38. BUHAT VS. COURT OF APPEALS Same;  Same; Same;  In the 1983 case of People vs.

Court of Appeals,
Court ruled that a post-arraignment amendment to further allege conspiracy
VOL. 265, DECEMBER 17, 1996 701 is only a formal amendment.—Applying our aforegoing disquisition in the
Buhat vs. Court of Appeals 1946 case of Regala, we likewise ruled in the 1983 case of People v. Court
G.R. No. 119601. December 17, 1996.* of Appeals that a post-arraignment amendment to further allege conspiracy,
DANILO BUHAT, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE is only a formal amendment not prejudicial to the rights of the accused and
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. proper even after the accused has pleaded “not guilty" to the charge under
Criminal Procedure; Information;  Amendment; Court stated in the the original information.
Montenegro case that "all the allegation of conspiracy among all the private Same;  Same; Same;  The addition of the phrase "conspiring,
respondents-accused which was not previously included in the original confederating and helping one another" does not change the nature of
information" is a substantial amendment.—Petitioner asseverates that the petitioner's participation as principal in the killing.—The aforegoing
inclusion of additional defendants in the information on the ground of 703
conspiracy "is a substantial amendment which is prohibited by Sec. 14, Rule VOL. 265, DECEMBER 17, 1996 703
110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, because the allegation of Buhat vs. Court of Appeals
conspiracy wi wi wi is a sub- principle, by way of exception to the general rule, also appositely
________________ applies in the present controversy. Petitioner undoubtedly is charged as a
*
 FIRST DIVISION. principal in the killing of Ramon George Yu whom petitioner is alleged to
702 have stabbed while two unknown persons held the victim's arms. The
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED addition of the phrase, "conspiring, confederating and helping one another"
Buhat vs. Court of Appeals does not change the nature of petitioner's participation as principal in the
stantial amendment saddling the [p]etitioner with the need of a new killing.
defense in order to met [sic] a different situation at the trial [c]ourt." Petitioner Same;  Same; Same;  Amendment to insert in the information the real
cites the case of People v. Montenegro as jurisprudential support. Indeed, we name of the accused involves merely a matter of form.—In the second place,
stated in the Montenegro case that "the allegation of conspiracy among all the amendment to replace the name, "John Doe" with the name of Renato
the private respondents-accused, which was not previously included in the Buhat who was found by the Secretary of Justice to be one of the two
original information, is wi wi wi a substantial amendment saddling the persons who held the arms of the victim while petitioner was stabbing him, is
respondents with the need of a new defense in order to meet a different only a formal amendment and one that does not prejudice any of the
situation in the trial court." accused's rights. Such amendment to insert in the information the real name
Same;  Same; Same;  Ruling is not without an exception.—This of the accused involves merely a matter of form as it does not, in any way,
jurisprudential rule, however, is not without an exception. And it is in the deprive any of the accused of a fair opportunity to present a defense; neither
same case of Zulueta that we highlighted the case of Regala v. Court of First is the nature of the offense charged affected or altered since the revelation of
instance of Bataan as proffering a situation where an amendment after plea accused's real name does not change the theory of the prosecution nor does
resulting in the inclusion of an allegation of conspiracy and in the indictment it introduce any new and material fact. In fact, it is to be expected that the
of some other persons in addition to the original accused, constitutes a mere information has to be amended as the unknown participants in the crime
formal amendment permissible even after arraignment. In Zulueta, we became known to the public prosecutor.
distinguished the Regala case in this wise: "Some passages from 'Regala Same;  Same; Same;  Amendment of the information so as to change
contra El Juez del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Bataan' are quoted by charge from homicide to murder may be made even if it may result in altering
petitioners. Therein the accused pleaded not guilty to an information for the nature of the charge so long as it can be done without prejudice to the
murder, and later the fiscal amended the indictment by including two other rights of the accused.—In the case of Dimalibot v. Salcedo, we ruled that the
persons charged with the same offense and alleging conspiracy between the amendment of the information so as to change the crime charged from
three. Five justices held that the amendment was not substantial. But that homicide to murder, may be made "even if it may result in altering the nature
situation differs from the one at bar. The amendment there did not modify of the charge so long as it can be done without prejudice to the rights of the
theory of the prosecution that the accused had killed the deceased by a accused." In that case, several accused were originally charged with
voluntary act and deed. Here there is an innovation, or the introduction of homicide, but before they were arraigned, an amended information for
another alternative imputation, which, to make matters worse, is inconsistent murder was filed. Understandably raised before us was the issue of the
with the original allegations." propriety and legality of the afore-described amendment, and we ruled, thus:
Page 1 of 8
"x wi wi it is undisputed that the herein accused were not yet arraigned Buhat vs. Court of Appeals
before the competent court when the complaint for homicide was amended The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
so as to charge the crime of murder. wi wi wi the amendment could therefore      Geomar C. Delfin for petitioner.
