since the
Information for Homicide was merely corrected/or amended before
trial commenced and did not terminate the same
o The Information for Homicide was patently insufficient in substance, so
no valid proceedings could be taken thereon; and that with the
allegation of aggravating circumstance of “disregard of rank,” the
crime of Homicide is qualified to Murder.
 Petitioner filed a Motion to Inhibit with attached Motion for
Reconsideration.
o Motion to Inhibit: respondent judge exercised jurisdiction in an arbitrary,
capricious and partial manner in mandating the amendment of the
charge from Homicide to Murder in disregard of the provisions of the
law and existing jurisprudence.
o MR: Basically same arguments but added that
 contrary to respondent judge’s conclusion that disregard of
rank qualifies the killing to Murder, it is a generic
aggravating circumstance which only serves to affect
the imposition of the period of the penalty.
 The amendment and/or correction ordered by the
respondent judge was substantial; and under Section 14,
Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, this
cannot be done, since petitioner had already been
arraigned and he would be placed in double jeopardy.
 Respondent judge denied motion to inhibit but granted motion for
reconsideration conceding that “disregard of rank” is merely a generic
mitigating circumstance which should not elevate crime of homicide to
murder.
 Petitioner filed present petition
ISSUE:
1. WON the amendment was an amendment in substance – NO.
RULING + RATIO:
1. The amendment was merely formal.
 a. While the amended Information was for Murder, a reading of the rank” is a generic aggravating circumstance which does not
Information shows that the only change made was in the qualify the killing of the victim to murder.
caption of the case; and in the opening d. He only rightly corrected himself by reinstating the original
paragraph or preamble of the Information, with the crossing Information for Homicide.
out of word Homicide and its replacement by the word e. The requisite of double jeopardy that the first jeopardy must
Murder. have attached prior to the second is not present,
b.There was no change in the recital of facts constituting the considering that petitioner was neither convicted nor
offense charged or in the determination of the jurisdiction acquitted; nor was the case against him dismissed or
of the court. otherwise terminated without his express consent.
c. The averments in the amended Information for Murder are
exactly the same as those already alleged in the original DISPOSITION:
Information for Homicide, as there was not at all Petition for review on certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.
any change in the act imputed to petitioner,
i.e., the killing of 2Lt. Escueta without any qualifying
circumstance.
2. Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court also provides that in
allowing formal amendments in cases in which the accused has
already pleaded, it is necessary that the amendments do not
prejudice the rights of the accused.
a. The test of whether the rights of an accused are prejudiced
by the amendment of a complaint or information is
i. whether a defense under the complaint or
information, as it originally stood, would no longer
be available after the amendment is made; and
ii. when any evidence the accused might have would
be inapplicable to the complaint or information.
b. Since the facts alleged in the accusatory portion of the amended
Information are identical with those of the original
Information for Homicide, there could not be any effect
on the prosecution's theory of the case; neither would there be
any possible prejudice to the rights or defense of petitioner.
3. There was no double jeopardy in the present case
a. Requisites:
i. a first jeopardy attached prior to the second;
ii. the first jeopardy has been validly terminated;
iii. a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the
first
b. It is the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal or
termination of the case that bars further prosecution for the
same offense or any attempt to commit the same or the
frustration thereof; or prosecution for any offense which
necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense
charged in the former complaint or information.
c. A reading of the Order showed that the respondent judge granted
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, not on the ground that
double jeopardy exists, but on his realization that “disregard of