Pacoy vs Cajigal Facts: Petitioner was charged with homicide. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty.

y. On the same day and after the arraignment, the respondent judge issued an order directing the trial prosecutor to correct and amend the Information to Murder in view of the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank alleged in the Information which public respondent registered as having qualified the crime to Murder. Prosecutor entered his amendment by crossing out the word "Homicide" and instead wrote the word "Murder" in the caption and in the opening paragraph of the Information. The accusatory portion remained exactly the same as that of the original Information for Homicide, with the correction of the spelling of the victims name from "Escuita" to "Escueta." On the date scheduled for pre-trial conference and trial, petitioner was to be re-arraigned for the crime of Murder. Counsel for petitioner objected on the ground that the latter would be placed in double jeopardy, considering that his Homicide case had been terminated without his express consent, resulting in the dismissal of the case. As petitioner refused to enter his plea on the amended Information for Murder, the public respondent entered for him a plea of not guilty. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash which the respondent judge denied. Petitioner filed a Motion to Inhibit with attached Motion for Reconsideration. The respondent judge denied the Motion to Inhibit and granted the MR. Issue/ Held: W/N the amendment of the information from homicide to murder was proper. Ratio: Petitioner alleges that despite having entered his plea of not guilty to the charge of Homicide, the public respondent ordered the amendment of the Information from Homicide to Murder because of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of "disregard of rank," which is in violation of Section 14 of Rule 110; that under paragraph 3, Article 14 of the RPC, disregard of rank is only a generic aggravating circumstance which serves to affect the penalty to be imposed upon the accused and does not qualify the offense into a more serious crime; that even assuming that disregard of rank is a qualifying aggravating circumstance, such is a substantial amendment which is not allowed after petitioner has entered his plea. Petitioner confuses the procedure and effects of amendment or substitution under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court with Section 19, Rule 119. The first paragraph of Sec. 14, Rule 110 provides the rules for amendment of the information or complaint, while the second paragraph refers to the substitution of the information or complaint. Amendment may involve either formal or substantial changes, while substitution necessarily involves a substantial change from the original charge. Amendment before plea has been entered can be effected without leave of court, but substitution of information must be with leave of court as the original information has to be dismissed.

Where the amendment is only as to form, there is no need for another preliminary investigation and the retaking of the plea of the accused; in substitution of information, another preliminary investigation is entailed and the accused has to plead anew to the new information. 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 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. On the other hand, substitution requires or presupposes that the new information involves a different offense which does not include or is not necessarily included in the original charge, hence the accused cannot claim double jeopardy. Where the second information involves the same offense, or an offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first information, an amendment of the information is sufficient; otherwise, where the new information charges an offense which is distinct and different from that initially charged, a substitution is in order. There is identity between the two offenses when the evidence to support a conviction for one offense would be sufficient to warrant a conviction for the other, or when the second offense is exactly the same as the first, or when the second offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of, or when it necessarily includes or is necessarily included in, the offense charged in the first information. An offense may be said to necessarily include another when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former constitute the latter. An offense may be said to be necessarily included in another when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter. The change of the offense charged from Homicide to Murder is merely a formal amendment and not a substantial amendment or a substitution. While the amended Information was for Murder, a reading of the Information shows that the only change made was in the caption of the case; and in the opening paragraph or preamble of the Information, with the crossing out of word "Homicide" and its replacement by the word "Murder." There was no change in the recital of facts constituting the offense charged or in the determination of the jurisdiction of the court. The averments in the amended Information for Murder are exactly the same as those already alleged in the original Information for Homicide, as there was not at all any change in the act imputed to petitioner. Section 14, Rule 110 also provides that in allowing formal amendments in cases in which the accused has already pleaded, it is necessary that the amendments do not prejudice the rights of the accused. The test of whether the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or information is whether a defense under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made; and when any evidence the accused might have would be inapplicable to the complaint or information. Since the facts alleged in the accusatory portion of the amended Information are identical with those of the original Information for Homicide, there could not be any effect on the prosecution's theory of the case; neither would there be any possible prejudice to the rights or defense of petitioner.