Buhat vs CA
265 SCRA 701
December 17,1996
Hermossisima;
Quick Facts: An information for Homicide was filed against Danny Buhat. After
arraignment and plea of not guilty, the Secreatary of Justice granted the appeal
and ordered the hief prosecutor to amend the information upgrading the offense to
MURDER and implead additional accused.
Facts:
 On March 25, 1993, an information for HOMICIDE was filed in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) against petitioner Danny Buhat, "John Doe" and
"Richard Doe".
 The information alleged that on October 16, 1992, petitioner Danilo Buhat,
armed with a knife, unlawfully attacked and killed one Ramon George Yu
while the said two unknown assailants held his arms, "using superior
strength, inflicting x x x mortal wounds which were x x x the direct x x x
cause of his death."
 Even before petitioner could be arraigned, the prosecution moved for
the deferment of the arraignment on the ground that the private
complainant in the case, one Betty Yu, moved for the reconsideration of
the resolution of the City Prosecutor which ordered the filing of the
aforementioned information for homicide.
 Petitioner however, invoking his right to a speedy trial, opposed the
motion.
 Thus, petitioner was arraigned on June 9, 1993 and, since petitioner
pleaded "not guilty", trial ensued.
 On February 3, 1994, then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon,
finding Betty Yu's appeal meritorious, ordered the City Prosecutor
of Roxas City "to amend the information by upgrading the offense
charged to MURDER and implead therein additional accused Herminia
Altavas, Osmeña Altavas and Renato Buhat."
 Amendent information:
"The undersigned assistant City Prosecutor accuses DANNY
BUHAT, of Capricho II, Barangay V, Roxas City, Philippines.
HERMINIA ALTAVAS AND OSMEÑA ALTAVAS both resident' of
Punta Tabuc, Roxas City, Philippines, of the crime of Murder,
committed as follows:
That on or about the l6th day of October, 1992, in the City of
Roxas, Philippines, the above-named accused, Danny Buhat
armed with a knife, conspiring, confederating and helping one
another, did and then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously [sic] without justifiable motive and with intent to kill,
attack, stab and injure one RAMON GEORGE YU, while the two
other accused held the arms of the latter, thus using superior
strength, inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which
were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage
and prejudice of the heirs of said Ramon George Yu in such
amount as maybe [sic] awarded to them by the court under the
provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
 The prosecution had by then already presented at least two witnesses.
 In an order,6 dated June 2, 1994, the RTC denied the motion for leave
to amend information. The denial was premised on (1) an invocation of
the trial court's discretion in disregarding the opinion of the Secretary of
Justice as allegedly held in Crespo vs. Mogul and (2) a conclusion reached
by the trial court that the resolution of the inquest prosecutor is more
persuasive than that of the Secretary of Justice, the former having actually
conducted the preliminary investigation "where he was able to observe the
demeanor of those he investigated
 The Solicitor General promptly elevated the matter to the Court of
Appeals. He filed a petition for certiorari assailing the aforecited order
denying the motion for leave to amend information.
 COURT OF APPEALS: -allowed the amendment of information from
homicide to murder, and the inclusion of Herminia Altavas and Osmeña
Altavas as additional accused. (Finding the proposed amendment as
nonprejudicial to petitioner's rights, respondent court granted the petition
for certiorari in a decision, dated March 28, 1995.)
Issues:
1. WON the additional allegation o conspiracy is a substantial amendment. NO
2. WON the upgrading of the crime charged from homicide to the more
serious offense of murder is such a substantial amendment that it is
disallowed if made after the accused had pleaded "not guilty" to the crime
of homicide.
