THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ALFREDO C. REYES, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, AND FRANCISCO ESTRELLA, RESPOND…

Petitioner, by way of certiorari, with prayer for
preliminary injunction, questions as alleged grave abuse of discretion, the
order^[1]
dated July 10, 1970, of the
respondent Judge, (Hon. Alfredo C. Reyes of the Circuit Criminal Court, 4th
Judicial District, Cabanatuan
City) in Criminal Case No.
CCC-IV-170-NE, entitled “The People of the Philippines
versus Francisco Estrella,”
which denied petitioner’s verbal motion for the amendment of the information in
said case, by deleting the year “1969” as alleged therein, and in
lieu thereof to put the year “1964”. 
Respondent Judge anchored his denial of the verbal motion on, to wit:

“After a careful study of both memoranda in support and
against the said motion, this Court finds and so hold that the amendment to the
information cannot be made without pre­judice to the substantial rights of the
accused in the above-entitled case.

“WHEREFORE, the motion to amend the information is hereby
denied in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
People vs. Placido Opemia,
et al., 98 Phil. 698. x x x.

“SO ORDERED.”^[2]

Petitioner also assails the order of respondent Court, dated September 14, 1970,^[3]
denying its motion for reconsideration^[4]
of the July 10, 1970 order.

This Court issued a preliminary injunction on September 24, 1970.^[5]

Pertinent facts of record are:

Sometime in October, an information for qualified theft was filed
against private respondent Francisco Estrella and
three others, as Criminal Case No. 6799, in the Municipal Court of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, pertinent portion as
follows:

“The undersigned Asst. Provincial Fiscal accuses Narciso Mananing, Florentino Alcantara, Francisco Estrella, and Melecio Guevarra of the crime of Qualified Theft, committed as
follows:

“That in the month of August, 1964, in the municipality
of San Jose, province of Nueva Ecija,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above
named accused Narciso Mananing,
being the driver of complainant Maria Ignacio-Francisco, Florentino
Alcantara, repair shop owner where the truck
hereinafter described was found and recovered, Francisco Estrella,
a Philippine Constabulary soldier stationed at Bulacan,
and Melecio Guevarra, all
conspiring together, without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof,
take, steal and carry away one (1) Bedford truck with Chassis No. 153559, with
Motor No. 2/54/5/6, with Plate No. T-35049, Series of 1964, to the damage and
prejudice of the owner, Maria Ignacio-Francisco in the amount of P23,000.00,
value of said vehicle.”^[6]

On November 15, 1969,
the Acting City Fiscal of San Jose City, (converted into city) Nueva Ecija, filed an information
(Crim. Case No. CCC-IV-170) with the respondent
Court, charging private respondent Francisco Estrella
and three others, with qualified theft, as follows:

“The undersigned Acting City Fiscal accuses Narciso Mananing, Florentino Alcan­tara, Francisco Estrella, and Melecio Guevarra of the crime of Qualified Theft, committed as
follows:

“That on or about the month of August, 1969 in the City
of San Jose, Republic of the Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named
accused Narciso Mananing,
being then the driver of Bed­ford truck bearing Plate No. T-35049, Series of
1964, with Chassis No. 153559, and with a Motor No. 2/54/5/6 owned by Maria
Ignacio-Francisco, conspiring and confederating together with his co-accused
namely:  Florentino
Alcantara, Francisco Estrella,
and Melecio Guevarra, and
with intent to gain, with grave abuse of confidence, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry
away the said Bedford truck valued at Twenty Three Thousand Pesos (P23,000.00)
Philippine Currency and dismantled the same with­out the consent of the
said owner and to her damage and prejudice of the said sum of P23,000.00.”^[7]

On January 28, 1970,
private respondent Francisco Estrella was arraigned,
and he pleaded not guilty.  During the
arraignment, respondent Judge required his clerk to read the information to
Francisco Estrella. 
The court interpreter was directed to translate the information into Tagalog for the benefit of the accused.  The prosecution, although represented, made
no move to amend the informa­tion, if indeed it was really erroneous.  From January
28, 1970, up to May 21,
1970, the latter date being the scheduled trial of the case, the
prosecution never moved to amend the information.^[8]

On May 21, 1970
when the prosecution was scheduled to present its evidence, it verbally moved
that it be allowed to amend the information^[9]
so as to change the date of the commission of the offense from “August
1969” to “August 1964.”^[10]
Private respondent Francisco Estrella, having come to
the trial court ready to defend himself from an offense allegedly committed in “August 1969”, vigorously
objected to the verbal motion.^[11]

Respondent Judge withheld his ruling on the prosecution’s motion
to amend, and instead, required the prosecution to present its first witness,
to determine whether the sought amendment in the information would constitute a
change of substance affecting the rights of the accused or merely of form.^[12]

Florentino Alcantara,
originally a co-accused but discharged as a prosecution witness, testified that
the offense was committed in 1964.  The
defense refused to cross-examine witness Alcantara,
asked respondent Court to strike off the testimony of Alcantara
because it referred to an offense not mentioned in the information, and asked
for a ruling by respondent Court on the prosecution’s verbal motion to amend
the information.^[13]

