Buhat vs CA strength, inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which

265 SCRA 701 were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage
December 17,1996 and prejudice of the heirs of said Ramon George Yu in such
Hermossisima;
amount as maybe [sic] awarded to them by the court under the
Quick Facts: An information for Homicide was filed against Danny Buhat. After provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
arraignment and plea of not guilty, the Secreatary of Justice granted the appeal
and ordered the hief prosecutor to amend the information upgrading the offense to CONTRARY TO LAW."
MURDER and implead additional accused.

 The prosecution had by then already presented at least two witnesses.

Facts:  In an order,6 dated June 2, 1994, the RTC denied the motion for leave
to amend information. The denial was premised on (1) an invocation of
 On March 25, 1993, an information for HOMICIDE was filed in the the trial court's discretion in disregarding the opinion of the Secretary of
Regional Trial Court (RTC) against petitioner Danny Buhat, "John Doe" and Justice as allegedly held in Crespo vs. Mogul and (2) a conclusion reached
"Richard Doe". by the trial court that the resolution of the inquest prosecutor is more
 The information alleged that on October 16, 1992, petitioner Danilo Buhat, persuasive than that of the Secretary of Justice, the former having actually
armed with a knife, unlawfully attacked and killed one Ramon George Yu conducted the preliminary investigation "where he was able to observe the
while the said two unknown assailants held his arms, "using superior demeanor of those he investigated
strength, inflicting x x x mortal wounds which were x x x the direct x x x  The Solicitor General promptly elevated the matter to the Court of
cause of his death." Appeals. He filed a petition for certiorari assailing the aforecited order
 Even before petitioner could be arraigned, the prosecution moved for denying the motion for leave to amend information.
the deferment of the arraignment on the ground that the private  COURT OF APPEALS: -allowed the amendment of information from
complainant in the case, one Betty Yu, moved for the reconsideration of homicide to murder, and the inclusion of Herminia Altavas and Osmeña
the resolution of the City Prosecutor which ordered the filing of the Altavas as additional accused. (Finding the proposed amendment as
aforementioned information for homicide. nonprejudicial to petitioner's rights, respondent court granted the petition
 Petitioner however, invoking his right to a speedy trial, opposed the for certiorari in a decision, dated March 28, 1995.)
motion.
 Thus, petitioner was arraigned on June 9, 1993 and, since petitioner Issues:
pleaded "not guilty", trial ensued.
 On February 3, 1994, then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon, 1. WON the additional allegation o conspiracy is a substantial amendment. NO
finding Betty Yu's appeal meritorious, ordered the City Prosecutor 2. WON the upgrading of the crime charged from homicide to the more
of Roxas City "to amend the information by upgrading the offense serious offense of murder is such a substantial amendment that it is
charged to MURDER and implead therein additional accused Herminia disallowed if made after the accused had pleaded "not guilty" to the crime
Altavas, Osmeña Altavas and Renato Buhat." of homicide.
 Amendent information:
Held/Ratio: NO
"The undersigned assistant City Prosecutor accuses DANNY
BUHAT, of Capricho II, Barangay V, Roxas City, Philippines. 1. On the additional allegation of conspiracy
HERMINIA ALTAVAS AND OSMEÑA ALTAVAS both resident' of  The additional allegation of conspiracy is only a formal amendment,
Punta Tabuc, Roxas City, Philippines, of the crime of Murder, petitioner's participation as principal not having been affected by
committed as follows: such amendment
 General rule: the allegation of conspiracy among all the private
That on or about the l6th day of October, 1992, in the City of respondents accused, which was not previously included in the original
Roxas, Philippines, the above-named accused, Danny Buhat information, is x x x a substantial amendment saddling the respondents
armed with a knife, conspiring, confederating and helping one with the need of a new defense in order to meet a different situation in the
another, did and then and there willfully, unlawfully and trial court(people vs Montenegro)
feloniously [sic] without justifiable motive and with intent to kill,  Exception: where an amendment after plea resulting in the inclusion of an
attack, stab and injure one RAMON GEORGE YU, while the two allegation of conspiracy and in the indictment of some other persons in
other accused held the arms of the latter, thus using superior
 addition to the original accused, constitutes a mere formal amendment  At the outset, the main consideration should be whether or not the accused
permissible even after arraignment(people vs. Zulueta) had already made his plea under the original information, for this is the
 The aforegoing principle, by way of exception to the general rule, also index of prejudice to, and the violation of, the rights of the accused.
appositely applies in the present controversy  The question as to whether the changing of the crime charged from
 Petitioner undoubtedly is charged as a principal in the killing of homicide to the more serious offense of murder is a substantial
Ramon George Yu whom petitioner is alleged to have stabbed while two amendment proscribed after the accused had pleaded "not guilty" to the
unknown persons held the victim's arms. The addition of the phrase, crime of homicide was, it should be noted, categorically answered in
"conspiring, confederating and helping one another" does not the affirmative by us in the case of Dionaldo v. Dacuycuy.
change the nature of petitioner's participation as principal in the  The said case(Dacuycuy) however, differs from the case at bench because
killing. the facts herein sustain a contrary holding. As pointed out by the Court of
 Whether under the original or the amended information, petitioner would Appeals:
have to defend himself as the People makes a case against him and "x x x the original Information, while only mentioning homicide, alleged:
secures for public protection the punishment of petitioner for stabbing to Danny Buhat, John Doe and Richard Doe as the accused; [sic] of Danny
death, using superior strength, a fellow citizen in whose health and safety Buhat stabbing the deceased Ramon while his two other companions were
society as a whole is interested. Petitioner, thus, has no tenable basis to holding the arms of Ramon, thus, 'the Information already alleged superior
decry the amendment in question. strength'; and inflicting mortal wounds which led to the death of Ramon.
