People vs. Reyes: - Second Division

8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 108 8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 108
the information, as it will surprise and prejudice

the accused.—The petitioner’s argument that the
time or date of the commission of the offense is not
a material ingredient of the crime of qualified theft
cannot be given much weight in this case because
the disparity of time between the years 1964 and
1969 is so great as to defy approximation in the
VOL. 108, OCTOBER 23, 1981 203
commission of one and the same offense. While it
People vs. Reyes has been held that except when time is a material
ingredient of an offense, the precise time of
*
No. L-32557. October 23, 1981. commission need not be stated in the information,
this Court stated that this does not mean that the
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, prosecuting officer may be careless about fixing the
petitioner, vs. HON. ALFREDO C. REYES as date of the alleged crime, or that he may omit the
Presiding Judge of the Circuit Criminal date altogether, or that he may make the
Court, Fourth Judicial District, and allegation so indefinite as to amount to the same
FRANCISCO ESTRELLA, respondents. thing. The prosecution is given the chance to allege
an approximation of time of the commission of the
offense and the precise date need not be stated but
Criminal Procedure; Information; Changing of it does not mean that it can prove any date remote
date of commission of the offense of qualified theft or far removed from the given approximate date so
in the information from August 1969 to August as to surprise and prejudice the accused.
1964 after the accused had been arraigned and had
Same; Same; Same; Failure of the prosecution
pleaded, not allowed.—In the present case, private
to amend the information despite all the chances to
respondent Francisco Estrella was investigated for
rectify the mistake of date of commission of the
an offense allegedly committed in August of 1964.
offense, fatal to case; To allow amendment would
Then, he was charged for an offense allegedly
sur-
committed in August of 1969. He pleaded not
guilty to the latter charge. Now petitioner desires
to put him on trial for the alleged 1964 offense. _______________
This cannot legally be done.
* SECOND DIVISION
Same; Same; Same; Time or date of
commission of the offense a material ingredient of
an offense considering disparity of time between the
204
years 1964 and 1969; Prosecution not allowed to
prove any date remote from the approximate date in
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741ddc30f4b2866674003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741ddc30f4b2866674003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15
1
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS alleged grave abuse of discretion, the order
ANNOTATED dated July 10, 1970, of the respondent Judge,
(Hon. Alfredo C. Reyes of the Circuit Criminal
People vs. Reyes Court, 4th Judicial District, Cabanatuan
City) in Criminal Case No. CCC-IV-170-NE,
prise the accused and prejudice his substantial entitled “The People of the Philippines versus
rights.—During the arraignment and plea of Francisco Estrella,” which denied petitioner’s
private respondent Francisco Estrella on January verbal motion for the amendment of the
28, 1970, the prosecution had all the chances to information in said case, by deleting the year
realize and rectify its mistake. It did not do so. The “1969” as alleged therein, and in lieu thereof
trial of the accused was set for May 21, 1970. to put the year “1964”. Respondent Judge
Petitioner therefore, had more than three months anchored his denial of the verbal motion on,
to take steps. Again, it failed to do so. Finally, to wit:
petitioner verbally moved to amend the
information only at the start of the trial. To permit “After a careful study of both memoranda in
petitioner to do so would surprise the accused and support and against the said motion, this Court
prejudice his substantial rights. finds and so hold that the amendment to the
information cannot be made without prejudice to
Barredo, J., concurring: the substantial rights of the accused in the above-
entitled case.
I concur but I believe this decision cannot bar
another prosecution of private respondent _______________
under another information charging theft
committed in 1964. 1 p. 9, rollo.
PETITION for review on certiorari with 205