be made even as to substance in order that the proper charge may be made.      The Solicitor General for respondents.
wi wi wi The change may also be made even if it may result in altering the HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
nature of the charge so Delicate and sensitive is the issue in this case, which is, whether or not the
704 upgrading of the crime charged from homicide to the more serious offense of
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED murder is such a substantial amendment that it is proscribed if made after the
Buhat vs. Court of Appeals accused had pleaded "not guilty" to the crime of homicide, displaying as
long as it can be done without prejudice to the rights of the defendant" alleged by the defense, inordinate prejudice to the rights of the defendant.
Same;  Same; Same;  The question as to whether the changing of the On March 25, 1993, an information for HOMICIDE 1 was filed in the
crime charged from homicide to the more serious offense of murder is a Regional Trial Court (RTC)2 against petitioner Danny Buhat, "John Doe" and
substantial amendment proscribed after the accused had pleaded "not guilty" "Richard Doe." The information alleged that on October 16, 1992, petitioner
to the crime of homicide was categorically answered in the affirmative in the Danilo Buhat, armed with a knife, unlawfully attacked and killed one Ramon
case of Dionaldo v. Dacuycuy.—Thus, at the outset, the main consideration George Yu while the said two unknown assailants held his arms, "using
should be whether or not the accused had already made his plea under the superior strength, inflicting x x x mortal wounds which were x x x the direct x
original information, for this is the index of prejudice to, and the violation of, x x cause of his death."3
the rights of the accused. The question as to whether the changing of the Even before petitioner could be arraigned, the prosecution moved for the
crime charged from homicide to the more serious offense of murder is a deferment of the arraignment on the ground that the private complainant in
substantial amendment proscribed after the accused had pleaded "not guilty" the case, one Betty Yu, moved for the reconsideration of the resolution of the
to the crime of homicide was, it should be noted, categorically answered in City Prosecutor which ordered the filing of the aforementioned information for
the affirmative by us in the case of Dionaldo v. Dacuycuy, for then we ruled: homicide. Petitioner however, invoking his right to a speedy trial, opposed
"x wi wi the provision which is relevant to the problem is Rule 110, Sec. 13 the motion. Thus, petitioner was arraigned on June 9, 1993 and, since
[now Sec. 14 under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure] of the Rules of petitioner pleaded "not guilty," trial ensued.
Court which stipulates: 'x wi wi The information or complaint may be On February 3, 1994, then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon, finding
amended, in substance or form, without leave of court, at any time before the Betty Yu's appeal meritorious, ordered the City Prosecutor of Roxas City "to
defendant pleads; and thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of form, amend the information by
by leave and at the discretion of the court, when the same can be done ________________
1
without prejudice to the rights of the defendant, x x x      x x x      x x x x x x  Docketed as Criminal Case No. C-3991.
2
x x x      x x x." To amend the information so as to change the crime charged  Branch 17, Roxas City.
3
for homicide to the more serious offense of murder after the petitioner had  Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 35554 dated March
pleaded not guilty to the former is indubitably proscribed by the first 28, 1995, pp. 2-3, Rollo, pp. 21-22.
paragraph of the above-quoted provision. For certainly a change from 706
homicide to murder is not a matter of form; it is one of substance with very 706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
serious consequences." Buhat vs. Court of Appeals
Same;  Same; Same;  In amending a criminal information, what is upgrading the offense charged to MURDER and implead therein additional
primarily guarded against is the impairment of the accused's right to accused Herminia Altavas, Osmeña Altavas and Renato Buhat." 4
intelligently know the nature of the charge against him.—In the matter of On March 10, 1994, the Assistant City Prosecutor filed a motion for leave
amending a criminal information, what is primarily guarded against is the to amend information. The amendment as proposed was opposed by the
impairment of the accused's right to intelligently know the nature of the petitioner.
