COMPLAINT/INFORMATION: Amendment

G.R. No. 119601 | December 17, 1996

BUHAT v. CA
Hermosisima

FACTS

Crime Homicide, but amended to murder

Nature

Parties Petitioner – Danny Buhat, “John Doe”, “Richard Doe”

Private Complainant – Betty Yu (widow of victim Ramon Yu)

Events 1. Information for Homicide filed by the City Prosecutor of Roxas against
before Trial petitioners
(commission  Alleging that on Oct. 16, 1992, petitioner was armed with a knife
of the crime and killed Ramon Yu, while the other 2 unknown assailants held
to Pre-trial) his arms.
 After filing, prosecution moved for deferment of arraignment
pending the private complainant’s MR for the resolution of the
City Prosecutor, which ordered the filing of the information for
homicide. MR was filed with the Secretary of Justice.
 Buhat opposed this, invoking his right to a speedy trial.
2. Pending the MR, arraignment of petitioner was held on June 1993;
pleaded “not guilty.” Trial ensued.
 In Feb., Secretary of Justice granted the MR, and ordered the
City Prosecutor to “amend the information by upgrading the
offense charged to murder and implead the additional
accused who are now known, from “John Doe”.
 Assistant City Prosecutor then filed a motion for leave to amend
the information. This was opposed by the petitioner.

RTC of 3. During trial, while the amendments to the information were

Roxas happening, the prosecution had already presented 2 witnesses.
 RTC denied the motion for leave to amend the information,
premised on the fact that (1) trial courts have the discretion in
disregarding the opinion of the Sec. of Justice (Crespo v Mogul),
and (2) the resolution of the inquest prosecutor is more persuasive
than the Secretary’s resolution since the prosecutor was able to
observe the demeanor of those he investigated.

Court of Solicitor General filed a petition for Certiorari, assailing the decision of the
Appeals RTC denying the motion for leave.

CA granted the petition. The amendment to crime of murder is ordered to

be made. Amendment is non-prejudicial to petitioner’s right to speedy trial.

Supreme Hence this petition, raising the issue of whether or not the amendment to
Court the information is procedurally infirm.

ISSUE:
W/N the upgrading of the crime charged from homicide to murder is so substantial
that it is proscribed after the accused has already pleaded

HELD: No, such amndment is not proscribed by law.

RATIO:
1. Court ruled that the additional allegation of conspiracy is only a formal
amendment, petitioner's participation as principal not having been affected by
such amendment.
 Petitioner’s argument: inclusion of additional defendants in the information on the
ground of conspiracy "is a substantial amendment which is prohibited by Sec. 14,
Rule 110 because the allegation of conspiracy is a substantial amendment saddling
the petitioner with the need of a new defense to meet the new situation.”
 This jurisprudential rule invoked by the petitioner has an exception, where an
amendment after plea constitutes a mere formal amendment that is permissible, and
is not prejudicial to the rights of the accused and is proper even after a plea of not
guilty to the original information.
 The exception is when the accused’s participation as principal in the crimes did not
change—there is no change in the prosecutor’s theory that the accused was the one
who principally committed the crime.
o The addition of the phrase “conspiring, confederating, and helping one
another” does not change the nature of Buhat’s participation as principal in
the killing.
 Also the changing of “John Doe” to “Renato Buhat” after being identified is only a
formal amendment that doesn’t prejudice any of the accused’s rights. It involves
merely a matter of form and does not deprive the accused of a fair opportunity to
present a defense.
o It is even to be expected that the information is to be amended as the
unknown participants in the crime became known to the public prosecutor.

2. “Abuse of superior strength” having already been alleged in the original

information charging homicide, the amendment of the name of the crime to
murder, constitutes a mere formal amendment permissible even after arraignment.
 Petitioner’s argument: After having pleaded not guilty to homicide, the amendment to
murder is prejudicial to his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against
him, in order that he can prepare a proper defense.
o In a criminal case, due process requires that, among others, the accusation
be in due form, and that notice thereof and an opportunity to answer the
charge be given the accused.
o Thus, at the outset, the main consideration should be whether or not the
accused had already made his plea under the original information, for this is
the index of prejudice to, and the violation of, the rights of the accused.
o Petitioner cites Sec. 14, Rule 110.
 However, in the event that the crime charged in the information as determined by the
prosecutor doesn’t exactly correspond to the actual crime constituted, what controls
is the description of the criminal acts and not the technical name of the crime.
o The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or
preamble of the information or the specification of the provision of law
violated. These are merely conclusions of law on the part of the fiscal, which
do not affect the legal aspects of the information.
o The real nature is determined from the actual recital of facts as alleged in
the body of the information.
o According to J. Moreland: “For his full and complete defense he need not
know the name of the crime at all. It is of no consequence whatever for the
 protection of his substantial rights. The real and important question to him is,
'Did you perform the acts alleged in the manner alleged?' not, 'Did you
commit a crime named murder?' “
 In this case, the information sufficiently supplies that the petitioner stabbed his
victime “using superior strength.” This allegation already qualifies a killing to murder,
regardless of the fact that what was in the information was only homicide.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The City Prosecutor of Roxas
City is HEREBY ORDERED to le the correct Amended Information fully in accordance with
the ndings of fact set forth in the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice.

ELEMENTS OF CRIME:

Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall
kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next
preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill
another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity.

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.chanrobles virtual law library

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,

derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor
vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an

earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.