Descripción objetiva

Now, the classifications of amendments under the rule on criminal procedure are the same because there is such a thing as amendments on the criminal complaints or informations as a matter of right on the part of the prosecution and amendments as a matter of judicial discretion. And under the rules of criminal procedure, an amendment can either be formal or substantially received. There is some difference in the rules.

How do you differentiate the amendment of a pleading, under the rules on civil procedure and the amendment of a criminal complaint or information in criminal cases? Take note that there is no Answer in criminal cases. The accused is not obliged to file answer but the counterpart of answer in criminal cases is the plea, where he pleads either guilty or not guilty.

Under the rules on criminal procedure, at anytime before the arraignment or before he enters plea, the amendment of information is a matter of right, either in form or in substance. EXAMPLE: The prosecution files an information against you for homicide and then the prosecution wants to agree to murder. Can it be done? YES, for as long as the accused has not yet entered his plea.

So it is almost the same as in civil cases. For as long as there is no responsive, pleading the amendment is a matter of right whether in substance or in form.

Q: Now in criminal cases, AFTER the accused had already entered his plea to the original charged, is amendment still allowed? Can the prosecution still amend?

A: YES. But what is allowed is only formal amendment. Substantial amendment is 100% prohibited in criminal cases. But in civil cases, puwede.

OBJECTIONS AND DEFENSES NOT RAISED ARE DEEMED WAIVED; EXCEPTION Sec. 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. - When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made. (5a)

Q: May issues not raised in the pleadings be tried in court during the trial?

A: As a GENERAL RULE, a defendant during the trial is not allowed to prove a defense that is not raised in the pleadings based on Rule 9, Section 1. The court has no jurisdiction over the issue. That’s why there is no such thing as surprise defense because a defense that is not raised is deemed waived.

Q: Is there an EXCEPTION to Rule 9, Section 1? Can the rule be relaxed?

A: YES. Section 5 is a relaxation of the rule specifically the first sentence: “when issues not raised in the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.”

EXAMPLE: In a collection case, the defendant in his answer raised a defense that the money obtained from the defendants was not a loan but a donation. During the trial, he attempted to prove that it was a loan but it was already fully paid. So he is now proving the defense of payment. He is practically changing his defense. If you follow Rule 9, Section 1, that is not allowed.

But suppose the parties during the trial, the plaintiff agrees that the defendant will prove that the obligation is paid, then it can be done because issues now raised in the pleadings are tried with the express consent of the parties. They shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.

In the case of implied consent, the best example is when the defendant attempts to prove payment and the plaintiff FAILED TO OBJECT. So there is now an implied consent by the parties. Therefore, the case can now be tried in the issue as if they had been raised in the pleadings. That is what we call the principle of estoppel. The parties are in estoppel because they expressly or impliedly agreed to try an issue which is not raised in the pleadings. The court will now render judgment and discuss the evidence and discuss whether the obligation has been paid or not.

So if it happens, the decision will not jibe with the pleadings. If you read the complaint and the answer, there is no mention of payment but in the decision resolved the case on that issue. The pleadings are not in harmony with the decision.

Q: So how will you harmonize the two – pleadings and the decision?

A: The remedy according to Section 5 is to amend the pleadings. We can amend the pleadings to make them conform with the evidence. That is why the law says: “such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment.”

So even after the judgment, you can amend the pleading in order to harmonize with the evidence. Normally, the evidence should conform to the pleading under Rule 9. In this case, baliktad! – it is the pleading which is being amended to conform to the evidence. It is the exact opposite.

Normally that is for the benefit of the appellate court in case the decision will be the case will be appealed. The CA will read the complaint and the answer, “wala mang payment dito!” But when you read the decision, the main issue was payment not found in the complaint and the answer. So there might be confusion. So amendment is necessary at anytime, even after judgment.

Q: But suppose the parties never bothered to amend the pleadings, is there a valid judgment?

A: YES because the law says, “but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues.” So, there is a valid trial and the court acquires jurisdiction over the issues because of their implied or express consent. The best example is FAILURE TO OBJECT.

“if the evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it was not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be

subserved thereby.”

EXAMPLE: The defendant during the trial attempted to prove the obligation that it is paid. The lawyer of the plaintiff is alert and objected thereby, “You cannot prove that defense because you never raise a defense of payment in your answer.” Is the objection correct? YES because of Rule 9, Section 1. The court affirmed the plaintiff that one cannot prove the defense of payment because you never raised it in your answer. There is no express or implied consent.

Q: But the defendant said, “If that is so your honor, may we be allowed to amend our answer so that we will now raise the defense of payment and prove it in court?” Can the court allow the defendant to amend his answer in the middle of the trial just to prove a defense that is not raised?

A: The rule says YES, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby.

That is why you can say that the power of the court in enforcing the Rules of Court is very wide. For example, I am the judge and the defendant never raised the issue of payment in his answer and he is now rising such defense. The plaintiff’s lawyer will now object and alleged that he cannot prove such defense for he never raised it in his answer. The judge sustained the objection, “You cannot prove a defense that is never raised in your answer.” Q: Is my ruling correct? A: YES because of Rule 9, Section 1 – objections and defenses not raised in the answer are deemed waived.

The defendant will now move to be allowed to amend the pleading so that I raised that defense. The plaintiff will object to the amendment. The judge will ask the plaintiff, “is the obligation paid?” “NO. The defendant never paid it,” answered the plaintiff. So if the defense is false, why are you afraid? Anyway, he cannot prove it. So I will allow the amendment.

However, if the plaintiff will answer that the defendant has already paid the obligation but that he never raised such matter in his answer. The plaintiff now will be in bad faith. So I will allow the amendment.

So in other words, in any way my ruling is correct because I know how to apply the rule. So the court will allow the amendment and shall do so with liberality… so LIBERALITY should be the rule on amendment. Section 5 is a rule more on equity. While, Rule 9, Section 1 is a rule of law. Section 5 is a relaxation of that law on technicality.

The last sentence, “the court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made.” ‘Continuance’ means postponement. It means, postponement of the case to allow the defendant to amend his answer first.