charge against him. This right has been guaranteed the accused under all The amended information read:
Philippine Constitutions and incorporated in Section 1(b), Rule 115, of the "The undersigned assistant City Prosecutor accuses DANNY BUHAT, of
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Capricho II, Barangay V, Roxas City, Philippines, HERMINIA ALTAVAS AND
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. OSMEÑA ALTAVAS both resident of Punta Tabuc, Roxas City, Philippines,
705 of the crime of Murder, committed as follows:
VOL. 265, DECEMBER 17, 1996 705
Page 2 of 8
 That on or about the 16th day of October, 1992, in the City of Roxas, The additional allegation of conspiracy is only a formal amendment,
Philippines, the above-named accused, Danny Buhat armed with a knife, petitioner's participation as principal not having been affected by such
conspiring, confederating and helping one another, did and then and there amendment
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously [sic] without justifiable motive and with Petitioner asseverates that the inclusion of additional defendants in the
intent to kill, attack, stab and injure one RAMON GEORGE YU, while the two information on the ground of conspiracy "is a substantial amendment which is
other accused held the arms of the latter, thus using superior strength, prohibited by Sec. 14, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure,
inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and because the al-
immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of _________________
8
said Ramon George Yu in such amount as maybe [sic] awarded to them by  Petition, p. 6, Rollo, p. 7.
9
the court under the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines.  Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 35554.
CONTRARY TO LAW."5 10
 Decision penned by Associate Justice Bernardo Ll. Salas and
The prosecution had by then already presented at least two witnesses. concurred in by Pacita Canizares-Nye and Conchita Carpio-Morales (all of
In an order,6 dated June 2, 1994, the RTC denied the motion for leave to the Former Special Eleventh Division), p. 8, Rollo, p. 27.
amend information. The denial was premised on (1) an invocation of the trial 708
court's discretion in disregarding the opinion of the Secretary of Justice as 708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
allegedly held in Crespo vs. Mogul 7 and (2) a conclusion reached by the trial Buhat vs. Court of Appeals
court that the resolution of the inquest prosecutor is legation of conspiracy wi wi wi is a substantial amendment saddling the
________________ [p]etitioner with the need of a new defense in order to met [sic] a different
4
 Resolution dated February 3, 1994, p. 6, Rollo, p. 50. situation at the trial [c]ourt."11
5
 Amended Information dated April 6, 1995, Rollo, p. 51. Petitioner cites the case of People v. Montenegro 12 as jurisprudential
6
 Issued by the Honorable Jose O. Alovera, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch support. Indeed, we stated in the Montenegro case that "the allegation of
17, Roxas City. conspiracy among all the private respondents-accused, which was not
7
 153 SCRA 470. previously included in the original information, is wi wi wi a substantial
707 amendment saddling the respondents with the need of a new defense in
VOL. 265, DECEMBER 17, 1996 707 order to meet a different situation in the trial court." 13 And to explain the new
Buhat vs. Court of Appeals defense theory as a bar to a substantial amendment after plea, we cited the
more persuasive than that of the Secretary of Justice, the former having case of People v. Zulueta 14 where we elucidated, thus:
actually conducted the preliminary investigation "where he was able to "Surely the preparations made by herein accused to face the original charges
observe the demeanor of those he investigated."8 will have to be radically modified to meet the new situation. For undoubtedly
The Solicitor General promptly elevated the matter to the Court of the allegation of conspiracy enables the prosecution to attribute and ascribe
Appeals. He filed a petition for certiorari 9assailing the aforecited order to the accused Zulueta all the acts, knowledge, admissions and even
denying the motion for leave to amend information. Finding the proposed omissions of his co-conspirator Angel Llanes in furtherance of the
amendment as nonprejudicial to petitioner's rights, respondent court granted conspiracy. The amendment thereby widens the battlefront to allow the use
the petition for certiorari in a decision, dated March 28, 1995, the decretal by the prosecution of newly discovered weapons, to the evident discomfiture
portion of which reads: of the opposite camp. Thus, it would seem inequitable to sanction the tactical
"THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, herein petition is hereby granted: the movement at this stage of the controversy, bearing in mind that the accused
Order dated June 2, 1994 is set aside and annulled; amendment of the is only guaranteed two-days' preparation for trial. Needless to emphasize, as
Information from homicide to murder, and including as additional accused in criminal cases the liberty, even the life, of the accused is at stake, it is
Herminia Altavas and Osmeña Altavas is allowed; and finally, the writ of always wise and proper that he be fully apprised of the charges, to avoid any
preliminary injunction we issued on January 30, 1995 is made permanent by possible surprise that may lead to injustice. The prosecution has too many
prohibiting the public respondent from hearing aforementioned criminal case facilities to covet the added advantage of meeting unprepared adversaries."
under the original Information."10 This jurisprudential rule, however, is not without an exception. And it is in the
Hence this petition raising the sole issue of whether or not the questioned same case of Zulueta that we highlighted the case of Regala v. Court of First
amendment to the information is procedurally infirm. Instance of Bataan 15 as
The petition lacks merit. ________________
11
 Petition, p. 13, Rollo, p. 14.
