Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > October 1981 Decisions > G.R. No. L-32557 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO C. REYES:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-32557. October 23, 1981.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. ALFREDO C. REYES as Presiding Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court, Fourth Judicial District, and FRANCISCO ESTRELLA, Respondents.

M . Capuyoc for Petitioner.

N . M . Maimos for Private Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Before the Court a quo, Francisco Estrella, together with three others, was charged with qualified theft of a motor vehicle belonging to Maria Ignacio-Francisco, committed "on or about the month of August 1969" in San Jose, Nueva Ecija. Upon arraignment on Jan. 28, 1970, the accused pleaded not guilty. When the prosecution was scheduled to present its evidence on May 21, 1970, the amendment of the information was sought so as to change the date of the commission of the offense from "August 1969" to "August 1964." The accused, through counsel, objected thereto as he came to count to defend himself from an offense allegedly committed in August 1969. The trial judge required the prosecution to present its witness for the profer determination of the issue but the defense moved to strike off the witness’ testimony as it referred to an offense not mentioned in the information. The trial judge denied the prosecution’s verbal motion to amend the information on the ground that said amendment would prejudice the substantial rights of the accused and denied the offended party’s motion for reconsideration. Hence this petition.

On certiorari the Supreme Court ruled that private respondent Estrella cannot be put on trial for the alleged 1961 offense when he was charged with and pleaded not guilty to an offense allegedly committed in 1969. The disparity of time between the years 1964 and 1969 is so great as to defy approximation in the commission of one and the same offense and to allow the amendment would result in surprise to the accused and prejudice to his substantial rights.

Judgment affirmed. Petition dismissed.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; AMENDMENT OF INFORMATION; AFTER ARRAIGNMENT; AMENDMENT AS TO MATTERS OF FORM; WHEN ALLOWED. — Under Section 13, Rule 110, Rules of Court, the complaint or information in a criminal case where the accused had been arraigned and had pleaded, may be amended only as to all matters of form when the same can be done without prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ALLOWED APPROXIMATION OF THE TIME OF COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CHARGED; LIMITATIONS. — While it has been held that except when time is a material ingredient of an offense, the precise time of commission need not be stated in the information, this Court stated that this does not mean that the prosecuting officer may be careless about fixing the date of the alleged crime, or that he may omit the date altogether, or that he may make the allegation so indefinite as to amount to the same thing. The prosecution is given the chance to allege an approximation of time of the commission of the offense and the precise date need not be stated but it does not mean that it can prove any date remote or far removed from the given approximate date so as to surprise and prejudice the accused.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; AMENDMENT OF THE DATE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME FROM "AUGUST 1969" TO "AUGUST 1964", ONLY AT THE TRIAL; WOULD CONSTITUTE SURPRISE AND PREJUDICE TO SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED; CASE AT BAR. — In the case at bar, private respondent was investigated for an offense allegedly committed in August 1961. Then petitioner committed a mistake in the placing of the date of the alleged crime in the information filed and charged private respondent for an offense allegedly committed in August 1969 which charge he pleaded not guilty. During the arraignment and plea of private respondent on Jan. 28, 1970, the prosecution had all the chances to realize and rectify its mistake. It did not do so. The trial of the accused was set for May 21, 1970. Petitioner therefore, had more than three months to take steps. Again, it failed to do so. Finally, petitioner verbally moved to amend the information only at the start of the trial. To permit petitioner to do so would surprise the accused and prejudice his substantial rights.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, JR., J.:


Petitioner, by way of certiorari, with prayer for preliminary injunction, questions as alleged grave abuse of discretion, the order 1 dated July 10, 1970, of the respondent Judge, (Hon. Alfredo C. Reyes of the Circuit Criminal Court, 4th Judicial District, Cabanatuan City) in Criminal Case No. CCC-IV-170-NE, entitled "The People of the Philippines v. Francisco Estrella," which denied petitioner’s verbal motion for the amendment of the information in said case, by deleting the year "1969" as alleged therein, and in lieu thereof to put the year "1964." Respondent Judge anchored his denial of the verbal motion on, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"After a careful study of both memoranda in support and against the said motion, this Court finds and so hold that the amendment to the information cannot be made without prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused in the above-entitled case.

"WHEREFORE, the motion to amend the information is hereby denied in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of People v. Placido Opemia, Et Al., 98 Phil. 698 . . .

