PEOPLE v MONTENEGRO159 SCRA 236PADILLA; March 25, 1988

NATUREPetition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order

FACTS- The City Fiscal of Quezon City, thru Assistant Fiscal Virginia G. Valdez, filed an Information for "Robbery" before the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Antonio Cimarra, Ulpiano Villar, Bayani Catindig and A v e l i n o d e L e o n . S a i d a c c u s e d ( n o w p r i v a t e respondents) were all members of the police force of Quezon City and were charged as accessories-after-t h e f a c t i n t h e r o b b e r y c o m m i tt e d b y t h e m i n o r Ricardo Cabaloza, who had already pleaded guilty and had been convicted in a criminal case before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City. Ricardo Cabaloza was convicted for the robbery of the same items, articles and pieces of jewelry belonging to Ding Velayo, Inc. valued at P75,591.40.- Upon arraignment, all of the accused (now private respondents) entered a plea of "not guilty" to the charge filed against them.- H o w e v e r , b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u l d p r o c e e d , t h e prosecuting fiscal filed a Motion to Admit Amended I n f o r m a ti o n s e e k i n g t o a m e n d t h e o r i g i n a l information by: (1) changing the offensechargedf r o m " R o b b e r y " t o " R o b b e r y i n a n U n i n h a b i t e d P l a c e , " ( 2 ) a l l e g i n g c o n s p i r a c y a m o n g a l l t h e a c c u s e d , a n d ( 3 ) d e l e ti n g a l l i t e m s , a r ti c l e s a n d pieces of jewelry alleged to have been stolen in the original Information and substituting them with a different set of items valued at P71,336.80.- Private respondents opposed the admission of the Amended Information. The respondent court resolved to deny the proposed amendments contained in theA m e n d e d I n f o r m a ti o n . P e ti ti o n e r m o v e d f o r r e c o n s i d e r a ti o n o f t h e a f o r e s a i d o r d e r b u t t h e respondent court denied said motion; hence, this petition.

ISSUEWON the amended information should be admitted

HELD- Amendment of an information under Sec. 14, Rule1 1 0 o f t h e 1 9 8 5 R u l e s o n C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e (formerly, Section 13, Rule 110 of the old Rules on Criminal Procedure) may be made at any time before the accused enters a plea to the charge. Thereafter and during the trial, amendments to the information may also be allowed, as to matters of form, provided t h a t n o p r e j u d i c e i s c a u s e d t o t h e r i g h t s o f t h e accused.- The test as to when the rights of an accused are p r e j u d i c e d b y t h e a m e n d m e n t o f a c o m p l a i n t o r information is when a defense under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made, and when a n y e v i d e n c e t h e a c c u s e d m i g h t h a v e , w o u l d b e i n a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c o m p l a i n t o r i n f o r m a ti o n a s amended. On the other hand, an amendment which merely states with additional precision somethingw h i c h i s a l r e a d y c o n t a i n e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l i n f o r m a ti o n , a n d w h i c h , t h e r e f o r e , a d d s n o t h i n g essential for conviction for the crime charged is an amendment to form that can be made at anytime.- T h e p r o p o s e d a m e n d m e n t s i n t h e a m e n d e d i n f o r m a ti o n , i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , a r e c l e a r l y substantial and have the effect of changing the crime charged from "Robbery" punishable under Article 209to "Robbery in an Uninhabited Place" punishable under Art. 302 of the Revised Penal Code, thereby e x p o s i n g t h e p r i v a t e r e s p o n d e n t s - a c c u s e d t o a higher penalty as compared to the penalty imposable for the offense charged in the original information to which the accused had already entered a plea of "not guilty" during their arraignment.- Moreover, the change in the items, articles and p i e c e s o f j e w e l r y a l l e g e d l y s t o l e n i n t o e n ti r e l y different articles from those originally complained of, affects the essence of the imputed crime, and would deprive the accused of the opportunity to meet all the allegations in the amended information, in the preparation of their defenses to the charge filed a g a i n s t t h e m . I t w i l l b e o b s e r v e d t h a t p r i v a t e