Page 3 of 8
 12
 159 SCRA 236 [1988]. and confederated together and mutually aided one another to commit the
13
 Id., pp. 241-242. offense charged. The amended information was admitted wi wi wi
14
 89 Phil. 752 [1951]. x x x      x x x      x x x
15
 77 Phil. 684 [1946]. Otherwise stated, the amendments wi wi wi would not have prejudiced
709 Ruiz whose participation as principal in the crimes charged did not change.
VOL. 265, DECEMBER 17, 1996 709 When the incident was investigated by the fiscal's office, the respondents
Buhat vs. Court of Appeals were Ruiz, Padilla and Ongchenco. The fiscal did not include Padilla and
proffering a situation where an amendment after plea resulting in the Ongchenco in the two informations because of 'insufficiency of evidence/ It
inclusion of an allegation of conspiracy and in the indictment of some other was only later when Francisco Pagcalinawan testified at the reinvestigation
persons in addition to the original accused, constitutes a mere formal that the participation of Padilla and Ongchenco surfaced and, as a
amendment permissible even after arraignment. In Zulueta, we distinguished consequence, there was the need for the information of the informations wi
the Regala case in this wise: wi x."
"Some passages from 'Regala contra El Juez del Juzgado de Primera The aforegoing principle, by way of exception to the general rule, also
Instancia de Bataan' are quoted by petitioners. Therein the accused pleaded appositely applies in the present controversy.
not guilty to an information for murder, and later the fiscal amended the Petitioner undoubtedly is charged as a principal in the killing of Ramon
indictment by including two other persons charged with the same offense and George Yu whom petitioner is alleged to have stabbed while two unknown
alleging conspiracy between the three. Five justices held that the amendment persons held the victim's arms. The addition of the phrase, "conspiring,
was not substantial. But that situation differs from the one at bar. The confederating and helping one another" does not change the nature of
amendment there did not modify theory of the prosecution that the accused petitioner's participation as principal in the killing.
had killed the deceased by a voluntary act and deed. Here there is an Whether under the original or the amended information, petitioner would
innovation, or the introduction of another alternative imputation, which, to have to defend himself as the People makes a case against him and secures
make matters worse, is inconsistent with the original allegations." 16 for public protection the punishment of petitioner for stabbing to death, using
Applying our aforegoing disquisition in the 1946 case of Regala, we likewise superior strength, a fellow citizen in whose health and safety society as a
ruled in the 1983 case of People v. Court of Appeals 17 that a post- whole is interested. Petitioner, thus, has no tenable basis to decry the
arraignment amendment to further allege conspiracy, is only a formal amendment in question.
amendment not prejudicial to the rights of the accused and proper even after Furthermore, neither may the amendment in question be struck down on
the accused has pleaded "not guilty" to the charge under the original the ground that Herminia Altavas, Osmeña Altavas and Renato Buhat would
information. We held in said case of  People v. Court of Appeals: be placed in double jeopardy by virtue of said amendment. In the first place,
"x x x The trial Judge should have allowed the amendment x x x considering no first jeopardy can be spoken of insofar as the Altavases are concerned
that the amendments sought were only formal. As aptly stated by the since the first information did not precisely include them as accused therein.