prayer for preliminary injunction from the
order of the Circuit Criminal Court, 4th VOL. 108, OCTOBER 23, 1981 205
Judicial District.
People vs. Reyes
The facts are stated in the opinion of the
Court. “WHEREFORE, the motion to amend the
information is hereby denied in accordance with
CONCEPCION, JR., J.: the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
People vs. Placido Opemia, et al., 98 Phil. 698. x x
Petitioner, by way of certiorari, with prayer
x.
for preliminary injunction, questions as
1 2
2
“SO ORDERED.” of the owner, Maria Ignacio-Francisco in 6
the
amount of P23,000.00, value of said vehicle.”
Petitioner also assails the order of3 respondent
Court, dated September 14, 1970, denying its On November 15, 1969, the Acting City Fiscal
motion for reconsideration4 of the July 10, of San Jose City, (converted into city) Nueva
1970 order. Ecija, filed an information
This court issued a preliminary
5
injunction
on September 24, 1970. _______________
Pertinent facts of record are:
Sometime in October, an information for 2 Ibid.
qualified theft was filed against private 3 pp. 16-18, rollo.
respondent Francisco Estrella and three 4 pp. 10-16, Id.
others, as Criminal Case No. 6799, in the 5 p. 21, Id.
Municipal Court of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, 6 Italics supplied; p. 8, Id.
pertinent portion as follows:
206
“The undersigned Asst. Provincial Fiscal accuses
Narciso Mananing, Florentino Alcantara, 206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Francisco Estrella, and Melecio Guevarra of the ANNOTATED
crime of Qualified Theft, committed as follows:
“That in the month of August, 1964, in the People vs. Reyes
municipality of San Jose, province of Nueva Ecija,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this (Crim. Case No. CCC-IV-170) with the
Honorable Court, the above named accused respondent Court, charging private
Narciso Mananing, being the driver of complainant respondent Francisco Estrella and three
Maria Ignacio-Francisco, Florentino Alcantara, others, with qualified theft, as follows:
repair shop owner where the truck hereinafter
“The undersigned Acting City Fiscal accuses
described was found and recovered, Francisco
Narciso Mananing, Florentino Alcantara,
Estrella, a Philippine Constabulary soldier
Francisco Estrella, and Melecio Guevarra of the
stationed at Bulacan, and Melecio Guevarra, all
crime of Qualified Theft, committed as follows:
conspiring together, without the knowledge and
“That on or about the month of August, 1969 in
consent of the owner thereof, take, steal and carry
the City of San Jose, Republic of the Philippines
away one (1) Bedford truck with Chassis No.
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
153559, with Motor No, 2/54/5/6, with Plate No. T-
Court, the above named accused Narciso
35049, Series of 1964, to the damage and prejudice
Mananing, being then the driver of Bedford truck
bearing Plate No. T-35049, Series of 1964, with
Chassis No. 153559, and with a Motor No. 2/54/5/6 _______________

owned by Maria Ignacio-Francisco, conspiring and
7 Italics supplied; p. 6, Id.
confederating together with his co-accused namely:
8 pp. 74-75, Id.
Florentino Alcantara, Francisco Estrella, and
9 p. 6, Id.
Melecio Guevarra, and with intent to gain, with
10 p. 62, Id.
grave abuse of confidence, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and 207
carry away the said Bedford truck valued at
Twenty Three Thousand Pesos (P23,000.00)
Philippine Currency and dismantled the same VOL. 108, OCTOBER 23, 1981 207
without the consent of the said owner and to her People vs. Reyes
damage and 7
prejudice of the said sum of
P23,000.00.”
trial court ready to defend himself from an
On January 28, 1970, private respondent offense allegedly committed in “August 1969”,
11
Francisco Estrella was arraigned, and he vigorously objected to the verbal motion.
pleaded not guilty. During the arraignment, Respondent Judge withheld his ruling on
respondent Judge required his clerk to read the prosecution’s motion to amend, and
the information to Francisco Estrella. The instead, required the prosecution to present
court interpreter was directed to translate the its first witness, to determine whether the
information into Tagalog for the benefit of the sought amendment in the information would
accused. The prosecution, although constitute a change of substance affecting
12
the
represented, made no move to amend the rights of the accused or merely of form.
information, if indeed it was really erroneous. Florentino Alcantara, originally a co-
From January 28, 1970, up to May 21, 1970, accused but discharged as a prosecution
the latter date being the scheduled trial of the witness, testified that the offense was
case, the prosecution never moved to amend committed in 1964. The defense refused to
the information.
8
cross-examine witness Alcantara, asked
On May 21, 1970 when the prosecution respondent Court to strike off the testimony
was scheduled to present its evidence, it of Alcantara because it referred to an offense
verbally moved 9 that it be allowed to amend not mentioned in the information, and asked
the information so as to change the date of for a ruling by respondent Court on the
the commission of the offense from “August prosecution’s13 verbal motion to amend the
10
1969” to “August 1964.” Private respondent information.
Francisco Estrella, having come to the Respondent Judge required the
prosecution and the defense to submit