respondents were accused as accessories-after-the-fact of the minor Ricardo Cabaloza who had already been convicted of robbery of the items listed in theo r i g i n a l i n f o r m a ti o n . T o c h a r g e t h e m n o w a s accessories-after-the-fact for a crime different from that committed by the principal, would be manifestly incongruous as to be allowed by the Court.- The allegation of conspiracy among all the private r e s p o n d e n t s - a c c u s e d , w h i c h w a s n o t p r e v i o u s l y included in the original information, is likewise a substantial amendment saddling the respondents with the need of a new defense in order to meet a different situation in the trial court. To allow at this stage the proposed amendment alleging conspiracy among all the accused, will make all of the latter liable not only for their own individual transgressions or acts but also for the acts of their co-conspirators.

DispositivePetition is DISMISSED. Orders of the respondent court AFFIRMED. TRO lifted.

Elcano v Hill

Reginald Hill, a minor, caused the death of Agapito (son of Elcano). Elcano filed a criminal case against Reginald but Reginald was acquitted for “lack of intent coupled with mistake.” Elcano then filed a civil action against Reginald and his dad (Marvin Hill) for damages based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Hill argued that the civil action is barred by his son’s acquittal in the criminal case; and that if ever, his civil liability as a parent has been extinguished by the fact that his son is already an emancipated minor by reason of his marriage.

ISSUE: Whether Marvin Hill may be held civilly liable under Article 2180.

HELD: Yes. The acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case does not bar the filing of a separate civil action. A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if accused is actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused. Briefly stated, culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law.

While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child (Article 327, Civil Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place “by the marriage of the minor child”, it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute. Thus “Emancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental authority over the child’s person. It shall enable the minor to administer his property as though he were of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real property without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian.” Therefore, Article 2180 is applicable to Marvin Hill – the SC however ruled since at the time of the decision, Reginald is already of age, Marvin’s liability should be subsidiary only – as a matter of equity.

PEOPLE VS NAZARENO

Facts:

Accused-appellants Narciso Nazareno and Ramil Regala were found by the trial court guilty of murder. However, on appeal, Ramil Regala contends that the failure of the prosecution to investigate Rey Taling, his alleged companion and Mang Doming, Mang Romy, and Nick Peñalosa, as those who supplied the guns, raises doubt as to accused-appellant’s guilt.

Issue: WON Regala’s contention is meritorious

HELD:

The manner by which the prosecution of a case is handled is within the sound discretion of the prosecutor and the non-inclusion of other guilty parties is irrelevant to the case against an accused.

People v Ramos

Facts:

Accused was charged with rape in its simple form, that is, having carnal knowledge of a woman by using force or intimidation, with the additional allegation that the victim was only 14 years of age at the time of the incident. However, the information failed to allege that the victim was his daughter. The relationship between the accused and the victim, was not laid down in the information. Despite this, the trial court convicted the accused with qualified rape with death as punishment.

Issue: Whether the trial court could hold the accused guilty of qualified rape.

Held: No. As this qualifying circumstance was not pleaded in the information or in the complaint against appellant, he cannot be convicted of qualified rape because he was not properly informed that he is being accused of qualified rape. The Constitution guarantees the right of every person accused in a criminal prosecution to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. [43]This right finds amplification and implementation in the different provisions of the Rules of Court. [44] Foremost among these enabling provisions is the office of an information. The facts stated in the body of the information determine the crime of which the accused stands charged and for which he must be tried. [45] This recital of the essentials of a crime delineate the nature and cause of accusation against an accused. It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the complaint or information. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in an information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. [46] An accused person cannot be convicted of an offense higher than that with which he is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried. It matters not how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, but an accused cannot be convicted of any offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried or is necessarily included therein. He has a right to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial. To convict an accused of a higher offense than that charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried would be an unauthorized denial of that right.