Respondent Judge required the prosecution and the defense to
submit memoranda.  The contested order of
July 22, 1970, deny­ing the
prosecution’s verbal motion to amend information on the ground that said
amendment would prejudice the substantial rights of the accused was issued by
respondent Court.^[14]

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned
contested order alleged that time was not a material ingredient of the offense
of qualified theft and claimed that the case of Placido
Opemia, et al., 98 Phil. 698, relied upon by the
trial court for its denial of the motion to amend information, was not
applicable to the case.^[15]

The respondent Court, denied the petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, in its order of September 14, 1970,^[16]
stating that the prosecution’s honest mistake in the information filed cannot
prevail over the substantial rights of the accused based on constitutional
provisions.  Hence this petition.

The principal issue before this Court is whether or not the
respondent Court abused its discretion when it refused an amendment to the
information filed in Criminal Case No. CCC-IV-170- NE, to change the date of
the alleged commission of the offense from “August 1969” to
“August 1964”, on the ground it would cons­titute an impairment of
the substantial rights of the accused as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Under Section 13, Rule 110, Rules of Court, the complaint or
information in a criminal case where the accused had been arraigned and had
pleaded, as in this case, may be amended only as to all matters of form when
the same can be done without
prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused.

As to whether or not a sought for amendment of an information to
change the time of the alleged commission of crime from 1969 to 1964 (period of
five years) would prejudice the substantial rights of the accused after his
arraignment and plea, this Court ruled in the case of People vs. Placido
Opemia, et al., 98 Phil. 698, that:

“In the case at bar, the proof shows that the carabao was lost on July 25, 1947, and not on June 18,
1952, as alleged in the information.  The
period of almost five years between 1947 and 1952 covers such a long stretch of
time that one cannot help but be led to believe that another theft different
from that committed by the defendants in 1952 was also perpetrated by them in
1947.  Under this impression the accused,
who came to Court prepared to face a charge of theft of large cattle allegedly
committed by them in 1952, were certainly caught by sudden surprise upon being
confronted by evidence tending to prove a similar offense committed in
1947.  The variance is certainly unfair
to them, for it violates their constitutional rights to be in­formed before the
trial of the specific charge against them and deprives them of the opportunity
to defend themselves.  Moreover, they
cannot be convicted of an offense of which they were not charged.”

In the present case, private respondent Francisco Estrella was investigated for an offense allegedly
committed in August of 1964.  Then, he was
charged for an offense allegedly committed in August of 1969.  He
pleaded not guilty to the latter charge. 
Now petitioner desires to put him on trial for the alleged 1964
offense.  This cannot legally be done.

The petitioner’s argument that the time or date of the commission
of the offense is not a material ingredient of the crime of qualified theft
cannot be given much weight in this case because the disparity of time between
the years 1964 and 1969 is so great as to defy approximation in the commission
of one and the same offense.  While it
has been held that except when time is a material ingredient of an offense, the
precise time of commission need not be stated in the information, this Court
stated that this does not mean that the prosecuting officer may be careless
about fixing the date of the alleged crime, or that he may omit the date
altogether, or that he may make the allegation so indefinite as to amount to
the same thing.^[17]
The prosecution is given the chance to allege an approximation of time of the
commission of the offense and the precise date need not be stated but it does
not mean that it can prove any date remote or far removed from the given
approximate date so as to surprise and prejudice the accused.

What happened in this case is that the petitioner committed a
mistake in the placing of the date of the alleged crime in the information
filed.  During the arraignment and plea
of private respondent Francisco Estrella on January 28, 1970, the prosecution had
all the chances to realize and rectify its mistake.  It did not do so.  The trial of the accused was set for May 21, 1970.  Petitioner therefore, had more than three
months to take steps.  Again, it failed
to do so.  Finally, petitioner verbally
moved to amend the information only at the start of the trial.  To permit petitioner to do so would surprise
the accused and prejudice his substantial rights.

WHEREFORE, the questioned orders dated July 10, 1970 and September 14, 1970, by respondent Judge are hereby
AFFIRMED, the preliminary injunction issued on September 24, 1970 dissolved, and this petition
DISMISSED for lack of merit.  Without
costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernandez, Abad Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Barredo (Chairman), J., concurs, but believes this
decision cannot bar another prosecution of private respondent under another
information charging theft committed in 1964.

^[1]
p. 9, rollo.

^[2]
Ibid.

^[3]
pp. 16-18, rollo.

^[4]
pp. 10-16, Id.

^[5]
p. 21, Id.

^[6]
Underscored for emphasis; p. 8, Id.

^[7]
Underscored for emphasis; p. 6, Id.

^[8]
pp. 74-75, Id.

^[9]
p. 6, Id.

^[10]
p. 62, Id.

^[11]
p. 75, Id.

^[12]
pp. 62, 76, Id.

^[13]
p. 76, Id.

^[14]
p. 9, Id.

^[15]
pp. 10-15, Id.

^[16]
pp. 16-18, Id.

^[17]
U.S. vs.
Dichao, 27 Phil. 421, 426.