Solicitor General in his memorandum, 'there was no change in the In the second place, the amendment to replace the name, "John Doe" with
prosecution's theory that respondent Ruiz willfully, unlawfully and feloniously the name of Renato Buhat who was found by the Secretary of Justice to be
attacked, assaulted and shot with a gun Ernesto and Rogelio Bello wi wi x. one of the two
The amendments would not have been prejudicial to him because his 711
participation as principal in the crime charged with respondent Ruiz in the VOL. 265, DECEMBER 17, 1996 711
original informations, could not be prejudiced by the proposed amendments.' Buhat vs. Court of Appeals
In a case (Regala vs. CFI, 77 Phil. 684),' the defendant was charged with persons who held the arms of the victim while petitioner was stabbing
murder. After plea, the fiscal presented an amended him,18 is only a formal amendment and one that does not prejudice any of the
________________ accused's rights. Such amendment to insert in the information the real name
16
 89 Phil. 752, 756 [1951]. of the accused involves merely a matter of form as it does not, in any way,
17
 121 SCRA 733 [1983]. deprive any of the accused of a fair opportunity to present a defense; neither
710 is the nature of the offense charged affected or altered since the revelation of
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED accused's real name does not change the theory of the prosecution nor does
Buhat vs. Court of Appeals it introduce any new and material fact. 19 In fact, it is to be expected that the
information wherein two other persons were included as co-accused. There information has to be amended as the unknown participants in the crime
was further allegation that the accused and his co-defendants had conspired became known to the public prosecutor.20
Page 4 of 8
"Abuse of superior strength" having already been alleged in the original x x x      x x x      x x x
information charging homicide, the amendment of the name of the crime to To amend the information so as to change the crime charged for
murder, constitutes a mere formal amendment permissible even after homicide to the more serious offense of murder after the petitioner had
arraignment pleaded not guilty to the former is indubitably proscribed by the first
In the case of Dimalibot v. Salcedo,21 we ruled that the amendment of the paragraph of the above-quoted provision. For certainly a change from
information so as to change the crime charged from homicide to murder, may homicide to murder is not a matter of form; it is one of substance with very
be made “even if it may result in altering the nature of the charge so long as serious consequences."24
it can be done without prejudice to the rights of the accused." In that case, Indeed, petitioner forcefully and strongly submits that, in the light of this
several accused were originally charged with homicide, but before they were ruling, we are allegedly obliged to grant his prayer for the reversal of the
arraigned, an amended information for murder was filed. Understandably assailed decision of respondent
raised before us was the issue of the propriety and legality of the afore- ________________
22
described amendment, and we ruled, thus:  Id., p. 846.
23
"x x x it is undisputed that the herein accused were not yet arraigned before  108 SCRA 736 [1981].
24
the competent court when the complaint for homicide  Id., p. 738.
________________ 713
18
 Resolution dated February 3, 1994, pp. 5-6; Rollo, pp. 49-50. VOL. 265, DECEMBER 17, 1996 713
19
 People v. Padica, 221 SCRA 364, 380 [1993]. See also U.S. v. De la Buhat vs. Court of Appeals
Cruz, et al., 3 Phil. 331 [1904]; Arevalo, et al. v. Nepomuceno, etc., et al., 63 Court of Appeals and the affirmance of the trial court's ruling that the post-
Phil. 627 [1936]; People v. Labatete, 107 Phil. 697 [1960]. arraignment amendment sought by the People is prohibited under Section
20
 People v. Ornopia, 122 SCRA 468, 474 [1983]. 14, Rule 110, of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, the same being a
21
 107 Phil. 843 [1960]. substantial amendment prejudicial to the rights of the accused.
712 The cited ruling, however, differs from the case at bench because the
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED facts herein sustain a contrary holding. As pointed out by the Court of
Buhat vs. Court of Appeals Appeals:
was amended so as to charge the crime of murder. wi wi wi the amendment "x x x the original Information, while only mentioning homicide, alleged:
could therefore be made even as to substance in order that the proper Danny Buhat, John Doe and Richard Doe as the accused; [sic] of Danny
charge may be made. wi wi wi The change may also be made even if it may Buhat stabbing the deceased Ramon while his two other companions were
result in altering the nature of the charge so long as it can be done without holding the arms of Ramon, thus, 'the Information already alleged superior
prejudice to the rights of the defendant."22 strength;' and inflicting mortal wounds which led to the death of Ramon.
Thus, at the outset, the main consideration should be whether or not the Superior strength qualifies the offense to murder (Article 248).
