People vs. Court of Appeals

An allegation of conspiracy and the inclusion of additional co-accused in an information is a formal, not a substantial, amendment because it changes only the manner of execution of the offense, which is a matter of evidence rather than of allegation, and does not alter the accused's responsibility for the crime charged.

On June 5, 1971, a shooting incident occurred at Sta. Lucia Street, Mandaluyong, Rizal, giving rise to two charges of frustrated homicide. On February 21, 1972, two informations were filed against Sixto Ruiz in the Court of First Instance of Rizal — Criminal Case No. 4747 naming Ernesto Bello as victim and Criminal Case No. 4748 with Rogelio Bello as complainant — and Ruiz pleaded "not guilty" to both upon arraignment.

A reinvestigation of the two cases was then conducted in the Department of Justice. The fiscal had not included Luis Padilla and Magsikap Ongchenco in the original informations because of insufficiency of evidence; it was only when Francisco Pagcalinawan testified at the reinvestigation that the participation of Padilla and Ongchenco surfaced. On that basis, State Prosecutor Lilia C. Lopez filed a motion for leave of court to amend the informations, alleging that the evidence disclosed a prima facie case against Padilla and Ongchenco, who acted in conspiracy with Ruiz. Ruiz opposed the motion, while Padilla and Ongchenco submitted their comment. The trial judge denied the motion, ruling that allowing the amendment to allege conspiracy would amend the manner of committing the crime and would therefore constitute a substantial amendment.

Because the amendment was refused, Lopez filed two new informations for frustrated homicide against Padilla and Ongchenco, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674, alleging that the two conspired with Ruiz, who was referred to in those informations as the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748. Padilla and Ongchenco moved to quash the two new informations. The lower court denied the motion in its order of January 25, 1974, finding that the informations stated the names of the accused, clearly designated the offense of frustrated homicide in each, stated the acts or omissions constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense was charged, named the persons against whom the offenses were committed, and specified that both offenses were committed on or about June 5, 1971 in Mandaluyong, Rizal.

Ruiz, for his part, filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674 a motion to permit him to quash and/or strike out the allegation of conspiracy in the two informations. On June 15, 1974, the trial judge ordered the motion struck from the records and clarified that the allegation of conspiracy in those cases did not alter the theory of the case, did not introduce an innovation, did not present an alternative imputation, and was not inconsistent with the original allegations.

• Formal Amendment: Petitioner argued, through the Solicitor General, that the amendments sought in Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 were only formal, there being no change in the prosecution's theory that Ruiz willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacked, assaulted, and shot with a gun Ernesto and Rogelio Bello, and that the amendments would not have prejudiced Ruiz because his participation as principal in the crime charged in the original informations could not be prejudiced by the proposed amendments.
• Ruiz's Lack of Standing: Petitioners observed that the lower court did not order the arrest of Sixto Ruiz in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674, that warrants were issued only against Padilla and Ongchenco, and that Ruiz was never arraigned in those cases, only Padilla and Ongchenco having been arraigned and having pleaded not guilty.

• Amendment of Informations: Whether the trial judge should have allowed the amendment of the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 so as to include Luis Padilla and Magsikap Ongchenco as co-accused of Sixto Ruiz in conspiracy with him.
• Effect of Denial of Leave to Amend: Whether the trial court's denial of the prosecution's motion to amend the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 barred the filing of the new informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674.
• Personality to Move to Quash: Whether Sixto Ruiz, who is not a defendant in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674, has the personality or standing to file a motion to quash or strike out the allegation of conspiracy in those informations.

• Amendment of Informations: Yes. The amendments sought were merely formal, changing only the manner of execution of the offense and not its substance, and Ruiz's responsibility as a principal in the crimes charged remained the same.
• Effect of Denial of Leave to Amend: No. The trial court's denial of the motion to amend the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 was no bar to the filing of the new informations.
• Personality to Move to Quash: No. Ruiz is not a defendant in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674, so he has no personality or standing in those cases and it was improper for him to file a motion to quash.

