DENNIS T. GABIONZA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts: Petitioner was accused in an information for violating Sec. 22, pars. (a) and (d), in relation to Sec. 28, par. (e), of RA 1161(Social Securit !aw). "#e said information alleged t#at t#at $in and a%out or during t#e period from &anuar 1''1 to (a 1'')$ petitioner, President of t#e (anila *it +us *orporation, a compulsoril ,covered emplo er under RA 1161, willfull and unlawfull failed, neglected and refused to remit to t#e Social Securit S stem (SSS) contri%utions for SSS, (edicare and -mplo ee *ompensation (-*) amounting to P1,6.2,))/.1/ and t#e )0 penalt imposed t#ereon in t#e amount of P.11,112.82.) 3n 4ecem%er 2, 1''),petitioner was arraigned. After four ears, t#e pu%lic prosecutor filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Information, to c#ange t#e material dates stated in t#e 5nformation from $&anuar 1''1 to (a 1'')$ to &anuar 1''1 to (a 1''2.$ Petitioner opposed t#e motion contending t#at t#e proposed amendment was su%stantial in nature, #ence to allow t#e same would %e a violation of #is rig#t to %e informed of t#e cause and nature of t#e accusation against #im, and would negate or pre6udice defenses t#at were ot#erwise availa%le to #im. "#e R"* granted t#e motion and allowed amendment of t#e 5nformation, ruling t#at t#e amendment pertained onl to matters of form. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration %ut it was denied. Petitioner %roug#t t#e issue %efore t#e *ourt of Appeals . *A up#eld t#e amendment and dismissed t#e petition.

Issue: 7#et#er or not an information can %e amended to c#ange t#e material dates of t#e commission of t#e offense after t#e arraignment of t#e accused Rul n!: "#e proper procedure for t#e amendment of an 5nformation is governed % Sec. 11, Rule 11/, of t#e Rules on *riminal Procedure , Sec. 11. Amendment. , "#e information or complaint ma %e amended, in su%stance or form, wit#out leave of court at an time %efore t#e accused pleads8 and t#ereafter and during t#e trial as to all matters of form, % leave and at t#e discretion of t#e court, w#en t#e same can %e done wit#out pre6udice to t#e rig#ts of t#e accused 9 9 9 9 "#e court #eld t#at after t#e accused enters a plea, amendments to t#e 5nformation ma %e allowed, as to matters of form, provided t#at no pre6udice is caused to t#e rig#ts of t#e accused. "#e test as to w#en t#e rig#ts of an accused are pre6udiced % t#e amendment of a *omplaint or 5nformation is w#en a defense under t#e *omplaint or 5nformation, as it originall stood, would no longer %e availa%le after t#e amendment is made, and w#en an evidence t#e accused mig#t #ave, would %e inapplica%le to t#e *omplaint or t#e 5nformation as amended. &urisprudence allows amendments to information so long as: (a) it does not deprive t#e accused of t#e rig#t to invo;e prescription8(%) it does not affect or alter t#e nature of t#e offense originall c#arged (c) it does not involve a c#ange in t#e %asic t#eor of t#e prosecution so as to re<uire t#e accused to undergo an material c#ange or modification in #is defense8(d) it does not e9pose t#e accused to a c#arge w#ic# would call for a #ig#er penalt 8and, (.) it does not cause surprise nor deprive t#e accused of an opportunit to meet t#e new averment. 5n t#e case at %ar, it is clear t#at t#e <uestioned amendment is one of form and not of su%stance. "#e allegation of time w#en an offense is committed is a matter of form, unless time is a material ingredient of t#e offense. 5t is not even necessar to state in t#e 5nformation t#e precise time t#e offense was committed unless time is a material factor.5t is sufficient t#at t#e act is alleged to #ave %een committed at an time as near to t#e actual date at w#ic# t#e offense was committed as t#e *omplaint or 5nformation will permit.11 "#us, petitioner=s argument t#at t#e amendment pre6udiced #is rig#ts is untena%le. 7e fail to see #ow #is original defenses would %e rendered inapplica%le % t#e amendment, nor t#e prosecution=s t#eor in an wa

altered % t#e same. Petitioner failed to adduce an evidence in support of #is allegation t#at t#e amendment would adversel affect #is rig#ts. Petitioner invo;es Wong v. Yatco,1. People v. Opemia16 and People v. Reyes12 in support of #is cause. >owever, we #old t#at t#e ratio decidendi of t#e t#ree ()) cases does not appl in t#e present case. 5n Wong t#e prosecution amended t#e 5nformation of a violation of *ommonwealt# Act ?o. 1/1 to c#ange t#e dates of t#e violation from $(a ), 1'.1 to 3cto%er 11, 1'.1$ to $%etween &anuar 2, 1'.. and (arc# 12, 1'...$ "#e *ourt disallowed t#e amendment %ecause in 1'.1, t#e law punis#ing t#e act #ad not %een pu%lis#ed et, t#erefore t#ere was no crime in legal contemplation, "#e *ourt said t#at since an amended 5nformation retroacted to t#e time of t#e original one, t#e proper course would #ave %een not to amend t#e previous 5nformation %ut to file anot#er one. "#is crucial fact is not involved #ere. 5n Opemia t#e *ourt #eld, $t#e period of almost five ears %etween 1'12 and 1'.2 covers suc# a long stretc# of time t#at one ma %e led to %elieve t#at anot#er t#eft different from t#at committed % t#e defendants in 1'.2 was also perpetrated % t#em in 1'12. "#e variance is certainl unfair to t#em, for it violates t#eir constitutional rig#ts to %e informed %efore t#e trial of t#e specific c#arge against t#em and deprives t#em of t#e opportunit to defend , t#emselves.$ 5n Reyes, t#is *ourt #eld t#at $t#e disparit of time %etween t#e ears 1'61 and 1'6' is so great as to def appro9imation in t#e commission of one and t#e same offense.$ "#e last two (2) cases involved c#anges in dates w#ic# were so far removed from eac# ot#er t#at su%stituting one for t#e ot#er would clearl wor; to t#e detriment of t#e rig#t of t#e accused to %e informed of t#e nature and cause of t#e c#arges against #im. "#is is not so in t#e present case. @or one, a comparison of t#e amended 5nformation (&anuar 1''1 to (a 1''2) and t#e original one (&anuar 1''1 to (a 1'')) s#ows t#at t#e period stated in t#e former is even s#orter t#an and is included wit#in t#e latter. Also, t#e averment $in or a%out and during t#e period$ gives a sufficient appro9imation of t#e date of t#e commission of t#e offense. "#erefore, t#e first 5nformation #ad ade<uatel informed petitioner of t#e period of time w#en t#e crime was committed. ?o surprise, ergo, no violation of rig#ts, could spring from merel replacing t#e original period, more so wit# one t#at is s#orter and included wit#in t#e same. (oreover, t#e imposa%le penalt will not increase as a result of t#e amendment. A reading of Sec. 28, par. (e), RA 1611, s#ows t#at it penaliAes, among ot#ers, t#e failure or refusal of a compulsoril ,covered emplo er from remitting compulsor contri%utions to t#e SSS. ?eit#er time nor duration of t#e offense c#arged is a material ingredient of t#e offense. 5n fact, t#e penalt imposed for t#is violation is constant at si9 (6) ears and one (1) da to twelve (12) ears, regardless of t#e num%er of infractions.