[31] BUHAT v.
CA
G.R. No. 119601; December 17, 1996; Hermosisima, J.
TOPIC: Sufficiency of the Complaint/Information; name of the accused [Rule 110,
Sec. 7]
SUMMARY
An information for homicide was charged against Danny Buhat, John Doe,
and Richard Doe. Before the arraignment, the prosecution moved for
deferment on the ground that the private complainant [Betty Yu] moved for
the reconsideration of the resolution of the City Prosecutor which ordered the
filing of the aforementioned information for homicide. The petitioner, however,
invoking his right to a speedy trial, opposed the motion. Thus, petitioner was
arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued. DOJ Sec. Franklin M. Drilon
found Betty Yu’s appeal meritorious and ordered the City Prosecutor to
amend the information by upgrading the offense charged to murder and
implead additional accused. RTC: denied the motion for leave to amend
information; contending that the proposed amendment was prejudicial; CA:
amendment is not prejudicial; SC: affirmed CA; the insertion of the real name
of the accused after being identified is only a formal amendment that doesn’t
prejudice any of the accused’s rights.
DOCTRINE
The 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. Such is only a formal
amendment and one that does not prejudice any of the accused's rights.
RELEVANT PROVISION(S)
RULE 110, SEC. 7. Name of the accused. — The complaint or information
must state the name and surname of the accused or any appellation or
nickname by which he has been or is known. If his name cannot be
ascertained, he must be described under a fictitious name with a statement
that his true name is unknown. If the true name of the accused is thereafter
disclosed by him or appears in some other manner to the court, such true
name shall be inserted in the complaint or information and record. (7a)
FACTS
 An information for homicide was filed in the RTC against Danny Buhat, John
Doe, and Richard Doe.
o Alleging that Buhat, armed with a knife, unlawfully attacked and
killed Ramon Yu, while the said unknown assailants held his arms,
using superior strength, inflicting mortal wounds which caused 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.
o 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, Osmea Altavas and
Renato Buhat.
 On March 10, 1994, the Assistant City Prosecutor filed a motion for leave to
amend information.
o The amendment as proposed was opposed by the petitioner. From
homicide to murder; additional defendants were impleaded.
o By then, 2 witnesses had been presented by the prosecution.
 In an order, dated June 2, 1994, the RTC denied the motion for leave to
amend information.
o The denial was premised on:
1. An invocation of the trial courts discretion in disregarding
the opinion of the Secretary of Justice as allegedly held
in Crespo v. 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.
 SOLGEN appealed to the CA, contending that the proposed amendment was
not prejudicial, and was granted. Hence this petition.
ISSUE(S)/HELD
[1] W/N the upgrading of the crime charged from homicide to murder is so
substantial that it is proscribed after the accused has already pleaded. – NO
 The Court ruled that the additional allegation of conspiracy is only a formal
amendment, petitioner's participation as principal not having been affected by
such amendment.
o Petitioner’s argument: inclusion of additional defendants in the
information on the ground of conspiracy "is a substantial
amendment which is prohibited by Sec. 14, Rule 110 because the
allegation of conspiracy is a substantial amendment saddling the
petitioner with the need of a new defense to meet the new
situation.”
o This jurisprudential rule invoked by the petitioner has an exception,
where an amendment after plea constitutes a mere formal
amendment that is permissible, and is not prejudicial to the rights
of the accused and is proper even after a plea of not guilty to the
original information.
 o The exception is when the accused’s participation as principal in not change the theory of the prosecution nor does it
the crimes did not change—there is no change in the prosecutor’s introduce any new and material fact.
theory that the accused was the one who principally committed the  In fact, it is to be expected that the information has to be
crime. amended as the unknown participants in the crime
o The addition of the phrase “conspiring, confederating, and helping became known to the public prosecutor.
one another” does not change the nature of Buhat’s participation
as principal in the killing. RULING
[2: RELEVANT PORTION] WON the insertion of the real name of the accused after
being identified is only a formal amendment that doesn’t prejudice any of the DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The City
accused’s rights. – YES Prosecutor of Roxas City is HEREBY ORDERED to let the correct Amended Information
 The changing of “John Doe” to “Renato Buhat” after being identified is only a fully in accordance with the findings of fact set forth in the Resolution of the Secretary
formal amendment that doesn’t prejudice any of the accused’s rights. It of Justice.
involves merely a matter of form and does not deprive the accused of a fair
opportunity to present a defense.
o It is even to be expected that the information is to be amended as
the unknown participants in the crime became known to the public
prosecutor.
 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.
o 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.
o 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 help 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, Osmea Altavas and Renato Buhat would be
placed in double jeopardy by virtue of said amendment.
o 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.
o 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, is only a formal
amendment and one that does not prejudice any of the accused's
rights.
o 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