Held/Ratio: NO
1. On the additional allegation of conspiracy
 The additional allegation of conspiracy is only a formal amendment,
petitioner's participation as principal not having been affected by
such amendment
 General rule: the allegation of conspiracy among all the private
respondents accused, which was not previously included in the original
information, is x x x a substantial amendment saddling the respondents
with the need of a new defense in order to meet a different situation in the
trial court(people vs Montenegro)
 Exception: where an amendment after plea resulting in the inclusion of an
allegation of conspiracy and in the indictment of some other persons in
 addition to the original accused, constitutes a mere formal amendment
permissible even after arraignment(people vs. Zulueta)
 The aforegoing principle, by way of exception to the general rule, also
appositely applies in the present controversy
 Petitioner undoubtedly is charged as a principal in the killing of
Ramon George Yu whom petitioner is alleged to have stabbed while two
unknown persons held the victim's arms. The addition of the phrase,
"conspiring, confederating and helping one another" does not
change the nature of petitioner's participation as principal in the
killing.
 Whether under the original or the amended information, petitioner would
have to defend himself as the People makes a case against him and
secures for public protection the punishment of petitioner for stabbing to
death, using superior strength, a fellow citizen in whose health and safety
society as a whole is interested. Petitioner, thus, has no tenable basis to
decry the amendment in question.
 Furthermore, neither may the amendment in question be struck down on
the ground that Herminia Altavas, Osmeña Altavas and Renato Buhat
would be placed in double jeopardy by virtue of said amendment. In the
first place, no first jeopardy can be spoken of insofar as the Altavases are
concerned since the first information did not precisely include them as
accused therein. In the second place, the amendment to replace the
name, "John Doe" with the name of Renato Buhat who was found by the
Secretary of Justice to be one of the two persons who held the arms of the
victim while petitioner was stabbing him,18 is only a formal amendment
and one that does not prejudice any of the accused's rights.
 Such amendment to insert in the information the real name of the accused
involves merely a matter of form as it does not, in any way, deprive any of
the accused of a fair opportunity to present a defense; neither is the nature
of the offense charged affected or altered since the revelation of accused's
real name does not change the theory of the prosecution nor does it
introduce any new and material fact.19 In fact, it is to he expected that the
information has to be amended as the unknown participants in the crime
became known to the public prosecutor
2. On the amendment of the name of the crime to MURDER.
 "Abuse of superior strength" having already been alleged in the original
information charging homicide, the amendment of the name of the
crime to murder, constitutes a mere formal amendment permissible
even after arraignment
 In the case of Dimalibot v. Salcedo,we ruled that the amendment of the
information so as to change the crime charged from homicide to murder,
may be made "even if it may result in altering the nature of the charge so
long as it can be done without prejudice to the rights of the accused."
 At the outset, the main consideration should be whether or not the accused
had already made his plea under the original information, for this is the
index of prejudice to, and the violation of, the rights of the accused.
 The question as to whether the changing of the crime charged from
homicide to the more serious offense of murder is a substantial
amendment proscribed after the accused had pleaded "not guilty" to the
crime of homicide was, it should be noted, categorically answered in
the affirmative by us in the case of Dionaldo v. Dacuycuy.
 The said case(Dacuycuy) however, differs from the case at bench because
the facts herein sustain a contrary holding. As pointed out by the Court of
Appeals:
"x x x the original Information, while only mentioning homicide, alleged:
Danny Buhat, John Doe and Richard Doe as the accused; [sic] of Danny
Buhat stabbing the deceased Ramon while his two other companions were
holding the arms of Ramon, thus, 'the Information already alleged superior
strength'; and inflicting mortal wounds which led to the death of Ramon.
Superior strength qualifies the offense to murder (Article 248).
 Before us, the Information already alleged superior strength, and the
additional allegation that the deceased was stabbed by Buhat while the
arms of the former were being held by the two other accused, referring to
John Doe and Richard Doe....
