Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 157 views

    LETICIA I. KUMMER v. PEOPLE

    Uploaded by

    Ken Tuazon
    1) Leticia Kummer's son Johan shot and killed Jesus Mallo Jr. according to eyewitness testimony. Johan was released into his father's custody and then left the country. 2) Leticia claimed they were sleeping when there was a disturbance outside and Johan fired without intent to harm anyone. 3) She was convicted but appealed, arguing she should have been re-arraigned after an amendment to the information changing the date of the crime. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that a change to only the date was a formal amendment, which does not require re-arraignment as it does not change the nature of the crime or invalidate the defenses. Therefore, her rights were not violated

    Copyright:

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

    LETICIA I. KUMMER v. PEOPLE

    Uploaded by

    Ken Tuazon
    157 views2 pages
    1) Leticia Kummer's son Johan shot and killed Jesus Mallo Jr. according to eyewitness testimony. Johan was released into his father's custody and then left the country. 2) Leticia claimed they were sleeping when there was a disturbance outside and Johan fired without intent to harm anyone. 3) She was convicted but appealed, arguing she should have been re-arraigned after an amendment to the information changing the date of the crime. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that a change to only the date was a formal amendment, which does not require re-arraignment as it does not change the nature of the crime or invalidate the defenses. Therefore, her rights were not violated

    Original Description:

    EVIDENCE

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Leticia Kummer's son Johan shot and killed Jesus Mallo Jr. according to eyewitness testimony. Johan was released into his father's custody and then left the country. 2) Leticia claimed they were sleeping when there was a disturbance outside and Johan fired without intent to harm anyone. 3) She was convicted but appealed, arguing she should have been re-arraigned after an amendment to the information changing the date of the crime. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that a change to only the date was a formal amendment, which does not require re-arraignment as it does not change the nature of the crime or invalidate the defenses. Therefore, her rights were not violated

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    157 views2 pages

    LETICIA I. KUMMER v. PEOPLE

    Uploaded by

    Ken Tuazon
    1) Leticia Kummer's son Johan shot and killed Jesus Mallo Jr. according to eyewitness testimony. Johan was released into his father's custody and then left the country. 2) Leticia claimed they were sleeping when there was a disturbance outside and Johan fired without intent to harm anyone. 3) She was convicted but appealed, arguing she should have been re-arraigned after an amendment to the information changing the date of the crime. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that a change to only the date was a formal amendment, which does not require re-arraignment as it does not change the nature of the crime or invalidate the defenses. Therefore, her rights were not violated

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    RULE 116

    38. LETICIA I. KUMMER v. PEOPLE +

    GR No. 174461, Sep 11, 2013

    BRION, J.

    Facts:

    On one fateful night, the evidence of the prosecution reveals, Johan Kummer, a minor, the son of Leticia

    Kummer, shot a certain Jesus Mallo, Jr. According to the eyewitness, Amiel Malana, he and Jesus Mallo

    went to the house of Kummer's. Jesus knocked on the door of the Kummer’s house, declaring that he is

    “Boy Mallo”. Then, according to the testimonies of Malana, Johan shot Mallo dead with a shotgun. Being a

    minor, Johan was released at the cognizance of his father. Then he left the country without notifying the

    court. In defense, Leticia Kummer produced another version of the story which shows that they were

    sleeping innocently in their house on that fateful night, when there was a commotion outside their house,

    admitting however that, when they were practically disturbed by the said commotion, Johan got a shotgun

    and fired outside their house, without intention to kill or injure anybody, especially Jesus. An Information

    was filed with the Court on January 12, 1989, which was later on modified. This modification was about the

    date of the commission of the crime. The modification, however, happened after she was arraigned. The

    RTC convicted her and Johan, who was out of the Philippine Legal System’s reach. She appealed the case

    to the CA, which was denied and affirmed the RTC's decision, arguing, among others, that by virtue of the

    amendment of the Information, she should have been arraigned again; and, since she was not, there was

    a blatant violation of her right to be informed of the nature of her case, since an amended Information is a

    new Information. Hence, all proceedings which the case had undergone were void

    Issue: Does she have to be arraigned again?

    Ruling:

    No. She does not have to be arraigned again. Note that only the date was amended. Sec. 14, Rule 110 of

    the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that, “[a] complaint or an Information may be amended,

    in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the

    plea and during trial, a formal amendment may only be done with leave of court and when it can be done

    without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.” Accordingly, a change in time in the commission of

    the crime, when the disparity is not so great, is only a formal amendment. In view of the foregoing, the

    amendment was from “July” to “June” can only be regarded as formal amendment. Moreover, it does not

    and could not prejudice the rights of the accused, because (1) it does not change the nature of the crime,

    and (2) it does not render the defenses prepared for the former Information as it stood invalid. Having said all
    these, a formal amendment does not require a subsequent arraignment as the purpose of which is to

    INFORM THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION. Since the nature and cause of the accusation are

    not changed by a formal amendment, a re-arraignment is not necessary, as she was already informed of

    these things. Hence, there has been no violation of her rights as accused.
    Hence, she does not have to be arraigned again.

    You might also like