52. Soberano v.

People
GR No.154629 | October 5, 2005 | Chico-Nazario, J.
Ryan | Amendment/Downgrading & Substitution of Information

Doctrine: ​An amendment of the information made before plea which excludes some or one of the accused
must be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court
in compliance with Section 14, Rule 110. It does not qualify the grounds for the exclusion of the accused. It
applies in equal force when the ​exclusion is sought on the usual ground of lack of probable cause​, or
when it is for utilization of the accused as state witness​ or on some other ground.

Facts:
1. PR practicioner Salvador Dacer and his driver, Emmanuel Corbito, were abducted along Zobel Roxas
St. in Manila.
2. Their charred remains (burnt bodies, metal dental plates, and a ring) were found in Brgy. Buna Lejos,
Indang, Cavite. They were positively identified by their dentists and forensic pathologists. The deaths
were determined to be caused by ​strangulation​.
3. Preliminary investigation was conducted by the DOJ and later, an information was filed with the RTC of
Manila charging several people (including SPO4 Soberano and other policemen) with ​double murder​.
4. On May 23, 2001, the prosecution filed a ​Motion to Admit Amended Information which was granted.
The Amended Information added: “abduct SALVADOR (Bubby) DACER and EMMANUEL CORBITO at
the corner of Osmeña Highway (formerly South Super Highway) and Zobel Roxas Street in Manila, and
later brought them to Indang, Cavite,”
5. Soberano and others moved to ​quash the information​. This was denied.
6. P/Supt. Glen Dumlao (an accused who was at-large at the start) was arrested and implicated new
police officers to the murder in a sworn statement.
7. June 18, 2001: Accused P/Insp. Danilo Villanueva (part of original accused) filed a ​Motion for
Reinvestigation ​asserting that he was mistakenly identified. It was an SPO3 Allan Villanueva and not
him who was previously identified. It was granted. The Prosecution also filed the same due to Dumlao’s
statement. It was granted and the prosecution was given 20 days to present their findings.
8. Another ​manifestation and motion to admit amended information ​was filed by the prosecution. The
Amended Information:
a. Discharged Jimmy and William Lopez, Alex Diloy, and Glen Dumlao as they were now state
witnesses
b. Substituted SPO3 Allan Villanueva for Danilo Villanueva
c. Charged Aquino, Mancao II, and Vina as additional accused
9. Soberano et al. opposed the motion and prayed for its denial as well as the denial of the discharge of
the aforementioned state witnesses
10. The Motion to Admit Amended Information was denied. The prosecution’s MR was denied as well.
11. The prosecution moved to inhibit Judge Ponferrada and the case was re-raffled to Branch 18, RTC
Manila presided by Judge Laguio.
12. January 4, 2002: prosecution filed a special civil action for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a
TRO before the SC praying for the ​annulment of Ponferrada’s orders and that Judge Laguio be
restrained from proceeding with the case in accordance with the said orders. It was referred to the CA
for proper action.
13. CA: granted the petition and ordered the admission of the new amended information (except Dumlao
was not discharged).
14. Soberano filed an MR = denied. Hence, this instant petition for review with prayer for TRO was filed by
Soberano, Torres, and Escalante.
15. They argue that the CA erred in applying Section 14 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
on amendment of complaints. Instead, what should have been applied was ​Section 17 of Rule 119 on the
discharge of an accused as witness for the state​. The petitioners further aver that even if it is only a
simple discharge under Section 14 of Rule 110, it is still necessary to seek prior leave of court. The
 prosecution simply filed an Amended Information excluding Jimmy and William Lopez, Alex Diloy and Glen
Dumlao, without prior leave of court, and moved for its admission.
Issue/s: Whether or not the CA erred in applying Sec. 14 of Rule 110 in allowing the discharge of accused
Diloy and the Lopez brothers. ​NO

Holding:
1. The CA held that Sec. 14 of Rule 110 and not Sec. 17 of Rule 119 was applicable.
2. The petitioners also argue that while the determination of who should be criminally charged is
essentially an executive function, the discharge of an accused when an Information had already been
filed lies with the court.
3. The petitioners assert that the Motion For Reinvestigation which was approved by the trial court is not
tantamount to a Motion For Leave to File an Amended Information as required under Section 14 of Rule
110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
4. Prosecution Rule 110 Sec. 14 should be applied:
a. While the case was already filed in court, the accused therein have not yet been arraigned;
b. The trial court ordered reinvestigation of the case
c. New evidence dictate the necessity to amend the Information to include new accused and to
exclude other accused who will be utilized as state witnesses.
5. What is involved here is ​an amendment of an information to exclude some of the accused and the
same is ​made before the plea​.
- Section 14, Rule 110 is applicable which means that the amendment should be made only upon
motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court.
- What complicates: exclusion is sought for the purpose of discharging him as a state witness
- Question to answer: Should the ​requirements for discharge of an accused as state witness
as set forth in Section 17, Rule 119 ​be made as additional requirements (i.e., Section 14,
Rule 110 and Section 17, Rule 119) or should only one provision apply as ruled by the trial
court and the Court of Appeals
6. An amendment of the information made before plea which excludes some or one of the accused must
be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court
in compliance with Section 14, Rule 110.
- S14R110: does not qualify the grounds for the exclusion of the accused. It ​applies in equal
force when the ​exclusion is sought on the usual ground of lack of probable cause​, or
when it is for utilization of the accused as state witness​ or on some other ground.
7. Section 17 Rule 119 ​does not yet come into play​. This is because t​he determination of who should
be criminally charged in court is essentially an executive function​, not a judicial one. The
executive has a duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed and part of this power is the right to
prosecute offenders.
8. By virtue of the trial court having granted the prosecution's motion for reinvestigation, the former is
deemed to have deferred to the authority of the prosecutorial arm of the Government​. Having
brought the case back to the drawing board, the ​prosecution is thus equipped with discretion —
wide and far reaching — regarding the disposition thereof.
9. Their discretion is not infinite, but they must satisfy for itself that an accused excluded from the
information for purposes of utilizing him as state witness is qualified therefor.
10. This is different for cases wherein the accused is ​retained ​in the information, but his discharge is
sought ​after ​before it rests its case. That is when Sec. 17, Rule 119 applies.
11. AS APPLIED: It is undisputed that the motion to admit amended information seeking the exclusion of
the accused was ​with notice to the offended party and was set for hearing​. The CA held that the
trial court's grant of the prosecution's motion for reinvestigation operates as leave of court to
amend the information​, if the situation so warrants.
- No impairment of rights of all the accused or the right to due process
- The trial court is with discretion to grant or deny the amendment of the information.
- The RTC erred in denying the motion to amend on the ground that it was violative of Sec. 17
Rule 119 without stating the reasons.
 12. The CA erred in ruling that Dumlao cannot be discharged on grounds of RA 6981. It only enumerates
the requirements to be admitted in the Witness Protection Program. It does not state that if one cannot
be admitted into the WPP, he cannot be discharged as a state witness.

Ruling:​ Affirmed, but modified and discharged Dumlao as well.

Relevant Provisions:

Section 14, Rule 110. Amendment or substitution. — A complaint or 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 the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done without
causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.

However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or excludes
any accused from the complaint or information, ​can be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with
notice to the offended party and with leave of court​. The court shall state its reasons in resolving the
motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended party.

Section 17, Rule 119 . Discharge of accused to be state witness. — When two or more persons are jointly
charged with the commission of any offense, ​upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case​, the
court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses
for the state when, after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each
proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge, the court is satisfied that:
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed,
except the testimony of said accused;
(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the court denies the
motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.