7/24/2019 MENDEZ V PEOPLE.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mendez-v-peopledocx 1/3

DR. JOEL C. MENDEZ, v . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND COURT OF TAX

APPEALS

Facts: The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) filed a complaint affidavit with theDepartment of Justice against the petitioner. The BIR alleged that the petitioner had

been operating as a single proprietor doing business andor e!ercising his professionfor ta!able "ears #$$% to #$$&. The BIR alleged that petitioner failed to file his incometa! returns for ta!able "ears #$$% to #$$& and, conse'uentl" evaded his obligation topa" the correct amount of ta!es due the government.

 fter a preliminar" investigation, tate *rosecutor Juan *edro +avera found probablecause against petitioner for nonfiling of income ta! returns for ta!able "ears #$$% and#$$# and for failure to suppl" correct and accurate information as to his true income for ta!able "ear #$$&, in violation of the +ational Internal Revenue -ode. ccordingl" anInformation was filed with the -T charging the petitioner with violation of ection #of Republic ct +o. /0#0 (Ta! Reform ct of %112). The

Information reads3That on or about the %th da" of pril, #$$#, at 4ue5on -it", and within the 6urisdiction of 7the -T8 the above named accused, a dul" registered ta!pa"er,and sole proprietor of 9:eigh ;ess -enter< with principal office at +o. &% Roces

 venue, 4ue5on -it", and with several branches in 4ue5on -it", =a>ati, an?ernando and Dagupan -it", did then and there, wilfull", unlawfull" andfeloniousl" fail to file his Income Ta! Return (ITR) with the Bureau of InternalRevenue for the ta!able "ear #$$%, to the damage and pre6udice of the@overnment in the estimated amount of *%,$/1,0&1.$/, e!clusive of penalties,surcharges and interest.-A+TRR TA ;:.

The accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilt" on =arch , #$$2.  An =a" 0, #$$2,the prosecution filed a 9=otion to mend Information with ;eave of -ourt.<   Theamended information reads3

That on or about the % th da" of pril, 2002, at 4ue5on -it", and within the 6urisdiction of 7the -T8 the above named accused, doi! "#si$ss #d$% t&$ a'$ ad st()$o* 9:eigh ;ess -enter<M$d$+ M$dica) ,%o#-<, with several branches in 4ue5on-it",M#ti)#-a Cit( Mada)#(o! Cit( ad Ma/ati Cit(, did then and there, wilfull",unlawfull" and feloniousl" fail to file his income ta! return (ITR) with the Bureau of Internal Revenue *o% ico'$ $a%$d  for the ta!able "ear #$$%, to the damage andpre6udice of the @overnment in the estimated amount of *%,$/1,0&1.$/, e!clusive of penalties, surcharges and interest (underscoring and boldfacing in the original).

The petitioner failed to file his comment to the motion within the re'uired periodC thus,the -T ?irst Division granted the prosecutions motion.  The -T ruled that theprosecutions amendment is merel" a formal one as it 9merel" states with additionalprecision something alread" contained in the original information.< The petitioner failedto show that the defenses applicable under the original information can no longer be

7/24/2019 MENDEZ V PEOPLE.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mendez-v-peopledocx 2/3

used under the amended information since both the original and the amendedinformation charges the petitioner with the same offense (violation of ection #).

The petitioner claims in his petition that the prosecutions amendment is a substantialamendment prohibited under ection %0, Rule %%$ of the Revised Rules of -riminal

*rocedure. It is substantial in nature because its additional allegations alter theprosecutions theor" of the case so as to cause surprise to him and affect the form of hisdefense. Thus, he was not properl" informed of the nature and cause of the accusationagainst him.

Iss#$: :hether the prosecutions amendments made after the petitioners arraignmentare substantial in nature and must perforce be deniedE

H$)d: +o.ection %0, Rule %%$ of the Revised Rules of -riminal *rocedure governs the matter of amending the information3

 Amendment or substitution. F complaint or information ma" be amended, inform or in substance, without leave of court, at an" time before the accusedenters his plea. fter the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment ma" onl"be made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing pre6udiceto the rights of the accused.

Gowever, an" amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of theoffense charged in or e!cludes an" accused from the complaint or information,can be made onl" upon motion b" the prosecutor, with notice to the offendedpart" and with leave of court. The court shall state its reasons in resolving the

motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties, especiall" theoffended part".

There is no precise definition of what constitutes a substantial amendment. ccording to 6urisprudence, substantial matters in the complaint or information consist of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the 6urisdiction of the court.Hnder ection %0, however, the prosecution is given the right to amend the information,regardless of the nature of the amendment, so long as the amendment is sought beforethe accused enters his plea, sub6ect to the 'ualification under the second paragraph of ection %0.

Ance the accused is arraigned and enters his plea, however, ection %0 prohibits theprosecution from see>ing a substantial amendment, particularl" mentioning those thatma" pre6udice the rights of the accused. Ane of these rights is the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him, a rightwhich is given life during the arraignment of the accused of the charge of against him.The theor" in law is that since the accused officiall" begins to prepare his defenseagainst the accusation on the basis of the recitals in the information read to him duringarraignment, then the prosecution must establish its case on the basis of the same

7/24/2019 MENDEZ V PEOPLE.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mendez-v-peopledocx 3/3

information.

 mendments that do not charge another offense different from that charged in theoriginal oneC or do not alter the prosecutions theor" of the case so as to cause surpriseto the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume are considered

merel" as formal amendments.

 s to when the rights of an accused are pre6udiced b" an amendment made after hehad pleaded to the original information, Montenegro ruled that pre6udice e!ists when adefense under the original information would no longer be available after theamendment is made, and when an" evidence the accused might have, would beinapplicable to the Information as amended.

The jurisprudential test on whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment of aninformation  pertains to the availabilit" of the same defense and evidence that theaccused previousl" had under the original information. This test, however, must be read

together with the characteristic thread of formal amendments, which is to maintain thenature of the crime or the essence of the offense charged.  

In the present case, the amendments sought b" the prosecution pertains to (i) thealleged change in the date in the commission of the crime from #$$% to #$$#C (ii) theaddition of the phrase 9doing business under the name and st"le of =ende5 =edical@roupC< (iii) the change andor addition of the branches of petitioners operationC and (iv)the addition of the phrase 9for income earned.< Thread remained consistentl" under the amended information, alleging the petitioners failure to file his return andconse'uentl" to pa" the correct amount of ta!es. ccordingl", the petitioner could nothave been surprised at all. The -ourt cannot see how these amendments would

adversel" affect an" substantial right of the petitioner as accused.

*etition was dismissed.