memoranda. The contested order of July 22, cannot prevail over the substantial rights of
1970, denying the prosecution’s verbal motion the accused based on constitutional
to amend information on the ground that said provisions. Hence this petition.
amendment would prejudice the substantial The principal issue before this Court is
rights of the 14accused was issued by whether or not the respondent Court abused
respondent Court. its discretion when it refused an amendment
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of to the information filed in Criminal Case No.
the aforementioned contested order alleged CCC-IV-170-NE, to change the date of the
that time was not material ingredient of the alleged commission of the offense from
offense of qualified theft and claimed that the “August 1969” to “August 1964”, on the
case of Placido Opemia, et al., 98 Phil. 698, ground it would constitute an impairment of
relied upon by the trial court for its denial of the substantial rights of the accused as
the motion to amend15 information, was not guaranteed by the Constitution.
applicable to the case. Under Section 13, Rule 110, Rules of
The respondent Court, denied the Court, the complaint or information in a
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration,
16
in its criminal case where the accused had been
order of September 14, 1970, stating that the arraigned and had pleaded, as in this case,
prosecution’s honest mistake in the may be amended only as to all matters of
information filed form when the same can be done without
prejudice to the substantial rights of the
_______________ accused.
As to whether or not a sought for
11 p. 75, Id. amendment of an information to change the
12 pp. 62, 76, Id. time of the alleged commission of crime from
13 p. 76, Id. 1969 to 1964 (period of five years) would
14 p. 9, Id. prejudice the substantial rights of the accused
15 pp. 10-15, Id. after his arraignment and plea, this Court
16 pp. 16-18, Id. ruled in the case of People vs. Placido
Opemia, et al., 98 Phil. 698, that:
208
“In the case at bar, the proof shows that the
carabao was lost on July 25, 1947, and not on June
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED 18, 1952, as alleged in the information. The period
of almost five years between 1947 and 1952 covers
People vs. Reyes such a long stretch of time that one cannot help
but be led to believe that another theft different
from that committed by the defendants in 1952 the years 1964 and 1969 is so great as to defy
was also perpetrated by them in 1947. Under this approximation in the commission of one and
impression the accused, who came to Court the same offense. While it has been held that
prepared to face a charge of theft of large cattle except when time is a material ingredient of
allegedly committed by them in 1952, were an offense, the precise time of commission
certainly caught by sudden surprise upon being need not be stated in the information, this
confronted by evidence tending to prove a similar Court stated that this does not mean that the
offense committed in 1947. The variance is prosecuting officer may be careless about
certainly unfair to them, for it violates their fixing the date of the alleged crime, or that he
constitutional rights to be informed before the trial may omit the date altogether, or that he may
of the specific charge against them and deprives make the allegation so 17indefinite as to
them of the opportunity to defend themselves. amount to the same thing. The prosecution
Moreover, they cannot be convicted of an offense of is given the chance to allege an
which they were not charged.” approximation of time of the commission of
the offense and the precise date need not be
In the present case, private respondent stated but it does not mean that it can prove
Francisco Estrella was investigated for an any date remote or far removed from the
offense allegedly committed in August of given approximate date so as to surprise and
1964. Then, he was charged for an offense prejudice the accused.
allegedly committed in August of 1969. He What happened in this case is that the
pleaded not guilty to the latter petitioner committed a mistake in the placing
209 of the date of the alleged crime in the
information filed. During the arraignment
and plea of private respondent Francisco
VOL. 108, OCTOBER 23, 1981 209 Estrella on January 28, 1970, the prosecution
People vs. Reyes had all the chances to realize and rectify its
mistake. It did not do so. The trial of the