 If the killing is characterized as having been committed by superior
strength, then to repeat, there is murder
 Also the case of Dacuycuy was mentioned, as a justification for not
allowing change of designation from homicide to murder, but then the body
of the Information in the Dacuycuy ruling did not allege averments which
qualifies [sic] the offense of murder. The case before us instead is different
in that the Information already alleges that Buhat attacked the deceased
while his two other companions held him by the aims, 'using superior
strength.' x x x We would even express the possibility that if supported by
evidence, Buhat and the Altavases could still be penalized for murder even
without changing the designation from homicide to murder, precisely
because of aforementioned allegations. The proposed change of the word
from homicide to murder, to us, is not a substantial change that should be
prohibited
 In the matter of amending a criminal information, what is primarily
guarded against is the impairment of the accused's right to
intelligently know the nature of the charge against him. This right
has been guaranteed the accused under all Philippine
Constitutions26 and incorporated in Section 1 (b), Rule 115, of the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
 From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, it is of no concern to
the accused what is the technical name of the crime of which he stands
charged. It in no way aids him in a defense on the merits x x x. That to
which his attention should be directed, and in which he, above all things
else, should be most interested, are the facts alleged.
 The real question is not did he commit a crime given in the law some
technical and specific name, but did he perform the acts alleged in the
 body of the information in the matter therein set forth. If he did, it is of no Verily, the statement of facts in the Information or Amended Information must
consequence to him, either as a matter of procedure or of substantive right conform with the findings of fact in the preliminary investigation (in this case, as
how the law denominates the crime which those acts constitute. The reviewed by the Secretary of Justice) so as to make it jibe with the evidence x x x
designation of the crime by name in the caption of the information from to be presented at the trial x x x.
the facts alleged in the body of that pleading is a conclusion of law made
by the fiscal x x x. For his full and complete defense he need not know the Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The City
name of the crime at all. It is of no consequence whatever for the Prosecutor of Roxas City is HEREBY ORDERED to file the correct Amended
protection of his substantial rights. Information fully in accordance with the findings of fact set forth in the Resolution of
 The real and important question to him is, 'Did you perform the the Secretary of Justice, dated February 3, 1994, and in disregard of the finding of
acts alleged in the manner alleged?' not, 'Did you commit a crime the Court of Appeals in its Decision, dated March 28, 1995, in CA-G.R. SP No. 3 55
named murder?' If he performed the acts alleged, in the manner stated, 54 to the effect that "Danny Buhat and Renato Buhat are one and the same
the law determines what the name of the crime is and fixes the penaly person."
therefor. It is the province of the court alone to say what the crime is or
what it is named. If the accused performed the acts alleged in the manner
alleged, then he ought to be punished and punished adequately, whatever
may be the name of the crime which those acts constitute.
 The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption
or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision
of the law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law
which in no way affect the legal aspects of the information, but from the
actual recital of facts as alleged in the body of the information.
 Petitioner in the case at bench maintains that having already pleaded "not
guilty" to the crime of homicide, the amendment of the crime charged in
the information from homicide to murder is a substantial amendment
prejudicial to his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation
against him. He utterly fails to dispute, however, that the original
information did allege that petitioner stabbed his victim "using
superior strength." And this particular allegation qualifies a killing
to murder, regardless of how such a killing is technically
designated in the information filed by the public prosecutor.

NOTE:

On another aspect, we find merit in the manifestation of the Solicitor General to the
effect that the respondent Court of Appeals erroneously supposed that petitioner
and Renato Buhat are one and the same person, hence the non-inclusion of Renato
Buhat as additional accused in its order allowing the amendment of the
information.38 We also agree with the observation of the Solicitor General that the
amended information filed in this case still fails to embody the correct identity of all
of the persons found to be indictable in the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice.
Explained the Solicitor General:

"In its Decision under review, the Court of Appeals erroneously supposed that
Danny Buhat and Renato Buhat are one and the same person (CA Decision, 1st
par.). This, however, is not correct because Danny Buhat and Renato Buhat are, in
fact, brothers. Moreover, it was not Osmeña Altavas and his wife Herminia Altavas
who held the arms of the victim while Danny Buhat stabbed him.