 Furthermore, neither may the amendment in question be struck down on Superior strength qualifies the offense to murder (Article 248).
the ground that Herminia Altavas, Osmeña Altavas and Renato Buhat  Before us, the Information already alleged superior strength, and the
would be placed in double jeopardy by virtue of said amendment. In the additional allegation that the deceased was stabbed by Buhat while the
first place, no first jeopardy can be spoken of insofar as the Altavases are arms of the former were being held by the two other accused, referring to
concerned since the first information did not precisely include them as John Doe and Richard Doe....
accused therein. In the second place, the amendment to replace the  If the killing is characterized as having been committed by superior
name, "John Doe" with the name of Renato Buhat who was found by the strength, then to repeat, there is murder
Secretary of Justice to be one of the two persons who held the arms of the  Also the case of Dacuycuy was mentioned, as a justification for not
victim while petitioner was stabbing him,18 is only a formal amendment allowing change of designation from homicide to murder, but then the body
and one that does not prejudice any of the accused's rights. of the Information in the Dacuycuy ruling did not allege averments which
 Such amendment to insert in the information the real name of the accused qualifies [sic] the offense of murder. The case before us instead is different
involves merely a matter of form as it does not, in any way, deprive any of in that the Information already alleges that Buhat attacked the deceased
the accused of a fair opportunity to present a defense; neither is the nature while his two other companions held him by the aims, 'using superior
of the offense charged affected or altered since the revelation of accused's strength.' x x x We would even express the possibility that if supported by
real name does not change the theory of the prosecution nor does it evidence, Buhat and the Altavases could still be penalized for murder even
introduce any new and material fact.19 In fact, it is to he expected that the without changing the designation from homicide to murder, precisely
information has to be amended as the unknown participants in the crime because of aforementioned allegations. The proposed change of the word
became known to the public prosecutor from homicide to murder, to us, is not a substantial change that should be
prohibited
 In the matter of amending a criminal information, what is primarily
guarded against is the impairment of the accused's right to
2. On the amendment of the name of the crime to MURDER. intelligently know the nature of the charge against him. This right
 "Abuse of superior strength" having already been alleged in the original has been guaranteed the accused under all Philippine
information charging homicide, the amendment of the name of the Constitutions26 and incorporated in Section 1 (b), Rule 115, of the
crime to murder, constitutes a mere formal amendment permissible 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
even after arraignment  From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, it is of no concern to
 In the case of Dimalibot v. Salcedo,we ruled that the amendment of the the accused what is the technical name of the crime of which he stands
information so as to change the crime charged from homicide to murder, charged. It in no way aids him in a defense on the merits x x x. That to
may be made "even if it may result in altering the nature of the charge so which his attention should be directed, and in which he, above all things
long as it can be done without prejudice to the rights of the accused." else, should be most interested, are the facts alleged.
 The real question is not did he commit a crime given in the law some
technical and specific name, but did he perform the acts alleged in the
 body of the information in the matter therein set forth. If he did, it is of no Verily, the statement of facts in the Information or Amended Information must
consequence to him, either as a matter of procedure or of substantive right conform with the findings of fact in the preliminary investigation (in this case, as
how the law denominates the crime which those acts constitute. The reviewed by the Secretary of Justice) so as to make it jibe with the evidence x x x
designation of the crime by name in the caption of the information from to be presented at the trial x x x.
the facts alleged in the body of that pleading is a conclusion of law made
by the fiscal x x x. For his full and complete defense he need not know the Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The City
name of the crime at all. It is of no consequence whatever for the Prosecutor of Roxas City is HEREBY ORDERED to file the correct Amended
protection of his substantial rights. Information fully in accordance with the findings of fact set forth in the Resolution of
 The real and important question to him is, 'Did you perform the the Secretary of Justice, dated February 3, 1994, and in disregard of the finding of
acts alleged in the manner alleged?' not, 'Did you commit a crime the Court of Appeals in its Decision, dated March 28, 1995, in CA-G.R. SP No. 3 55
named murder?' If he performed the acts alleged, in the manner stated, 54 to the effect that "Danny Buhat and Renato Buhat are one and the same
the law determines what the name of the crime is and fixes the penaly person."
therefor. It is the province of the court alone to say what the crime is or
what it is named. If the accused performed the acts alleged in the manner
alleged, then he ought to be punished and punished adequately, whatever
may be the name of the crime which those acts constitute.
 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.
 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.

NOTE:

On another aspect, we find merit in the manifestation of the Solicitor General to the
effect that the respondent Court of Appeals erroneously supposed that petitioner
and Renato Buhat are one and the same person, hence the non-inclusion of Renato
Buhat as additional accused in its order allowing the amendment of the
information.38 We also agree with the observation of the Solicitor General that the
amended information filed in this case still fails to embody the correct identity of all
of the persons found to be indictable in the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice.
Explained the Solicitor General:

"In its Decision under review, the Court of Appeals erroneously supposed that
Danny Buhat and Renato Buhat are one and the same person (CA Decision, 1st
par.). This, however, is not correct because Danny Buhat and Renato Buhat are, in
fact, brothers. Moreover, it was not Osmeña Altavas and his wife Herminia Altavas
who held the arms of the victim while Danny Buhat stabbed him.