Ricarze v. CA, G.R. No. 151785, Dec. 10, 2007

Crim Pro - Rule 110

Facts:

       Eduardo Ricarze was a collector-messenger of City Service Corporation. He was assigned to collect checks payable to Caltex. He then opened a bank account in the name of Dante Gutierrez, a regular customer of caltex. He did so by forging the signatures of the dorsal portions of the stolen check and deposited it in that same bank account. Upon knowledge of his crimes, he was charged by the officers of Caltex with estafa through falsification of commercial documents.

           In the original infomation filed by the prosecutor, Caltex appeared to be the only offended party because the prosecutor was not informed that PCI Bank credited certain amount to Caltex. 

        After the arraignment and enter of plea, PCIBank appeared as the complainant. Then, Ricarze averred that the information can no longer be amended because he had already been arraigned under the original information, and that doing so would place him in double jeopardy.

           

         PCIBank argued that it had re-credited the amount to Caltex to the extent of the indemnity; hence, the PCIB had been subrogated to the rights and interests of Caltex as private complainant.

Issue: Whether or not an information can be amended even after the accused had been arraigned and had entered his plea.

Held: Yes, because the amendment in the name of the complainant is one of form. Before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial amendment of the complaint or information may be made without leave of court. After the entry of a plea, only a formal amendment may be made but with leave of court and if it does not prejudice the rights of the accused. After arraignment, a substantial amendment is proscribed except if the same is beneficial to the accused.

         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.

        In the case at bar, the substitution of Caltex by PCIB as private complaint is not a substantial amendment. The substitution did not alter the basis of the charge in both Informations, nor did it result in any prejudice to petitioner. The documentary evidence in the form of the forged checks remained the same, and all such evidence was available to petitioner well before the trial. Thus, he cannot claim any surprise by virtue of the substitution.