Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

Third Judicial Region
Branch __
Hermosa, Bataan

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIM CASE NO. 12130

HECTOR CRUZ, and

Hermosa, Bataan
MELINDA ESTANISLAO,
No. 2 Victoria St. corner Bayaya
San Francisco del Monte
Quezon City
Accused.
x-------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE

ATTACHED AMENDED INFORMATION

Plaintiff, through undersigned Prosecutor, respectfully states:

1. Plaintiff intends to file an Amended Information, which is attached

herewith as Annex “A.”

2. In a Resolution dated January 5, 2008 in I.S. No. 2005-1219, 1 st

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Cielitolindo A. Luyun of the Department of

Justice (“DOJ”) recommended the filing of an Information against Accused

Hector J. Cruz and Melinda Estanislao for the crime of Falsification under Article

172, in relation to Article 171, of the Revised Penal Code. The said Resolution

was recommended for approval by Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Miguel F.

Guidio, Jr., and subsequently approved by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R.

Zuño. A copy of the Resolution dated January 5, 2008 is attached herewith as

Annex “B.”

3. Therefore, an Information dated May 3, 2008 was filed against

Hector J. Cruz and Melinda Estanislao for Falsification under paragraph 2,

Article 171, in relation to Article 172, of the Revised Penal Code. The Information

was docketed as Criminal Case No. 12130 and raffled to this Branch, Municipal

Trial Court of Bataan. A copy of the Information is attached herewith as Annex

“C.”

4. However, while the caption of the case enumerated both Hector J.

Cruz and Melinda Estanislao as Accused in this case, a reading of the content of

the Information will show that said Information failed to specify the

participation of Melinda Estanislao as co-conspirator in this case, which is as

follows:

“Suffice it to state that she [Melinda Estanislao]

conspired with respondent Cruz in the commission of
the [crime] charged through conspiracy by giving the
latter with blank checks to pursue and achieve its
fraudulent acts.”1

5. Under Section 110, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Criminal

procedure:

“Section 14. Amendment or substitution. — A

complaint or information may be amended, in form
or in substance, without leave of court, at any time
before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and
during the trial, a formal amendment may only be
1
Department of Justice Resolution dated January 5, 2008, p. 8. Annex “B” hereof.

2
 made with leave of court and when it can be done
without causing prejudice to the rights of the
accused.”

6. In relation to Accused Melinda Estanislao, it does not appear from

the records of the case that she has already entered her plea. Therefore, the

Information could be amended even without leave of court.

7. As regards Accused Hector Cruz, the amendment should still be

allowed considering that the amendment is only a formal amendment that does

not cause any prejudice to the Accused. The Supreme Court has defined

substantial amendment as follows:

“In Teehankee, Jr. v. Madayag, 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.

The test as to whether an amendment is only

of form and an accused is not prejudiced by such

3
 amendment is whether or not a defense under the
information as it originally stood would be equally
available after the amendment is made, and whether
or not any evidence which the accused might have
would be equally applicable to the information in
one form as in the other; if the answer is in the
affirmative, the amendment is one of form and not of
substance.”2 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)

8. In this case, nothing in the amendments sought to be made would

change the theory of the defense of Accused Hector Cruz. Even after the

amendment, all his defenses under the original Information dated May 3, 2008

would still be available and all his evidence would be equally applicable.

Therefore, he will not be prejudiced and the proposed amendment of the

Information is allowable.

9. The addition of the specific acts committed by Accused Melinda

Estanislao to further define their conspiracy will also does not change the

conclusion the proposed amendment is merely formal. In fact, the Supreme

Court has already ruled in several cases that the inclusion of the charge of

conspiracy and the inclusion of additional defendants are mere formal

amendments that do not prejudice an accused who has already been arraigned. 3

In this case, there is even no inclusion of additional defendant nor additional

allegation of conspiracy. Conspiracy has already been alleged and Melinda

Estanislao was already included as Defendant. It is only the inclusion of the

specific act of Accused Melinda Estanislao which Plaintiff wishes to achieve.

2
People v. Tubongbanua y Pahilanga, G.R. No. 171271, 500 SCRA 727, 738-739 (2006).
3
See for example People v. CA, G.R. No. L-41077, 121 SCRA 733 (1983); and Buhat v. CA,
G.R. No. 119601, 265 SCRA 701 (1996).

4
 10. Instead, the admission of the attached Amended Information shall

uphold substantial justice and facilitate the speedy resolution of this case, as it

will allow the State to prosecute all persons responsible for the criminal acts of

Falsification committed in this case in one proceeding.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff respectfully prays that it be

granted leave of court to file an Amended Information and for the Honorable

Court to admit the attached Amended Information.

Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

Makati City, May 26, 2011.

CIELITOLINDO A. LUYUN
1 Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Cagayan (on detail)
st

Member, Task Force on Financial Fraud

Department of Justice
Padre Faura Manila

Notice of Hearing and

Copy Furnished To:

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Municipal Trial Court
Branch ____, Hermosa, Bataan
AGAPITO F. FAJARDO
State Prosecutor
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Dinalupihan, Bataan

ONGKIKO MANHIT CUSTODIO & ACORDA

Private Prosecutor
15th Floor, Citibank Tower

5
8741 Paseo de Roxas corner Villar Street
Salcedo Village, 1227 Makati City

ATTY. EDMUNDO S. LEGASPI

Counsel for Accused Hector Cruz
2270 Rizal Avenue E.B.B.
Olongapo City

Ms. MELINDA ESTANISLAO

Accused
No. 2 Victoria Street corner Bayaya Street
San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City

Greetings:

Please submit the foregoing Motion for Leave to File Attached Amended
Information for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court
immediately upon receipt hereof.

CIELITOLINDO A. LUYUN

EXPLANATION

The foregoing Motion was served and filed by registered mail due to
distance between Makati City and Iloilo City that makes personal filing
impracticable. distance between lack of messengerial personnel to effect
personnel service and filing thereof.

CIELITOLINDO A. LUYUN