accused had already made his plea under the original information, for this is x x x      x x x      x x x
the index of prejudice to, and the violation of, the rights of the accused. The Before us, the Information already alleged superior strength, and the
question as to whether the changing of the crime charged from homicide to additional allegation that the deceased was stabbed by Buhat while the arms
the more serious offense of murder is a substantial amendment proscribed of the former were being held by the two other accused, referring to John
after the accused had pleaded "not guilty" to the crime of homicide was, it Doe and Richard Doe. x x x
should be noted, categorically answered in the affirmative by us in the case x x x      x x x      x x x
of Dionaldo v. Dacuycuy,23 for then we ruled: If the killing is characterized as having been committed by superior
"x x x the provision which is relevant to the problem is Rule 110, Sec. 13 strength, then to repeat, there is murder x x x
[now Sec. 14 under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure] of the Rules of Also the case of Dacuycuy was mentioned, as a justification for not
Court which stipulates: allowing change of designation from homicide to murder, but then the body of
'x x x The information or complaint may be amended, in substance or the Information in the Dacuycuy ruling did not allege averments which
form, without leave of court, at any time before the defendant pleads; and qualifies [sic] the offense of murder. The case before us instead is different in
thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of form, by leave and at the that the Information already alleges that Buhat attacked the deceased while
discretion of the court, when the same can be done without prejudice to the his two other companions held him by the arms, 'using superior strength.' x x
rights of the defendant. x We would even express the possibility that if supported by evidence, Buhat
x x x      x x x      x x x and the Altavases could still be penalized for murder even without changing
Page 5 of 8
the designation from homicide to murder, precisely because of to describe the act with sufficient certainty in order that the accused may be
aforementioned allegations. The proposed change of the word from homicide apprised of the nature of the charge against him. 33 In the event, however,
to murder, to us, is not a substantial change that should be prohibited." 25 that the appellation of the crime charged as determined by the public
________________ prosecutor, does not exactly correspond to the actual crime constituted by
25
 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 35554, pp, 3-7, Rollo, pp. 22-26, the criminal acts described in the information to have been committed by the
714 accused, what controls is the description of the said criminal acts and not the
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED technical name of the crime supplied by the public prosecutor. As this court,
Buhat vs. Court of Appeals through Justice Moreland's authoritative disquisition, has held:
In the matter of amending a criminal information, what is primarily guarded "x x x Notwithstanding apparent contradiction between caption and body, wi
against is the impairment of the accused's right to intelligently know the wi wi the characterization of the crime by the fiscal in the caption of the
nature of the charge against him. This right has been guaranteed the information is immaterial and purposeless x x x the facts stated in the body of
accused under all Philippine Constitutions 26 and incorporated in Section 1(b), the pleading must determine the crime of which the defendant stands
Rule 115, of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. 27 charged and for which he must be tried. The establishment of this doctrine x
In a criminal case, due process requires that, among others, the x x is thoroughly in accord with common sense and with the requirements of
accusation be in due form, and that notice thereof and an opportunity to plain justice. x x x Procedure in criminal actions should always be so framed
answer the charge be given the accused; 28 hence, the constitutional and as to insure to each criminal that retributive punishment which ought swiftly
reglementary guarantees as to accused's right “to be informed of the nature and surely to visit him who willfully and maliciously violates the penal laws of
and cause of the accusation against him." An accused should be given the society. We believe that a doctrine which does not produce such a result is
necessary data as to why he is being proceeded against and not be left in illogical and unsound and works irreparable injury to the community in which
the unenviable state of speculating why he is made the object of a it prevails.
prosecution,29 it being the fact that, in criminal cases, the liberty, even the life, From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, it is of no concern to
of the accused is at stake. It is always wise and proper that the accused be the accused what is the technical name of the crime of which he stands
fully apprised of the charge against him in order to avoid any possible charged. It in no way aids him in a defense on the merits. x x x That to which
surprise that may lead to injustice.30 his attention should be directed, and in which he, above all things else,
In order to sufficiently inform the accused of the charge against him, a should be most interested, are the facts alleged. The real question is not did
written accusation, in the form of a criminal information indicting the accused he commit a crime given in the law some technical and specific name, but did
and subscribed by the fiscal, must first be filed in court. 31 Such information he perform the acts alleged in the body of the information in the matter
must state, among others, the name of the accused, the designation of the therein set forth. If he did, it is of no consequence to him, either as a matter
________________ of procedure or of substantive right, how the law denominates the crime
26
 Sec. 1(17), Art. III, 1935 Constitution; Sec. 19, Art. IV, 1973 which those acts constitute. The designation of the crime by
Constitution; Sec. 14(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution. ________________
32
27
 "SECTION 1. Rights of accused at the trial.—In all criminal  Sec. 6, id.