"SO ORDERED." 2

Petitioner also assails the order of respondent Court, dated September 14, 1970, 3 denying its motion for reconsideration 4 of the July 10, 1970 order.

This Court issued a preliminary injunction on September 24, 1970. 5

Pertinent facts of record are:cralawnad

Sometime in October, an information for qualified theft was filed against private respondent Francisco Estrella and three others, as Criminal Case No. 6799, in the Municipal Court of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, pertinent portion as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned Asst. Provincial Fiscal accuses Narciso Mananing, Florentino Alcantara, Francisco Estrella, and Melecio Guevarra of the crime of Qualified Theft, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That in the month of August, 1964, in the municipality of San Jose, province of Nueva Ecija, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused Narciso Mananing, being the driver of complainant Maria Ignacio-Francisco, Florentino Alcantara, repair shop owner where the truck hereinafter described was found and recovered, Francisco Estrella, a Philippine Constabulary soldier stationed at Bulacan, and Melecio Guevarra, all conspiring together, without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, take, steal and carry away one (1) Bedford truck with Chassis No. 153559, with Motor No. 2/54/5/6, with Plate No. T-35049, Series of 1964, to the damage and prejudice of the owner, Maria Ignacio-Francisco in the amount of P23,000.00, value of said vehicle." 6

On November 15, 1969, the Acting City Fiscal of San Jose City, (converted into city) Nueva Ecija, filed an information (Crim. Case No. CCC-IV-170) with the respondent Court, charging private respondent Francisco Estrella and three others, with qualified theft, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned Acting City Fiscal accuses Narciso Mananing, Florentino Alcantara, Francisco Estrella, and Melecio Guevarra of the crime of Qualified Theft, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the month of August, 1969, in the City of San Jose, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused Narciso Mananing, being then the driver of Bedford truck bearing Plate No. T-35049, Series of 1964, with Chassis No. 153559, and with a Motor No. 2/54/5/6 owned by Maria Ignacio-Francisco, conspiring and confederating together with his co-accused namely: Florentino Alcantara, Francisco Estrella, and Melecio Guevarra, and with intent to gain, with grave abuse of confidence, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the said Bedford truck valued at Twenty Three thousand Pesos (P23.000.00) Philippine Currency and dismantled the same without the consent of the said owner and to her damage and prejudice of the said sum of P23,000.00." 7

On January 28, 1970, private respondent Francisco Estrella was arraigned, and he pleaded not guilty. During the arraignment, respondent Judge required his clerk to read the information to Francisco Estrella. The court interpreter was directed to translate the information into Tagalog for the benefit of the accused. The prosecution, although represented, made no move to amend the information, if indeed it was really erroneous. From January 28, 1970, up to May 21, 1970, the latter date being the scheduled trial of the case, the prosecution never moved to amend the information. 8

On May 21, 1970 when the prosecution was scheduled to present its evidence, it verbally moved that it be allowed to amend the information 9 so as to change the date of the commission of the offense from "August 1969" to "August 1964." 10 Private respondent Francisco Estrella, having come to the trial court ready to defend himself from an offense allegedly committed in "August 1969", vigorously objected to the verbal motion. 11

Respondent Judge withheld his ruling on the prosecution’s motion to amend, and instead, required the prosecution to present its first witness, to determine whether the sought amendment in the information would constitute a change of substance affecting the rights of the accused or merely of form. 12

Florentino Alcantara, originally a co-accused but discharged as a prosecution witness testified that the offense was committed in 1964. The defense refused to cross-examine witness Alcantara, asked respondent Court to strike off the testimony of Alcantara because it referred to an offense not mentioned in the information and asked for a ruling by respondent Court on the prosecution’s verbal motion to amend the information. 13

Respondent Judge required the prosecution and the defense to submit memoranda. The contested order of July 22, 1970, denying the prosecution’s verbal motion to amend information on the ground that said amendment would prejudice the substantial rights of the accused was issued by respondent Court. 14

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned contested order alleged that time was not a material ingredient of the offense of qualified theft and claimed that the case of Placido Opemia, Et Al., 98 Phil. 698, relied upon by the trial Court for its denial of the motion to amend information, was not applicable to the case. 15

The respondent Court, denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, in its order of September 14, 1970, 16 stating that the prosecution’s honest mistake in the information filed cannot prevail over the substantial rights of the accused based on constitutional provisions. Hence this petition.cralawnad

The principal issue before this Court is whether or not the respondent Court abused its discretion when it refused an amendment to the information filed in Criminal Case No. CCC-IV-170-NE, to change the date of the alleged commission of the offense from "August 1969" to "August 1964", on the ground it would constitute an impairment of the substantial rights of the accused as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Under Section 13, Rule 110, Rules of Court, the complaint or information in a criminal case where the accused had been arraigned and had pleaded, as in this case, may be amended only as to all matters of form when the same can be done without prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused.