Santiago vs Garchitorena

Nature:

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to set aside: (a) the Resolution dated March 3, 1993 in Criminal Case No. 16698 of the Sandiganbayan (First division) and to declare Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena of the Sandiganbayan, disqualified from acting in said criminal case; and (b) the Resolution of said court promulgated onMarch 14, 1993, which deemed as "filed" the 32 Amended Informations against petitioner.

Facts:

Santiago was charged by the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, allegedly committed by her favoring "unqualified" aliens with the benefits of the Alien Legalization Program. Santiago later on filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with Criminal Case No. 16698 on the ground that said case was intended solely to harass her as she was then a presidential candidate. She alleged that this was in violation of Section 10, Article IX-C of the Constitution which provides that "(b)ona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment and discrimination." The petition was dismissed.

Petitioner filed a motion for inhibition of Presiding Justice Garchitorena. The Sandiganbayan (First Division), of which Presiding Justice Garchitorena is a member, set the criminal case for arraignment on November 13, 1992. Subsequently she filed for a motion for a bill of particulars. The motion stated that while the information alleged that petitioner had approved the application or legalization of "aliens" and gave them indirect benefits and advantages it lacked a list of the favored aliens. According to petitioner, unless she was furnished with the names and identities of the aliens, she could not properly plead and prepare for trial. Consequently, although at the hearing where the prosecution stated categorically that they would file only one amended information, the prosecution filed a motion to admit the 32 Amended Informations.

Issue:

Whether or not there should only be one information to be filed against petitioner.

Held: Yes, because it was a continued crime. Sc found that there is only one crime, hence there should only be one information.

According to Cuello Calon, for delito continuado to exist there should be a plurality of acts performed during a period of time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or more violations of the same penal provisions are united in one and same instant or resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose.

According to Guevarra, in appearance, a delito continuado consists of several crimes but in reality there is only one crime in the mind of the perpetrator (Commentaries on the Revised Penal Code, 1957 ed., p. 102; Penal Science and Philippine Criminal Law, p. 152). Padilla views such offense as consisting of a series of acts arising from one criminal intent or resolution (Criminal Law, 1988 ed. pp. 53-54).

Applying the concept of delito continuado, we treated as constituting only one offense the following cases:

(1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to two different owners committed by the accused at the same time and at the same period of time (People v. Tumlos, 67 Phil. 320 [1939] ).

(2) The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the same coop and at the same period of time (People v. Jaranillo, 55 SCRA 563 [1974] ).

(3) The theft of two roosters in the same place and on the same occasion (People v. De Leon, 49 Phil. 437 [1926] ).

(4) The illegal charging of fees for services rendered by a lawyer every time he collects veteran's benefits on behalf of a client, who agreed that the attorney's fees shall be paid out of said benefits (People v. Sabbun, 10 SCRA 156 [1964] ). The collection of the legal fees were impelled by the same motive, that of collecting fees for services rendered, and all acts of collection were made under the same criminal impulse (People v. Lawas, 97 Phil. 975 [1955] ).

On the other hand, we declined to apply the concept to the following cases:

(1) Two estafa cases, one of which was committed during the period from January 19 to December 1955 and the other from January 1956 to July 1956 (People v. Dichupa, 113 Phil. 306 [1961] ). The said acts were committed on two different occasions.

(2) Several malversations committed in May, June and July, 1936, and falsifications to conceal said offenses committed in August and October 1936. The malversations and falsifications "were not the result of only one purpose or of only one resolution to embezzle and falsify . . ." (People v. Cid, 66 Phil. 354 [1938] ).

(3) Two estafa cases, one committed in December 1963 involving the failure of the collector to turn over the installments for a radio and the other in June 1964 involving the pocketing of the installments for a sewing machine (People v. Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77 [1976] ).

(4) 75 estafa cases committed by the conversion by the agent of collections from customers of the employer made on different dates (Gamboa v. Court of Appeals, 68 SCRA 308 [1975]).

The 32 Amended Informations reproduced verbatim the allegation of the original information, except that instead of the word "aliens" in the original information each amended information states the name of the individual whose stay was legalized. The 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same period of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The strong probability even exists that the approval of the application or the legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the pen, as when the approval was embodied in the same document.