Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CLAUDIO J. TEEHANKEE v. JOB B. MADAYAG

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 179962 2014-06-11	DR. JOEL C. MENDEZ v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
In Teehankee, Jr. v. Madayag,[26] the prosecution sought during trial to amend the information from frustrated to consummated murder since the victim died after the information for frustrated murder was filed. The accused refused to be arraigned under the amended information without the conduct of a new preliminary investigation. In sustaining the admission of the amended information, the Court reasoned that the additional allegation, that is, the supervening fact of the death of the victim was merely supplied to aid the trial court in determining the proper penalty for the crime. Again, there is no change in the nature of offense charged; nor is there a change in the prosecution's theory that the accused committed a felonious act with intent to kill the victim; nor does the amendment affect whatever defense the accused originally may have.
	GR No. 184537 2010-04-23	QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
Petitioners' reliance on the Teehankee v. Madayag,[20] ruling that, "in substitution of information another preliminary investigation is entailed and that the accused has to plead anew to the new information" is not applicable to the present case because, as already stated, there is no substitution of information there being no change in the nature of the offense charged.
	GR No. 157472 2007-09-28	SSGT. JOSE M. PACOY v. AFABLE E. CAJIGAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
First, a distinction shall be made between amendment and substitution under Section 14, Rule 110. For this purpose, Teehankee v. Madayag[19] is instructive, viz:The first paragraph provides the rules for amendment of the information or complaint, while the second paragraph refers to the substitution of the information or complaint.
	GR NO. 171271 2006-08-31	PEOPLE v. ELBERTO TUBONGBANUA Y PAHILANGA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Teehankee, Jr. v. Madayag,[20] we had the occasion to distinguish between substantial and formal amendments:A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form. Thus, the following have been held to be merely formal amendments, viz.: (1) new allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty that the court might impose in the event of conviction; (2) an amendment which does not charge another offense different or distinct from that charged in the original one; (3) additional allegations which do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume; and (4) an amendment which does not adversely affect any substantial right of the accused, such as his right to invoke prescription.
	GR NO. 165751 2005-04-12	DATU GUIMID P. MATALAM v. SECOND DIVISION OF SANDIGANBAYAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The following have been held to be merely formal amendments: (1) new allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty that the court might impose in the event of conviction; (2) an amendment which does not charge another offense different or distinct from that charged in the original one; (3) additional allegations which do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume; (4) an amendment which does not adversely affect any substantial right of the accused;[17] (5) an amendment that merely adds specifications to eliminate vagueness in the information and not to introduce new and material facts, and merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the original information and which adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged.[18]