As to whether or not a sought for amendment of an information to change the time of the alleged commission of crime from 1969 to 1964 (period of five years) would prejudice the substantial rights of the accused after his arraignment and plea, this Court ruled in the case of People v. Placido Opemia, Et Al., 98 Phil. 698, that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the case at bar, the proof shows that the carabao was lost on July 25, 1947, and not on June 18, 1952, as alleged in the information. The period of almost five years between 1947 and 1952 covers such a long stretch of time that one cannot help but be led to believe that another theft different from that committed by the defendants in 1952 was also perpetrated by them in 1947. Under this impression the accused, who came to Court prepared to face a charge of theft of large cattle allegedly committed by them in 1952, were certainly caught by sudden surprise upon being confronted by evidence tending to prove a similar offense committed in 1947. The variance is certainly unfair to them, for it violates their constitutional rights to be informed before the trial of the specific charge against them and deprives them of the opportunity to defend themselves. Moreover, they cannot be convicted of an offense of which they were not charged."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the present case, private respondent Francisco Estrella was investigated for an offense allegedly committed in August of 1964. Then, he was charged for an offense allegedly committed in August of 1969. He pleaded not guilty to the latter charge. Now petitioner desires to put him on trial for the alleged 1964 offense. This cannot legally be done.

The petitioner’s argument that the time or date of the commission of the offense is not a material ingredient of the crime of qualified theft cannot be given much weight in this case because the disparity of time between the years 1964 and 1969 is so great as to defy approximation in the commission of one and the same offense. While it has been held that except when time is a material ingredient of an offense, the precise time of commission need not be stated in the information, this Court stated that this does not mean that the prosecuting officer may be careless about fixing the date of the alleged crime, or that he may omit the date altogether, or that he may make the allegation so indefinite as to amount to the same thing. 17 The prosecution is given the chance to allege an approximation of time of the commission of the offense and the precise date need not be stated but it does not mean that it can prove any date remote or far removed from the given approximate date so as to surprise and prejudice the accused.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

What happened in this case is that the petitioner committed a mistake in the placing of the date of the alleged crime in the information filed. During the arraignment and plea of private respondent Francisco Estrella on January 28, 1970, the prosecution had all the chances to realize and rectify its mistake. It did not do so. The trial of the accused was set for May 21, 1970. Petitioner therefore, had more than three months to take steps. Again, it failed to do so. Finally, petitioner verbally moved to amend the information only at the start of the trial. To permit petitioner to do so would surprise the accused and prejudice his substantial rights.

WHEREFORE, the questioned orders dated July 10, 1970 and September 14, 1970, by respondent Judge are hereby AFFIRMED, the preliminary injunction issued on September 24, 1970 dissolved, and this petition DISMISSED for lack of merit. Without costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernandez, Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


BARREDO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur, but I believe this decision cannot bar another prosecution of private respondent under another information on charging theft committed in 1964.

Endnotes:



1. p. 9, rollo.

2. Ibid.

3. pp. 16-18, rollo.

4. pp. 10-16, Id.

5. p. 21, Id.

6. Emphasis supplied; p. 8, Id.

7. Emphasis supplied; p. 6, Id.

8. pp. 74-75, Id.

9. p. 6, Id.

10. p. 62, Id.

11. p. 75, Id.

12. pp. 62, 76, Id.

13. p. 76, Id.

14. p. 9, Id.

15. pp. 10-15, Id.

16. pp. 16-18, Id.

