PEOPLE v MONTENEGRO

159 SCRA 236PADILLA; March 25, 1988

NATURE
Peti ti on for certi orari wi th prel i mi nary i nj uncti on 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 Fi rst Instance of Ri zal agai nst 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 ob b er y c o mmi t t ed by t h e mi nor Ri cardo Cabal oza, who had al ready pl eaded
gui l ty 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 i tems, arti cl es and pi eces of j ewel ry
belonging to Ding Velayo, Inc. valued at P75,591.40.- Upon arraignment, all of the accused (now private
respondents) entered a pl ea of "not gui l ty" to the charge filed against them.- Ho we v e r , b e f o r e
t h e t r i a l c ou l d p r o c e ed , t h e prosecuti ng fi scal fi l ed a Moti on to Admi t Amended
I n f o r m a t i 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 i nformati on by: (1) changi ng the
offensechargedf r o m " Rob b er y " t o " Robb e r y i n a n Uni nha bi t ed 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 mo n g a l l t h e a c c u s ed , a nd ( 3 ) d el e t i ng a l l i t e ms , a r t i c l e s a nd pi eces of
j ewel ry al l eged to have been stol en i n the ori gi nal Informati on and substi tuti ng them wi th 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 me n d e d I n f o r ma t i o n . P e t i t i o n e r mo v e d f o r r e c on s i d e r a t i o n of t he a f or e s a i d
or d er but t h e respondent court deni ed sai d moti on; hence, thi s petition.

ISSUE
WON 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 mi n a l P r o c e d u r e (formerl y, Secti on 13, Rul e 110 of
the ol d Rul es 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 no pr e j ud i c e i s c a u s ed t o t h e r i g h t s o f t h e accused.- The test as to when the
ri ghts of an accused are p r ej udi c ed by t h e a men d ment o f a c o mpl a i nt o r information is when
a defense under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no longer be avai l abl e after the
amendment i s made, and when a n y e v i d en c e t he
a c c u s e d mi g ht ha v e, wo ul d b e i n a pp l i c a b l e t o t h e c o mpl a i nt o r i nf o r ma t i on a s amended.
On the other hand, an amendment which merel y states wi th addi ti onal preci si on
somethi ngw 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 ma t i on , a nd whi c
h , t h er e f or e, a d d s n ot h i n g essenti al for convi cti on for the cri me charged i s an amendment to
form that can be made at anytime.-
T h e p r o p o s e d a me n d me n t s i n t h e a me n d e d i n f o r ma t i 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 i n an Uni nhabi ted Pl ace" puni shabl e under Art. 302 of the Revi sed Penal
Code, thereby e x p o s i n g t h e p r i v a t e r e s pon d ent s - a c c u s ed 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 i n the i tems, arti cl es and
p i e c e s o f j e we l r y a l l eg e d l y s t o l en i n t o e nt i r e l y different articles from those originally complained
of, affects the essence of the imputed crime, and would depri ve the accused of the opportuni ty to meet
al l the al l egati ons i n the amended i nformati on, i n the preparati on of thei r defenses to the charge
fi l ed 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 convi cted of robbery of the
i tems l i sted i n theo r i g i n a l i n f o r ma t i 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 ond en t s -
a c c u s e d, whi c h wa s no t p r e v i o u s l y i ncl uded i n the ori gi nal i nformati on, i s l i kewi se a
substanti al amendment saddl i ng the respondents wi th the need of a new defense i n order to
meet a di fferent si tuati on i n the tri al court. To al l ow at thi s stage the proposed amendment alleging
conspiracy among al l the accused, wi l l make al l of the l atter liable not only for their own individual
transgressions or acts but also for the acts of their co-conspirators.

Dispositive
Peti ti on i s 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 sons 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 childs 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, Marvins 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 Pealosa, as those who supplied the
guns, raises doubt as to accused-appellants guilt.
Issue: WON Regalas 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.