accused was set for May 21, 1970. Petitioner
charge. Now petitioner desires to put him on
therefore, had more than three months to
trial for the alleged 1964 offense. This cannot
take steps. Again, it failed to do so. Finally,
legally be done.
petitioner verbally moved to amend the
The petitioner’s argument that the time or
information only at the start of the trial. To
date of the commission of the offense is not a
permit petitioner to do so would surprise the
material ingredient of the crime of qualified
accused and prejudice his substantial rights.
theft cannot be given much weight in this
WHEREFORE, the questioned orders
case because the disparity of time between
dated July 10, 1970 and September 14, 1970,
by respondent Judge are hereby AFFIRMED, upon things. (People vs. Rodrigo, 16 SCRA
the preliminary injunction issued on 475).
September 24, 1970 dissolved, and this The word “lost” is generic in nature, and
petition DISMISSED for lack of merit. embraces loss by stealing or by any act of a
Without costs. person other than the owner, or wilt as by the
SO ORDERED. act of the owner himself, or through some
casual occurrence. (People vs. Rodrigo, 16
_______________ SCRA 475).
Since there is no evidence that in taking
17 U.S. vs. Dichao, 27 Phil. 421, 426. the roosters from their coop, violence against
or intimidation of person was employed, the
210
taking is characterized as theft, not robbery.
(People vs. Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 563).
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS The theft was consummated when the
ANNOTATED culprits were able to take possession of the
People vs. Reyes rooster. (People vs. Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 563).
It is not indispensable element of theft that
the thief carry, more or less far away, the
Fernandez,* Abad Santos and De thing taken by him from its owner. (People vs.
Castro, JJ., concur. Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 563).
Barredo (Chairman), J., I concur, but Where the information merely alleged the
I believe this decision cannot bar another commission of robbery in band the accused
prosecution of private respondent under cannot be convicted, in addition thereto, of
another information charging theft committed physical injuries. (People vs. Sabenorio, 91
in 1964. SCRA 47).
Petition dismissed.
_______________
Notes.—Under the first paragraph of
* Mr. Justice Ramon C. Fernandez, a member of the
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, the
First Division, was designated to sit in the Second
essential elements of theft are (1) the taking
Division in lieu of Mr. Justice Ramon C. Aquino who took
of personal property; (2) the property belongs
no part.
to another; (3) the taking away was done with
intent to gain; (4) the taking away was done 211
without the consent of the owner; and (5) the
taking away is accomplished without violence
or intimidation against the person or force VOL. 108, OCTOBER 23, 1981 211
8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 108
People vs. Pisalvo
Although the fiscal turns over active conduct

of trial to the private prosecutor he should be
present during proceedings. (People vs.
Beriales, 70 SCRA 361).
P.D. 77, as amended by P.D. 911 applies
only to preliminary investigations conducted
by fiscals and not those by the courts. (Tabil
vs. Ong, 91 SCRA 451).
A special counsel may file an information
for the criminal violation of the Internal
Revenue Code without the express consent of
the Collector of Internal Revenue. (Nassr vs.
Perez, 49 SCRA 508).
The accused must be made to fully
understand the nature and meaning of the
charges against him. (People vs. Pohong, 52
SCRA 287).
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741ddc30f4b2866674003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15

People vs. Reyes: - Second Division

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Reyes: - Second Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 108 8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 108

the information, as it will surprise and prejudice

PETITION for review on certiorari with 205

Chassis No. 153559, and with a Motor No. 2/54/5/6 _______________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741ddc30f4b2866674003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741ddc30f4b2866674003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/15

People vs. Pisalvo

Although the fiscal turns over active conduct

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like