Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
7th Judicial Region
Branch 57
Cebu City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
- versus - Crim. Case No. CBU-78740
For: Viol of Sec. 11, Art II
of R.A. 9165
LESTER TROCIO Y DERLA,
Accused,
x----------------------------------------/
OPPOSITION
TO THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFORMATION
Accused, by and through the Public Attorney’s Office, unto this Honorable Court
most respectfully avers THAT:
1. On September 4, 2007, the accused was arraigned for the abovementioned case
and the pretrial thereon was held immediately thereafter.
2. It is the stand of the defense that amendment at this stage of the proceedings is
already untimely.
3. The prosecution is trying to convince the Honorable Court that the amendment is
only as to form and it will not affect the theory of the defense. This argument is
purely a baseless assumption, as this amendment will surely affect the defense
theory. One of the defense theories is that accused could not have possibly
been caught in the possession of a dangerous drug on December 8,
2006 at the time and place mentioned in the Information because
accused had already been arrested on December 2, 2006 for a
violation of Sec.12, Art.II of R.A. 9165 and was already detained at
that time. In fact, accused had also been duly arraigned for this alleged
violation of Sec. 12 and the prosecution mentions in its motion that the
Information against the accused in CBU-78741 for such violation states that the
crime was committed on the 2nd day of December 2006. Considering that the
primary defense of the accused consists of the contention that NO DANGEROUS
DRUG WAS EVER FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION, the defense of the accused that
he could not have been found in possession of dangerous drugs on Dec. 8, 2006
at the time and place mentioned in the Information, being already detained at
that time for another offense, completely tallies with this. The prosecution
cannot state that changing the date from December 8 to December 2 would not
change or affect the theory of the defense since the change of date would deprive
the accused of one of his material defenses.
4. One of the contentions in the motion of the prosecution is that the Joint Affidavit
of the arresting officers attached to the records of the case shows that it was on
December 2, 2006 that the accused was caught in the possession of the illegal
drugs and drug paraphernalia. However, such has not even been affirmed and
confirmed as true and correct by the alleged affiants thereof. As the Honorable
Court and prosecution are well aware of, the affidavits executed in connection
with cases are not always reflective of the correct facts and circumstances
surrounding a particular arrest. As things stand, the matter raised in this case, as
to whether the accused was arrested for possession of a dangerous drug on
December 8, 2006 or December 2, 2006, is evidentiary in character.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Court to deny the motion for leave to amend the information filed by the prosecution.
Respectfully submitted this September 24, 2007 at Cebu City, Philippines.
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Counsel for the Accused
Fernan Memorial Hall of Justice
Cebu City
By:
Atty. CATHERINE BAGANO
RTC 57 – Clerk of Court
Please submit the foregoing pleading for the consideration of the Honorable
Court. Thank you.
Copy furnished:
Hon. Pros. LINETH LAPINID
Public Prosecutor
Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
7TH Judicial Region
City of Cebu
Branch 10
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. CBU-95760
FOR: R.A. 8294
-versus-
GREGG O. REYNES
Accused.
x------------------------------------/
COMMENT/OBJECTION TO THE MOTION FOR LEAVE OF
COURT TO AMEND INFORMATION AND TO ADMIT
AMENDED INFORMATION
GREGG O. REYNES, through counsel, to this Honorable Court, most
respectfully submits its comment/objection to the motion for leave to amend
information and avers that:
1. The change intended by the prosecution cannot be effected by
amendment. Although it may be argued that the change of the
serial number will not change the facts and the circumstances of
the arrest still it is the humble submission of the defense that
since the evidence, more specifically the firearm, required to be
presented to support a conviction based on the proposed amended
information would be entirely different from what is required to be
presented to prove the original charge, clearly the two
Informations are charging two distinct and separate offenses;
2. Further, the change of the serial number alleged in the information
is not merely formal but involves a substantial change from the
original charge hence it cannot be made over the objection of the
accused without violating his right;
3. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case
of Teehankee v. Madaya1,
An amended information refers to the same offense charged in the original
information or to an offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in the original charge, hence substantial amendments to the
1
G.R. No. 103102 March 6, 1992
information after the plea has been taken cannot be made over the objection
of the accused, for if the original information would be withdrawn, the
accused could invoke double jeopardy.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that
the motion for leave of court to amend the information be denied.
Other reliefs which are just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for;
Cebu City, Philippines. December 3, 2012
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Department of Justice
Counsel for the Accused
The Chief Justice Fernan Memorial, Hall of Justice, Capitol Site, Cebu City
By:
_______________________________
REQUEST
The Branch Clerk of Court
RTC Branch 10 , Cebu City
GREETINGS.
Please submit the foregoing COMMENT/OBJECTION for the consideration of the
Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof.
Cebu City, Philippines, December 1, 2012
ATTY.
Copy furnished:
Pros. Raul V. Cristoria
ORSP, 2/F Palace of Justice
Capitol Compound., Cebu City
