William and several other persons were charged with violation of the Anti- Hazing Act. During their arraignment, William and his co-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge that they unlawfully subjected Carding Cruz to hazing. The information was later amended by adding the suffix “III” to the name “Carding Cruz”. Trial ensued without the accused having been re-arraigned on the amended information. After the accused were convicted by the trial court, William appealed contending that his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was violated when he was not re-arraigned after the amendment of the information. Is William correct? Discuss.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, William is not correct. Under jurisprudence, there is no need for a re-arraignment of the accused in case of a formal amendment, as a formal amendment does not charge a new or different offense nor alter the prosecution's
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Is William correct in contending that his constitutional rights were violated by the lack of re-arraignment?
Adding "III" to the victim's name is a mere formal amendment that does not alter the charge or require re-arraignment.
When is re-arraignment of the accused mandatory following an amendment to the criminal information?
Re-arraignment is mandatory only when the amendment is substantial and changes the nature of the offense.
What defines a formal amendment to an information under the Rules of Criminal Procedure?
A formal amendment does not change the offense charged nor affect the substantial rights of the accused.
What is the legal effect on trial proceedings if an accused is not re-arraigned on a purely formal amendment?
Choices available with full access.
Why does a formal amendment NOT violate the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the accusation?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Formal Amendment
Under Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, an amendment to an information is purely formal when it does not charge another offense, alter the prosecution's theory, or adversely affect the substantial rights of the accused. A formal amendment merely corrects a clerical error, adds a suffix or middle name to clarify identity, or supplies details that do not alter the essential elements of the crime charged. Because a formal amendment causes no surprise or prejudice to the defense, it may be allowed at any stage of the proceedings with leave of court.
2. Re-arraignment Rules
Re-arraignment of the accused is mandatory only when an amendment to the information is substantial, such as when it changes the nature of the offense charged, increases the penalty, or introduces new material factual allegations that alter the theory of the case. In contrast, when the amendment is purely formal, re-arraignment is completely unnecessary. Proceeding to trial on a formally amended information without re-arraigning the accused does not invalidate the trial proceedings nor does it deprive the trial court of its authority to render a valid judgment.
3. Right to Informed
The constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him ensures that he is given fair notice to prepare an adequate defense. When an information undergoes a mere formal amendment, such as adding "III" to the victim's name, the nature of the criminal charge and the underlying factual basis remain completely identical. Consequently, the failure to re-arraign the accused following a formal amendment does not violate his constitutional right to be informed, as his defense strategy remains fully applicable.