Corpus Et Al. vs. Pamular

Corpus et al. vs.
Pamular
G.R. No. 186403, September 05, 2018 Leonen, J.
Doctrine:. Sec. 7 Rule 117:
When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or
information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the
accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case
shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or
frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense
charged in the former complaint or information.
Emergency Recitation: An information for murder was files against Samonte for killing Espinosa. Later a
witness said that it was mayor Corpus who instructed Samonte to kill Espinosa. The complaint was
dismissed by the RTC but Prosecutor Florendo found probable cause to indict Corpus for Espinosa’s
murder. Samonte and Corpus jointly filed a Petition for Review before the DOJ. Thus, they argued that
Judge Pamular should desist from amending the information in view of the said petition. Also, substantial
amendment of information is prejudicial to their rights because it will put them in double jeopardy.
The SC ruled in their favor. Rule 116, Section 11 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for
the grounds for suspension of arraignment. Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be
suspended in case of a pending petition for review of the prosecutor's resolution filed before the
Department of Justice.
And, the constitutionally mandated right against double jeopardy is procedurally bolstered by Rule 117,
Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides When an accused has been convicted
or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a
court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient
in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the
conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution
for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense
which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or
information.
Facts: Angelito Espinosa (Angelito) was shot by Samonte at Corpuz Street, Cuyapo, Nueva Ecjia on June 4,
2008, causing his death. Samonte was caught in flagrante delicto and thereafter was arrested. After the
inquest proceeding, an information for murder was filed against Samonte. Upon arraignment, Samonte
admitted the killing but pleaded self- defense.
Alexander Lozano, a one of the witnesses, executed in his affidavit that it was Mayor Corpuz who
instructed Samonte to kill Angelito. However, the RTC dismissed the complaint of Angelito’s wife and the
attached affidavits of witnesses against Corpuz and Samonte.
Later, Provincial Prosecutor Florendo found probable cause to indict Corpus for Angelito's murder. He
directed the filing of an amended information before the Regional Trial Court. Despite Florendo taking
over the case, Assistant Public Prosecutor Bonifacio still issued a Review Resolution, where he reinstated
the Regional Trial Court Resolution and affirmed the dismissal of the murder complaint against Corpus.
Meanwhile, Florendo filed an undated Motion to Amend Information, praying for the admission of the
amended information. Samonte and Corpus opposed this through a Vehement Opposition and Omnibus
Motion. They averred that Judge Pamular's action was premature considering that the Motion to Amend
Information has yet to be scheduled for hearing. Moreover, Samonte was already arraigned. Samonte and
Corpus also claimed that the issuance of a warrant of arrest should be suspended because the latter
intended to appeal through a Petition for Review before the Department of Justice.
Samonte and Corpus jointly filed a Petition for Review dated February 9, 2009 before the Department of
Justice. They also filed a Manifestation and Motion with the Regional Trial Court, asking it to desist from
acting further on the Amended Information in view of the Petition for Review filed with the Department
of Justice. However, despite the manifestation, Judge Pamular granted the motion to amend the
information and to admit the attached amended information.
Corpuz and Samonte asserts Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that
upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended:99
Rule 116
Arraignment and Plea
Section 11. Suspension of Arraignment. — Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be
suspended in the following cases:
....
(c)
A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or
the Office of the President; provided, that the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days
counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.
Also, they cite Rule 110, Section 14 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which prohibits substantial
amendment of information that is prejudicial to the rights of the accused after his or her arraignment.
Issue:
(1) WON Judge Ramon Pamular committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when he conducted further proceedings on the Amended Information and consequently
issued a warrant of arrest against petitioner Amado Corpus, Jr. despite the pendency of his and petitioner
Carlito Samonte's Petition for Review before the Department of Justice.
(2) WON the amendment of information is prejudicial to the right of the accused
Held:
(1) Yes.
respondent judge committed an error when he denied petitioners' motion to suspend the arraignment of
Corpus because of the pendency of their Petition for Review before the Department of Justice.
Rule 116, Section 11 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the grounds for suspension
of arraignment. Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in case of a pending
petition for review of the prosecutor's resolution filed before the Department of Justice.
Petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion dated February 9, 2009 before the Regional Trial Court,
informing it about their pending Petition for Review of the Prosecutor's January 26, 2009 Resolution
before the Department of Justice. Also filed their Petition for Review before the Department of Justice on
February 9, 2009.Thus, the 60-day period has already lapsed since April 10, 2009. Hence, respondent judge
can now continue with the arraignment and further proceedings with regard to petitioner Corpus.
(2) Yes.
The Constitutional provision on double jeopardy guarantees the invocation of the law not only against the
danger of a second punishment or a second trial for the same offense, "but also against being prosecuted
twice for the same act where that act is punishable by . . . law and an ordinance."
When a person is charged with an offense and the case against him or her is terminated either by acquittal
or conviction or in any other way without his or her consent, he or she cannot be charged again with a
similar offense. Thus, "[t]his principle is founded upon the law of reason, justice and conscience.
The constitutionally mandated right against double jeopardy is procedurally bolstered by Rule 117,
Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides
……
Section 7. Former Conviction or Acquittal; Double Jeopardy. — When an accused has been convicted or
acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a
court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient
in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the
conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution
for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense
which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or
information.
....
In substantiating a claim for double jeopardy, the following requisites should be present:
(1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly
terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as in the first.

Corpus Et Al. vs. Pamular

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corpus Et Al. vs. Pamular

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corpus Et Al. vs. Pamular

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corpus et al. vs.

G.R. No. 186403, September 05, 2018 Leonen, J.

Doctrine:. Sec. 7 Rule 117:

Arraignment and Plea

You might also like