Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 129 views

    Buhat V Ca

    Uploaded by

    Camille Britanico
    The Supreme Court ruled that upgrading the charge in this case from homicide to murder after the accused pleaded not guilty was not an improper amendment. The original information alleged that the accused stabbed the victim using superior strength, which qualifies the killing as murder under the law regardless of how it was designated in the information. The amendment did not prejudice any of the accused's rights or change the nature of the offense charged, as it was based on the actual facts alleged rather than the legal designation. Therefore, the amendment was allowed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Buhat V Ca

    Uploaded by

    Camille Britanico
    129 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that upgrading the charge in this case from homicide to murder after the accused pleaded not guilty was not an improper amendment. The original information alleged that the accused stabbed the victim using superior strength, which qualifies the killing as murder under the law regardless of how it was designated in the information. The amendment did not prejudice any of the accused's rights or change the nature of the offense charged, as it was based on the actual facts alleged rather than the legal designation. Therefore, the amendment was allowed.

    Original Description:

    DIGEST

    Original Title

    BUHAT V CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that upgrading the charge in this case from homicide to murder after the accused pleaded not guilty was not an improper amendment. The original information alleged that the accused stabbed the victim using superior strength, which qualifies the killing as murder under the law regardless of how it was designated in the information. The amendment did not prejudice any of the accused's rights or change the nature of the offense charged, as it was based on the actual facts alleged rather than the legal designation. Therefore, the amendment was allowed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    129 views3 pages

    Buhat V Ca

    Uploaded by

    Camille Britanico
    The Supreme Court ruled that upgrading the charge in this case from homicide to murder after the accused pleaded not guilty was not an improper amendment. The original information alleged that the accused stabbed the victim using superior strength, which qualifies the killing as murder under the law regardless of how it was designated in the information. The amendment did not prejudice any of the accused's rights or change the nature of the offense charged, as it was based on the actual facts alleged rather than the legal designation. Therefore, the amendment was allowed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    BUHAT V.

    CA
    Delicate and sensitive is the issue in this case, which is, whether or not the upgrading of the
    crime charged from homicide to the more serious offense of murder is such a substantial
    amendment that it is proscribed if made after the accused had pleaded not guilty to the
    crime of homicide, displaying as alleged by the defense, inordinate prejudice to the rights of
    the defendant.

    FACTS:
    -

    An information for homicide was filed in the RTC against Danny Buhat, John
    Doe, and Richard Doe; alleging that Buhat, armed with a knife, unlawfully
    attacked and killed Ramon Yu, while the said unknown assailants held his
    arms, using superior strength, inflicting mortal wounds which caused his
    death

    Even before petitioner could be arraigned, the prosecution moved for the
    deferment of the arraignment on the ground that the private complainant in
    the case, one Betty Yu, moved for the reconsideration of the resolution of the
    City Prosecutor which ordered the filing of the aforementioned information for
    homicide.

    Petitioner however, invoking his right to a speedy trial, opposed the


    motion. Thus, petitioner was arraigned on June 9, 1993 and, since petitioner
    pleaded not guilty, trial ensued.

    On February 3, 1994, then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon, finding


    Betty Yus appeal meritorious, ordered the City Prosecutor of Roxas City to
    amend the information by upgrading the offense charged to MURDER and
    implead therein additional accused Herminia Altavas, Osmea Altavas and
    Renato Buhat

    On March 10, 1994, the Assistant City Prosecutor filed a motion for leave to
    amend information. The amendment as proposed was opposed by the
    petitioner. (homicide murder; additional defendants were impleaded)

    By then, 2 witnesses had been presented by the prosecution

    In an order, dated June 2, 1994, the RTC denied the motion for leave to
    amend information. The denial was premised on (1) an invocation of the trial
    courts discretion in disregarding the opinion of the Secretary of Justice as
    allegedly held in Crespo vs. Mogul and (2) a conclusion reached by the trial
    court that the resolution of the inquest prosecutor is more persuasive than

    that of the Secretary of Justice, the former having actually conducted the
    preliminary investigation where he was able to observe the demeanor of
    those he investigated
    -

    SOLGEN appealed to the CA, contending that the proposed amendment was
    not prejudicial granted

    Hence this petition

    SUPREME COURT:
    -

    Petitioner undoubtedly is charged as a principal in the killing of Ramon


    George Yu whom petitioner is alleged to have stabbed while two unknown
    persons held the victim's arms. The addition of the phrase, "conspiring,
    confederating and helping one another" does not change the nature of
    petitioner's participation as principal in the killing.

    Whether under the original or the amended information, petitioner would


    have to defend himself as the People makes a case against him and secures
    for public protection the punishment of petitioner for stabbing to death, using
    superior strength, a fellow citizen in whose help and safety society as a whole
    is interested.Petitioner, thus, has no tenable basis to decry the amendment in
    question.

    Furthermore, neither may the amendment in question be struck down on the


    ground that Herminia Altavas, Osmea Altavas and Renato Buhat would be
    placed in double jeopardy by virtue of said amendment. In the first place, no
    first jeopardy can be spoken of insofar as the Altavases are concerned since
    the first information did not precisely include them as accused therein. In the
    second place, the amendment to replace the name, "John Doe" with the
    name of Renato Buhat who was found by the Secretary of Justice to be one of
    the two persons who held the arms of the victim while petitioner was
    stabbing him, is only a formal amendment and one that does not prejudice
    any of the accused's rights. Such amendment to insert in the information real
    name of the accused involves merely a matter of form as it does not, in any
    way, deprive any of the accused of a fair opportunity to present a defense;
    neither is the nature of the offense charged affected or altered since the
    revelation of accused's real name does not change the theory of the
    prosecution nor does it introduce any new and material fact. In fact, it is to be
    expected that the information has to be amended as the unknown
    participants in the crime became known to the public prosecutor

    - THE REAL NATURE OF THE CRIMINAL CHARGE IS DETERMINED NOT FROM THE
    CAPTION OR PREAMBLE OF THE INFORMATION NOR FROM THE SPECIFICATION

    OF THE PROVISION OF THE LAW ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, THEY


    BEING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WHICH IN NO WAY AFFECT THE LEGAL ASPECTS
    OF THE INFORMATION, BUT FROM THE ACTUAL RECITAL OF FACTS AS
    ALLEGED IN THE BODY OF THE INFORMATION
    o

    Petitioner in the case at bench maintains that, having already pleaded


    not guilty to the crime of homicide, the amendment of the crime
    charged in the information from homicide to murder is a substantial
    amendment prejudicial to his right to be informed of the nature of the
    accusation against him. He utterly fails to dispute, however, that the
    original information did allege that petitioner stabbed his victim using
    superior strength. And this particular allegation qualifies a killing to
    murder, regardless of how such a killing is technically designated in the
    information filed by the public prosecutor.

    The contention is without merit. Reliance is placed mainly upon the


    designation of the offense given to it by the fiscal.

    You might also like