• Amendment of Informations: The SC anchored the ruling on Regala vs. CFI, 77 Phil. 684, where the defendant was charged with murder and, after plea, the fiscal presented an amended information including two other persons as co-accused with an allegation that the accused and his co-defendants had conspired and confederated together and mutually aided one another to commit the offense charged; the amended information was admitted and the SC upheld its admission against the claim of abuse of discretion. The SC quoted Regala's holding that the inclusion of two accused and the addition of the words "by conspiring, confederating and helping one another" in the amended complaint is an amendment of form — the accused is charged as author in the first complaint and as co-author in the amended one, but his responsibility is the same in both; the change refers only to the manner of execution of the crime and not to the substance of the crime itself; the manner of execution is a matter of evidence and not of allegations, and the details alleged in the amended complaint could have been proved under the original complaint. Applied to the case, the SC held that the amendments in Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 would not have prejudiced Ruiz, whose participation as principal in the crimes charged did not change, there being no change in the prosecution's theory that Ruiz willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacked, assaulted, and shot with a gun Ernesto and Rogelio Bello. The SC noted the sequence that made the amendment necessary: the fiscal did not include Padilla and Ongchenco in the two informations because of insufficiency of evidence, and it was only later when Francisco Pagcalinawan testified at the reinvestigation that the participation of Padilla and Ongchenco surfaced, creating the need either to amend the informations or to file new ones against the two.
• Effect of Denial of Leave to Amend: The SC held that the trial court's denial of the prosecution's motion to amend the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 was no bar to the filing of the new informations against Padilla and Ongchenco in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674.
• Personality to Move to Quash: The SC reasoned that the allegation in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674 that Padilla and Ongchenco conspired and confederated with Ruiz merely describes the fact that Ruiz was already charged with the same offense; it is only a reference to the two cases already filed against Ruiz, in which he alone stands as the defendant, and it does not make Ruiz a co-defendant of Padilla and Ongchenco in the two new informations. The SC found it incorrect to say that the allegation of conspiracy in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674 included Ruiz as a defendant in those cases, noting — as the petitioners had observed — that the lower court did not order Ruiz's arrest in those cases, that warrants were issued only against Padilla and Ongchenco, and that Ruiz was not arraigned there, only Padilla and Ongchenco having been arraigned and having pleaded not guilty. Because Ruiz is not a defendant in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674, he cannot file a motion to quash the same; he has no personality or standing in those cases, and it was improper for him to have filed the motion to quash.

• Formal vs. Substantial Amendment — An amendment that adds co-accused and alleges conspiracy is one of form, not substance, because it touches only the manner of execution of the offense and leaves the accused's responsibility for the crime unchanged. Manner of execution is a matter of evidence rather than of allegation, so the details supplied by the amendment could have been proved under the original information. The SC applied this to hold that the trial judge erred in refusing the amendment to Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748.
• Conspiracy Allegation as Reference, Not Inclusion — An allegation in a new information that the accused conspired with a person already charged in a separate case merely describes the fact of that prior charge; it is a reference to the earlier case and does not make that person a co-defendant in the new information. Hence the conspiracy allegation in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674 did not draw Ruiz into those cases as a defendant.
• Personality to File a Motion to Quash — Only a defendant in a case may move to quash the information therein. One who is not a party to the case lacks personality or standing, and a motion to quash filed by him is improper. This disposed of Ruiz's motion in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674.
• Denial of Leave to Amend Does Not Bar New Informations — A trial court's refusal to allow amendment of an information does not preclude the prosecution from filing new informations against persons not previously charged. The SC applied this to uphold Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674 notwithstanding the earlier denial of the motion to amend.

• "La inclusion de dos acusados y la adicion de las palabras: 'by conspiring, confederating and helping one another' en la querella enmendada es una enmienda de forma. En la primera querella se acusa al recurrente de autor y en la enmendada de coautor pero su responsabilidad es la misma en ambas. El cambio solo se refiere a la forma de ejecucion del delito; pero no a la sustancia del delito mismo. La forma de ejecucion es mas bien materia de pruebas y no de algaciones, y los detalles alegados en la querella enmendada pudieron haberse probado bajo la querella original." — Quoted from Regala vs. CFI, this is the canonical formulation of the rule that adding co-accused and a conspiracy allegation is a formal amendment.
• "The fact that the trial court denied the motion of the prosecution to amend the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 was no bar to the filing of the new informations." — The entirety of the SC's holding on the second issue.
• "The allegation in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674 filed against Luis Padilla and Magsikap Ongchenco that the two conspired and confederated with Sixto Ruiz merely describe the fact that the latter was already charged with the same offense." — Explains why the conspiracy allegation does not convert Ruiz into a defendant in the new informations.
• "Thus, inasmuch as Ruiz is not a defendant in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674, he can not file a motion to quash the same. He has no personality or standing in said cases and, therefore, it was improper for him to have filed the motion to quash." — The ruling on standing, stated in its operative terms.

• Regala vs. CFI, 77 Phil. 684 — Controlling precedent; the SC adopted its ruling that the inclusion of co-accused and the addition of a conspiracy allegation in an amended information is a mere amendment of form, and applied it to hold that the amendment of Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 should have been allowed.

• Justice Vasquez (Concurring) — Concurred in the result but observed that the complications in the case could have been avoided had the trial judge granted, as he should have, the motion of Special Prosecutor Lopez to amend the two informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 4747 and 4748 so as to include Padilla and Ongchenco as co-accused of Ruiz in conspiracy with him, since the effect would be the same as the result upheld in the main opinion if all the cases were consolidated for joint trial.