100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 53 - 55 out of 77 pages.
( People vs. Canete, GRN 142930, March 28, 2003 )BAR TYPE QUESTIONSQUESTION 1:RedNotesinRemedialLaw°63
San Beda College of LawRE M E D I A LLA WShirley was charged of violation of BP 22. After Shirley pleaded “ Not Guilty” to the charge, the Prosecutor filed a motion with the Court praying for leave to amend the Information to change the amount of the check from P 20,000 to P 200,000. Shirley opposed the motion on the ground that the amendment of the Information is substantial and will prejudice her. The Court granted the motion of the Prosecution and allowed the amendment.1.)Is the order of the Court correct? Explain.2.)Would your answer be the same if, instead of praying for leave to amend the Information, the Prosecutor prayed for leave to withdraw the Information and to substitute the same with another Information containing the amount of P200,000 and the court granted the motion of the Prosecution? Explain.SUGGESTED ANSWERS:1.)YES.Sec. 14 of Rule 110 pertinently provides that after the plea and during trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused. The change of the amount of the check in this case is only a matter of form and not of substance. A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All other matter are merely of form. An amendment which merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the original information and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction of the crime charged is a formal amendment as in the instant case.2.)NO. Substitution is not proper in this case because the new information would refer to the same offense charged in the original information ( i.e. Violation of B.P. 22) and that would result to double jeopardy.QUESTION 2:Juana issued and delivered on February 15, 1995 in Iba, Zambales, to Perla, her townmate, two (2) checks, one of which was for P60,000, postdated May 1, 1995, and the other for P100,000 postdated June 1, 1995 against her account with Metrobank in Limay, Bataan in payment of jewelries Juana purchased from Perla. Perla deposited the checks, on due date, in her account with the Asia Bank, in Manila. When the checks were dishonored for insufficiency of funds, Perla signed and filed, without prior conciliation proceedings before the Barangay officials, one (1) verified criminal complaint for violation of BP 22 with the Manila MTC against Juana. The court issued an order dismissing the case, motu propio, the criminal complaint.