You are the Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 41, Aborlan, Palawan

where an Information for Murder against Y has been filed. One (1) day
after the raffle to your sala and upon perusing the records, you notice
that the name of the accused is Yi instead of Y. What should you do?
Explain

As a judge I will consider the name of the accused Y as an alias or nick name which he/she is
known. According to Rule 110 Sec 7 of the Rules of court, the complaint or information must
state the name and surname of the accused or any appellation or nickname by which he has been
or is known. If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by him or appears in some
other manner to the court, such true name shall be inserted in the complaint or information and
record.

In the case, I as a Judge was only able to identify Y as Yi through reading and this will the name
will be put into record immediately to identify the real name of the accused.
--------------------

JC allegedly shot RT in the presence of JC's brother, TC. After a

preliminary investigation, an Information for Murder was filed against
JC in your court. Afterwards, ST, the son of RT executed a Complaint-
Affidavit charging TC of having committed the same offense through
conspiracy and submitted the same to your court with a motion to
amend the Information and the Amended Information itself. You are
the Presiding Judge of the court in which the Information was filed.
What should you do? Explain

Based on Rule 110, Section 14 of the Rules of Court, a complaint or information may be
amended without leave of court at any time before the accused enters their plea. However, after
the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and
when it does not cause prejudice to the rights of the accused.

In this case, since the Information for Murder against JC has already been filed, any amendment
to include TC as a co-accused through conspiracy would require leave of court because it would
involve a formal amendment after the plea has been entered.

The rule further states that any amendment before the plea that downgrades the nature of the
offense charged or excludes any accused from the complaint or information can only be made
upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party, and with leave of court. The
court must state its reasons for resolving the motion, and copies of its order must be furnished to
all parties, especially the offended party.

If it becomes apparent at any time before judgment that there has been a mistake in charging the
proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a
new one charging the proper offense. However, this can only be done provided the accused shall
not be placed in double jeopardy. Additionally, the court may require the witnesses to give bail
for their appearance at the trial.

Therefore, as the presiding judge, I would carefully consider the motion to amend the
Information to include TC as a co-accused through conspiracy, ensuring that all procedural
requirements are met and that the rights of the accused are protected. This may involve holding a
hearing, evaluating the evidence presented, and issuing a ruling based on the principles outlined
in Rule 110, Section 14.
-----
Based on Rule 110, Section 14 of the Rules of Court, an amendment to a complaint or
information can be made before the accused enters a plea without leave of court, either in form
or substance. However, if the amendment downgrades the nature of the offense charged or
excludes any accused, it can only be done upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the
offended party, and with leave of court. The court should state its reasons for granting such
motion.

In this scenario, since an Information for Murder was already filed against JC, any amendment to
downgrade the offense charged or to include TC in the charge of murder would require a motion
by the prosecutor, notice to the offended party (presumably RT's family), and leave of court. The
court should carefully consider the motion, ensuring that it does not prejudice the rights of the
accused.

If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper
offense, the court may dismiss the original complaint or information and allow the filing of a
new one charging the proper offense. However, this should be done in accordance with Section
19, Rule 119, and the accused should not be placed in double jeopardy.

As the Presiding Judge, I would review the motion to amend the Information, ensuring that all
procedural requirements are met and that the rights of both the accused and the offended party
are protected. If the motion is granted, the court should state its reasons for allowing the
amendment, and copies of the order should be furnished to all parties involved, especially the
offended party. If necessary, the court may also require witnesses to give bail for their
appearance at trial.
--------------------

PTP, JTP, AJB, FST and FAB were accused of the commission of the
felony of murder with the use of an illegally possessed firearm as
defined and penalized under Article 248, of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, in relation to Republic Act No. 10591. After preliminary
investigation, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor issued a
Resolution finding probable cause against JTP, AJB, FST and FAB and
filed the corresponding Information against them. The case was
raffled to RTC Branch 41 of Aborlan, Palawan docketed as Criminal
Case No. 14344. Upon the conduct of judicial determination of
probable cause, the RTC Branch 41 of Aborlan, Palawan dismissed the
case as against JTP. The Motion for Reconsideration was denied by
the same Court for lack of merit. Hence, Warrants of Arrest were
issued against AJB, FST and FAB who were at large.

The Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 41 of Aborlan, Palawan retired due

to old age and the case was re-raffled to RTC Branch 42 of Aborlan,
Palawan.

In the meantime, the dismissal of the complaint against PTP was

appealed to the DOJ. The DOJ in due course reversed the Resolution
of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor and caused the filing of an
Amended Information against PTP, JTP, AJB, FST and FAB.

During arraignment AJB and FST pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of
homicide and were promptly sentenced. FAB applied for and was
granted leave of Court to be a State Witness. Subsequently, the
RTC Branch 42 of Aborlan, Palawan set the arraignment of PTP and
JTP. JTP filed a Motion and Manifestation stating that he should not
be arraigned due to lack of probable cause which had long attained
finality. You are the Presiding Judge, what will be your resolution?
Explain
As the Presiding Judge, considering Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, particularly Sections 1 and 2 , and the
circumstances of this case, I find that the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the
offense of murder with the use of an illegally possessed firearm is deemed instituted with the criminal
action against PTP, JTP, AJB, FST, and FAB. The previous dismissal of the criminal case against JTP by RTC
Branch 41 of Aborlan, Palawan, does not preclude the continuation of the criminal proceedings against
him, especially in light of the subsequent reversal by the DOJ and the filing of an amended information
against JTP. Therefore, I rule that JTP's motion and manifestation asserting lack of probable cause as a
basis for not being arraigned lacks merit. The subsequent reversal by the DOJ and the filing of an
amended information against JTP necessitate the continuation of the criminal proceedings against him.
The lack of probable cause previously found by RTC Branch 41 is no longer applicable in light of these
new developments. Accordingly, I order that the arraignment of JTP proceed as scheduled. This will
allow him the opportunity to enter his plea and to present any defenses or arguments he may have
during the trial.