You are on page 1of 2

Case Title:

Kummer v. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 174461, September 11, 2013.
FACTS:
On one fateful night, the evidence of the prosecution reveals, Johan Kummer, a minor, the son
of Leticia Kummer, shot a certain Jesus Mallo, Jr. According to the eyewitness, Amiel Malana, he and
Jesus Mallo went to the house of Krummers. Jesus knocked on the door of the Krummers house,
declaring that he is Boy Mallo. Then, according to the testimonies of Malana, Johan shot Mallo dead
with a shotgun.
Being a minor, Johan was released at the cognizance of his father. Then he left the country
without notifying the court. In defense, Leticia Kummer produced another version of the story which
shows that they were sleeping innocently in their house on that fateful night, when there was a
commotion outside their house, admitting however that, when they were practically disturbed by the
said commotion, Johan got a shotgun and fired outside their house, without intention to kill or injure
anybody, especially Jesus.
An Information was filed with the Court on January 12, 1989, which was later on modified. This
modification was about the date of the commission of the crime. The modification, however, happened
after she was arraigned.
The RTC convicted her and Johan, who was out of the Philippine Legal Systems reach. She
appealed the case to the CA, which denied them and affirmed the RTC decision, arguing, among others,
that by virtue of the amendment of the Information, she should have been arraigned again; and, since
she was not, there was a blatant violation of her right to be informed of the nature of her case, since an
amended Information is a new Information. Hence, all proceedings which the case had undergone were
void.
ISSUE:
Does she have to be arraigned again?
HELD:
No, she does not have to be arraigned again.
Note that only the date was amended. Sec. 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure provides that, [a] complaint or an Information may be amended, in form or in substance,
without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during trial, a
formal amendment may only be done with leave of court and when it can be done without causing
prejudice to the rights of the accused.
Accordingly, a change in time in the commission of the crime, when the disparity is not so great,
is only a formal amendment. In view of the foregoing, the amendment was from July to June can
only be regarded as formal amendment.

Moreover, it does not and could not prejudice the rights of the accused, because (1) it does not
change the nature of the crime, and (2) it does not render the defenses prepared for the former
Information as it stood invalid.
Having said all these, a formal amendment does not require a subsequent arraignment as the
purpose of which is to INFORM THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION. Since the nature and
cause of the accusation are not changed by a formal amendment, a re-arraignment is not necessary, as
she was already informed of these things. Hence, there has been no violation of her rights as accused.
Thence, no, she does not have to be arraigned again.

Case Title:
Disini v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. 169823-24/174764-65, September 11, 2013
FACTS:
Disini, and company were charged with corruption of public officials by the Sandiganbayan,
penalized under Art. 212, in relation to Art. 210 of the RPC and violation of Sec. 4(a) of RA 3019, for
having allegedly conspired with the former President Ferdinand Marcos, in appropriating public funds
for their personal use amounting to billions of pesos. Disini filed a motion to quash, arguing among
others, that the criminal Informations filed against him failed to comply with the required substance and
form of information, thereby violating his right to be informed as the accused.
ISSUE:
Did the Information comply with the required substance and form?
HELD:
Yes, the Informations filed complied with the required substance and form.
An Information must state every single fact or circumstance that constitutes an element of the
offense charged; otherwise, a motion to dismiss or to quash may be properly sustained. Included in the
things that must be in the Information are: (1) the name of the accused, (2) the designation of the
offense given by the statute, (3) the acts or omissions constituting the offense, (4) the name of the
offended party, (5) the approximate date of the commission of the crime, and (5) the place where the
crime was committed. Note that, when the offense has been committed by more than one person, all of
them must be included in the Information.
After factual examination, the SC held that the Informations filed against him and his
companions were able to comply with the prescribed forms and substance of an Information. Hence, his
motion to quash could not be properly sustained.
Withal, the Informations filed against Disini and company complied with the required substance
and form.

You might also like