33
prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled:  U.S. v. Alabot, 38 Phil. 698, 704 [1918].
x x x      x x x      x x x 716
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
x x x      x x x      x x x” Buhat vs. Court of Appeals
28
 U.S. v. Ocampo, 18 Phil. 1 [1910]; U.S. v. Grant and Kennedy, 18 Phil. name in the caption of the information from the facts alleged in the body of
122 [1910]. that pleading is a conclusion of law made by the fiscal. x x x For his full and
29
 People v. Mencias, 46 SCRA 88 [1972]. complete defense he need not know the name of the crime at all. It is of no
30
 People v. Zulueta, 89 Phil. 752 [1951]. consequence whatever for the protection of his substantial rights. The real
31
 Sec. 4, Rule 110, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. and important question to him is, 'Did you perform the acts alleged in the
715 manner alleged?' not, 'Did you commit a crime named murder?' If he
VOL. 265, DECEMBER 17, 1996 715 performed the acts alleged, in the manner stated, the law determines what
Buhat vs. Court of Appeals the name of the crime is and fixes the penalty therefor. It is the province of
offense by the statute, and the acts or omissions complained of as the court alone to say what the crime is or what it is named. If the accused
constituting the offense.32 Evidently, the important end to be accomplished is performed the acts alleged in the manner alleged, then he ought to be
Page 6 of 8
punished and punished adequately, whatever may be the name of the crime and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there willfully,
which those acts constitute. unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with ice picks one Paulo
The plea of not guilty ought always to raise a question of fact and not of Balane x x x' Since the killing is characterized as having been committed by
law. The characterization of the crime is a conclusion of law on the part of 'taking advantage of superior strength,' a circumstance which qualifies a
the fiscal. The denial by the accused that he committed that specific crime so killing to murder, the information sufficiently charged the commission of
characterized raises no real question. No issue can be raised by the murder."37
assertion of a conclusion of law by one party and a denial of such conclusion ________________
35
by the other. The issues raised by the pleadings in criminal actions wi wi wi  U.S. v. Cabe, 36 Phil. 728, 731 [1917]; U.S. v. Ondaro, 39 Phil. 70, 75
are primarily and really issues of fact and not of law. x x x [1918]; U.S. v. Burns, 41 Phil. 418, 436 [1921]; People v. Perez, 45 Phil. 600,
x x x Issues are not made by asserting and denying names. They are 607 [1923]; People v. Oliveria, 67 Phil. 427 [1939]; People v. Arnault, 92 Phil.
framed by the allegation and denial of facts. x x x To quibble about names is 252 [1952]; People v. Cosare, 95 Phil. 656, 660 [1954]; Matilde, Jr. v.
to lose sight of realities. To permit an accused to stand by and watch the Jabson, 68 SCRA 456, 462 [1975]; Reyes v. Camilon, 192 SCRA 445, 453
fiscal while he guesses as to the name which ought to be applied to the [1990]; People v. Mayoral, 203 SCRA 528, 538-539 [1991]; People v.
crime of which he charges the accused, and then take advantage [sic] of the Escosio, 220 SCRA 475, 488 [1993].
36
guess if it happens to be wrong, while the acts or omissions upon which that  159 SCRA 426 [1988].
37
guess was made and which are the real and only foundation of the charge  Id., pp. 430-431.
against him are clearly and fully stated in the information, is to change the 718
battle ground in criminal cases from issues to guesses and from fact to fancy. 718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
It changes lawyers into dialecticians and law into metaphysics—that fertile Buhat us. Court of Appeals
field of delusion propagated by language."34 [Italics ours] On another aspect, we find merit in the manifestation of the Solicitor General
In other words, the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from to the effect that the respondent Court of Appeals erroneously supposed that
the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the petitioner and Renato Buhat are one and the same person, hence the non-
provision of the law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of inclusion of Renato Buhat as additional accused in its order allowing the
law which in no way affect the legal aspects of the information, but from 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
34
 U.S. v. Lim San, 17 Phil. 273, 278-281 [1910]. embody the correct identity of all the persons found to be indictable in the
717 Resolution of the Secretary of Justice. Explained the Solicitor General:
VOL. 265, DECEMBER 17, 1996 717 "In its Decision under review, the Court of Appeals erroneously supposed
Buhat vs. Court of Appeals that Danny Buhat and Renato Buhat are one and the same person (CA
actual recital of facts as alleged in the body of the information. 35 Decision, 1st par.). This, however, is not correct because Danny Buhat and
Petitioner in the case at bench maintains that, having already pleaded Renato Buhat are, in fact, brothers. Moreover, it was not Osmeña Altavas
"not guilty" to the crime of homicide, the amendment of the crime charged in and his wife Herminia Altavas who held the arms of the victim while Danny
the information from homicide to murder is a substantial amendment Buhat stabbed him. According to the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice,
prejudicial to his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against which is requoted hereunder:
him. He utterly fails to dispute, however, that the original information did The evidence on hand clearly shows that while Osmeña Altavas was
allege that petitioner stabbed his victim "using superior strength." And this continuously hitting Ramon Yu with his fists, his wife Herminia aided him by
particular allegation qualifies a killing to murder, regardless of how such a hitting the victim with a chair. It was also during this time that Danny Buhat
killing is technically designated in the information filed by the public and two (2) unidentified persons appeared and joined spouses Osmeña and
prosecutor. Herminia. One of the unidentified persons was later identified as Renato
Our ruling in the case of People v. Resayaga 36 is clearly apropos: Buhat. Renato Buhat and the other unidentified person held the arms of
"The appellant maintains that the Information filed in this case is only for Ramon Yu while Danny Buhat stabbed Ramon Yu twice on the chest which
Homicide. x x x resulted in his death. The restraint on the person of Ramon Yu before he was
The contention is without merit. Reliance is placed mainly upon the stabbed was described by eyewitness Susan Labrador during the
designation of the offense given to it by the fiscal. x x x In the instant case, continuation of the preliminary investigation of the instant case on December
the information specifically alleges that the said accused conspiring, 2, 1992.'
confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill _________________
Page 7 of 8
 38
 The dispositive portion of the assailed decision reads as follows: this case is repugnant to our inveterate desire for speedy justice and that the
"THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, herein petition is hereby granted wi wi wi full and complete disposition of this case virtually serves this end, we see it to
the amendment of the Information from homicide to murder, and including as be within our jurisdiction and authority to order the correct amended
additional accused Herminia Altavas and Osmeña Altavas is allowed x x x." information to be filed in this case without the need to remand the same to
719 respondent appellate court.
VOL. 265, DECEMBER 17, 1996 719 WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The City
Buhat vs. Court of Appeals Prosecutor of Roxas City is HEREBY ORDERED to file the correct Amended
The Amended Information to be filed in this case must, therefore, reflect the Information fully in accordance with the findings of fact set forth in the
above facts set forth in the aforesaid Resolution of the Secretary of Justice— Resolution of the Secretary of Justice, dated February 3, 1994, and in
which was the result of preliminary investigation (as reviewed by the disregard of the finding of the Court of Appeals in its Decision, dated March
Secretary of Justice) conducted in this case. Starngely enough, however, the 28, 1995, in CA-G.R. SP No. 35554 to the effect that "Danny Buhat and
Amended Information (Annex "C") that was subsequently filed before the Renato Buhat are one and the same person."
Roxa City RTC in this case by Assistant City Prosecutor Alvin D. Calvez of SO ORDERED.
Roxas City does not reflect the above facts seth forth in the aforesaid      Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Resolution of the Secretary of Justice. Said Amended Information in effect      Padilla  (J., Chairman), In the result.
alleges that Osmeña and Herminia Altavas were the ones who held the arms      Bellosillo, J., No part.
of the victim while Danny Buhat stabbed him, whereas, according to the Petition dismissed.
Resolution of the Secretary of Justice abovecited, it was Renato Buhat and Note.—As a general rule, an accused can move for the quashal of the
another unidentified person who held the arms of the victim  while Dabby information on any ground before arraignment. (Manlavi vs. Gacott, Jr., 244
Buhat stabbed him. According to the said Resolution of the Secretary of SCRA 50 [1995])
Justice, The participationos Osmeña Altavas in the crime was that of hitting ——o0o——
the victim with his fists, while x x x the participation of Herminia Altavas in the 721
crime was that of hitting the victim with a chair. © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
Verily, the statement of the facts in the Information or Amended
Information must conform with the findings of fact in the preliminary
investigation (in this case, as reviewed by the Secretary of Justice) so as to
make it jibe with the evidence x x x to be presented at the trial. x x x
The Decision of the Court of Appeals in this case (which merely resolved
affirmatively the legal issues whether or not the offense charged in the
Information could be upgraded to Murder and additional accused could be
included in said Information) should not be made the basis of the Amended
Information herein as the said Decision does not constitute the preliminary
investigation  conducted in this case. Such Amended Information should be
based on the findings of fact set forth in the Resolution of the Secratary of
Justice, as above quoted and reqouted."39 [Italics theirs]
The Solicitor General prays for at least the remanding of this case to
respondent Court of Appeals for the correction of the error abovecited and for
the ordering of the filling of the correct Amended Information by the City
Prosecutor of Roxas City. Considering, however, that further delay of the trial
of
________________
39
 Comment and Motion of the Solicitor General, pp. 7-11, Rollo, pp. 37-
41.
720
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Buhat vs. Court of Appeals
Page 8 of 8