17. U.S. v. Dichao, 27 Phil. 421, 426.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1981 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-47579 October 9, 1981 - EDUARDO JALANDONI v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. Nos. L-50674-75 October 9, 1981 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-55213 October 9, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-52306 October 12, 1981 - ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-2095 October 23, 1981 - ELISEO M. TENZA v. RODOLFO M. ESPINELLI

  • G.R. No. L-25003 October 23, 1981 - LIWAYWAY PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. PERMANENT CONCRETE WORKERS UNION

  • G.R. No. L-27177 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMUALDO CAPILLAS

  • G.R. No. L-31641 October 23, 1981 - MAYOR EULOGIO E. BORRES v. MATEO CANONOY

  • G.R. No. L-32557 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO C. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-32886 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AVELINO S. PISALVO

  • G.R. Nos. L-36436-38 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURO VERGES

  • G.R. No. L-37604 October 23, 1981 - EASTERN AND AUSTRALIAN STEAMSHIP CO., LTD v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

  • G.R. No. L-37908 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN K. ONG

  • G.R. No. L-38180 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR CRISOSTOMO

  • G.R. No. L-38287 October 23, 1981 - ANTONIO MACADANGDANG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-38625 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ROSALES

  • G.R. No. L-41704 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO TAPAO

  • G.R. No. L-42149 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EWALDO CABATLAO

  • G.R. No. L-49149 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO TAYLARAN

  • G.R. No. L-50874 October 23, 1981 - JOSE VALENZUELA, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR CARMELO NORIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51565 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO U. GALLANO

  • G.R. No. L-53790 October 23, 1981 - ONE HEART SPORTING CLUB, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-55694 October 23, 1981 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO v. BENIGNO M. PUNO

  • G.R. No. L-56919 October 23, 1981 - MAXIMO PLENO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-56921 October 23, 1981 - GOTARDO FLORDELIS v. BENJAMIN MARCIAL

  • G.R. No. L-57041 October 23, 1981 - NEGROS DISTRICT CONFERENCE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-58064 October 23, 1981 - EMITERIA L. VILLABER v. BALBINO V. DIEGO

  • A.M. No. 983-MJ October 27, 1981 - FELIPE FERRER v. ADORADO S. LIM

  • G.R. No. L-47533 October 27, 1981 - FORTUNATO AISPORNA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. 1037-CJ October 28, 1981 - MARTIN LANTACO, SR., ET AL. v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS

  • A.M. No. 1092-MJ October 30, 1981 - ROMEO S. GEOCADIN v. REMEGIO M. PEÑA

  • A.M. No. P-1472 October 30, 1981 - MARCIAL O. T. BALGOS v. CONSTANCIO VELASCO

  • A.M. No. 1888-CFI October 30, 1981 - FRANCISCO I. PULIDO v. MAGNO B. PABLO

  • A.M. No. P-2363 October 30, 1981 - NENA TORDESILLAS v. HUMBERTO BASCO

  • A.M. No. P-2403 October 30, 1981 - ALBERTO O. VILLARAZA v. CATALINO Y. ATIENZA

  • G.R. No. L-24881 October 30, 1981 - MELENCIO PAGKATIPUNAN v. ATILANO C. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-32477 October 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO APOSAGA

  • G.R. No. L-34666 October 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ITONG AMISTAD

  • G.R. No. L-35915 October 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO A. PIZARRAS

  • G.R. No. L-41088 October 30, 1981 - ARTEMIO B. PACANA v. DAVID M. CONSUNJI

  • G.R. No. L-44928 October 30, 1981 - JOSE M. ALEJANDRINO v. FRANCISCO S. TANTUICO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-45487 October 30, 1981 - ANTONIO A. NEPOMUCENO v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE

  • G.R. No. L-46410 October 30, 1981 - ERNESTO BALBIN v. PEDRO C. MEDALLA

  • G.R. No. L-47200 October 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS CLARIN

  • G.R. No. L-47859 October 30, 1981 - SAN MAURICIO MINING COMPANY v. CONSTANTE A. ANCHETA

  • G.R. No. L-48744 October 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CENTENO

  • G.R. No. L-50563 October 30, 1981 - GABRIEL ABAD, ET AL. v. PHILAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-53525 October 30, 1981 - BIENVENIDO SASI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-53766 October 30, 1981 - MARIA C. RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-55357 October 30, 1981 - ROLANDO DIONALDO v. AUXENCIO DACUYCUY

  • G.R. No. L-57250 October 30, 1981 - NEVILLE Y. LAMIS ENTS. v. ALFREDO J. LAGAMON

  • G.R. No. L-58184 October 30, 1981 - FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT