Scribd
Upload
62 views1 page

Section 14 - Almeda v. Villaluz

Leonardo Almeda was charged with qualified theft of a motor vehicle along with five others. He was required to post a P15,000 cash bond for his provisional release, which he asked to change to a surety bond but was denied. He claimed double jeopardy on the charges but was also denied. The city fiscal then moved to amend the information to include allegations of recidivism and habitual delinquency against Almeda based on prior convictions. Almeda objected, arguing the amendment was premature and would place him in double jeopardy. However, the court ruled the amendment was allowed under the rules and did not change the substance of the charges or prejudice Almeda's defense

Uploaded by

raechelle bulos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
62 views1 page

Section 14 - Almeda v. Villaluz

Leonardo Almeda was charged with qualified theft of a motor vehicle along with five others. He was required to post a P15,000 cash bond for his provisional release, which he asked to change to a surety bond but was denied. He claimed double jeopardy on the charges but was also denied. The city fiscal then moved to amend the information to include allegations of recidivism and habitual delinquency against Almeda based on prior convictions. Almeda objected, arguing the amendment was premature and would place him in double jeopardy. However, the court ruled the amendment was allowed under the rules and did not change the substance of the charges or prejudice Almeda's defense

Uploaded by

raechelle bulos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

L-31665 August 6, 1975

LEONARDO ALMEDA
vs.
HON. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, in his capacity as presiding judge of the Circuit Criminal
Court, Seventh Judicial District, Pasig, Rizal, and HON. GREGORIO PINEDA, City Fiscal
of Pasay City

Facts:
Petitioner (Leonardo Almeda) together with five (5) others were charge with the crime of
qualified theft of a motor vehicle in Pasig. The amount of the bond recommended for their
provisional release was P15,000 was approved by the respondent judge with a direction that it be
posted entirely in cash.
After the hearing he asked the trial court to allow him to post a surety bond in lieu of the
cash bond required. However, it was denied on the ground imputed against Almeda as habitual
delinquent and recidivist. Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the charge on the ground of
double jeopardy but was denied.
The respondent city fiscal reiterated his oral motion for amendment of the information to
include allegations of recidivism and habitual delinquency. Almeda vigorously objected, arguing
that: a) such an amendment was premature since no copies of prior conviction could yet be
presented in court, b) the motion to amend should have been made in writing in order to enable
him to object formally, and c) the proposed amendment would place him in double jeopardy
considering that he had already pleaded not guilty to the information.
Issue: Whether or not the amendment to the information, after a plea of not guilty thereto, was
properly allowed in both substance and procedure
Ruling: Yes.  The amendment of the information to include allegations of habitual delinquency
and recidivism, after a previous plea thereto by the accused, is valid and in no way violates his
right to be fully apprised before trial of the charges against him.
Under section 14 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the trial court has discretion to allow
amendments to the information on all matters of form after the defendant has pleaded and during
the trial when the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the defendant. What are
prohibited at this stage of the proceedings are amendments in substance. And the substantial
matter in a complaint or information is the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and
determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form. 
The said new allegations relate only to the range of the penalty that the court might
impose in the event of conviction. They do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case nor
possibly prejudice the form of defense the accused has or will assume. Consequently, in
authorizing the amendments, the respondent judge acted with due consideration of the
petitioner's rights and did not abuse his discretion.

You might also like