G.R. Nos. L-21528 and L-21529
March 28, 1969
ROSAURO REYES, petitioner,
vs. THE EOLE O! THE H"L""NES, respondent.
Jose F. Mañacop for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro and Solicitor Antonio M. Martinez for respondent. MA#AL"NTAL, J.:
This case is before us on appeal by certiorari , from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming affirming that a the municipal court of Cavite City, convicting Rosauro Reyes of the crimes of grave threats and grave oral defamation, and sentencing him, in the first case (Criminal Case No. 25!", to four (!" months and ten (#$" days of arresto mayor and to pay a fine of %&$$, 'ith subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and in the second case (Criminal Case No. 2 55", to an indeterminate penalty of from four (!" months of arresto mayor to to one (#" year and eight ()" months of prison of prison correccional and to pay Agustin *allare the sum of %)$$ as moral damages, 'ith costs in both cases. The petitioner herein, Rosauro Reyes, 'as a former civilian employee of the the Navy +change, -angley %oint, Cavite City, 'hose services 'ere terminated on ay /, #/#. 0n the afternoon of 1une /, #/#, he led a group of about 2$ to &$ persons in a demonstration staged in front of the main gate of the nited -tates Naval -tation at -angley %oint. They carried placards bearing statements such as, 3Agustin, mamatay 4a3 3To, 3To, alla boss con Nolan3 3ran4 do not be a common fun43 3Agustin, mamamatay 4a rin3 3Agustin, Nolan for you3 3Agustin alla bos con Nolan3 3Agustin, dillega, el dia di 6uida rin bo chi6uiting3 and others. The base commander, Capt. cAllister, cAllister, called up Col. %atricia on7on, 'ho as %hilippine ilitary 8iaison 9fficer at -angley %oint 'as in charge of preserving harmonious relations bet'een personnel of the naval station and the civilian population of Cavite City. Capt. Capt. cAllister re6uested Col. on7on to :oin h im at the main gate of the base to meet the demonstrators. Col. on7on 'ent to the place and tal4ed to Rosauro Reyes and one 8uis ;uenaventura upon learning that the demonstration 'as not directed against the naval station but against Agustin *allare and a certain ran4 Nolan for their having allegedly caused the dismissal of Rosauro Reyes from the Navy +change, Col. on7on suggested to them to demonstrate in front of *allare
'hile the other to led behind. After *allare and his companions had alighted in front of his residence at /> ;urgos -t., Cavite City, Col. on7on sped a'ay. The three :eeps carrying the demonstrators par4ed in front of *allare
9n the basis of the foregoing events Rosauro Reyes 'as charged on 1uly 2! and 25, #/# 'ith grave threats and grave oral defamation, respectively (Criminal Cases Nos. 25! and 255, unicipal Court of Cavite City", as follo's The undersigned City iscal of the City of Cavite accuses Rosauro Reyes of the crime of @rave Threats, as defined by Article 2)2 of the Revised %enal Code and penali7ed by paragraph 2 of the same Article, committed as follo's That on or about 1une /, #/#, in the City of Cavite, Republic of the %hilippines and 'ithin the :urisdiction of this *onorable Court, the above named accused, did then and there, 'illfully, unla'fully and feloniously, orally threaten to 4ill, one Agustin *allare. Contrary to la'. Cavite City, 1uly 2!, #/#. B+9@RAC0A- -. -980City iscal ; (-@B." ;+N N. @T0+RR+D -pecial Counsel The undersigned complainant, after being duly s'orn to an oath in accordance 'ith la', accuses Rosauro Reyes of the crime of @rave 9ral Befamation, as defined and penali7ed by Article &5) of the Revised %enal Code, committed as follo's That on or about 1une /, #/#, in the City of Cavite, Republic of the %hilippines and 'ithin the :urisdiction of this *onorable Court, the above named accused, 'ithout any :ustifiable motive but 'ith the intention to cause dishonor, discredit and contempt to the undersigned complainant, in the presence of and 'ithin hearing of several persons, did then and there, 'illfully, unla'fully and feloniously utter to the undersigned complainant the follo'ing insulting and serious defamatory remar4s, to 'it 3A@-0N, %TAN@ 0NA 93. 'hich if translated into +nglish are as follo's 3Agustin, our mother is a 'hore.3 Contrary to la'.
Cavite City, 1uly 25, #/#. (-@B." A@-T0N *A88AR+ Complainant -ubscribed and s'orn to before me this. 25th day of 1uly, #/#, in the City of Cavite, %hilippines. (-@B." ;+N N. @T0+RR+D -pecial Counsel pon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to both charges and the cases 'ere set for :oint trial. 9n the day of the hearing the prosecution moved to amend the information in Criminal Case No. 25! for grave threats by deleting therefrom the 'ord 3orally3. The defense counsel ob:ected to the motion on the ground that the accused had already been arraigned on the original information and that the amendment 3'ould affect materially the interest of the accused.3 Nevertheless, the amendment 'as allo'ed and the :oint trial proceeded. rom the :udgment of conviction the accused appeal to the Court of Appeals, 'hich returned a verdict of affirmance. A motion for reconsideration having been denied, the accused brought this appeal by certiorari . %etitioner avers that the Court of Appeals erred (#" in affirming the proceedings in the lo'er court allo'ing the substantial amendment of the information for grave threats after petitioner had been arraigned on the original i nformation (2" in proceeding 'ith the trial of the case of grave threats 'ithout first re6uiring petitioner to enter his ple a on the amended information (&" in convicting petitioner of both offenses 'hen he could legall y be convicted of only one offense, thereby putting him in :eopardy of being penali7ed t'ice for the same offense (!" in convicting petitioner of grave threats 'hen the evidence adduced and considered by the court tend to establish the offense of light threats only and (5" in convicting petitioner of grave oral defamation 'hen the evide nce tend to establish that of simple slander only. 9n the first error assigned, the rule is that after the accused has pleaded the information may be amended as to all matters of form b y leave and at the discretion of the court 'hen the same can be done 'ithout pre:udice to the rights of the defendant (-ection #&, Rule ##$, Ne' Rules of Court". Amendments that touch upon matters of substance cannot be permitted after the plea is entered. After a careful consideration of the original information, 'e find that all the elements of the crime of grave threats as defined in Article 2)2 # of the Revised %enal Code and penali7ed by its paragraph 2 'ere alleged therein namely (#" that the offender threatened another person 'ith the infliction upon his person of a 'rong (2" that such 'rong amounted to a crime and (&" that the threat 'as not sub:ect to a condition. *ence, petitioner could have been convicted thereunder. 0t is to be noted that under the aforementioned provision the particular manner in 'hich the threat is made not a 6ualifying ingredient of the offense, such that the deletion of the 'ord 3orally3 did not affect the nature and essence of the crime as charged originally. Neither did it change the basic theory of the prosecution that the accused threatened to 4ill Rosauro Re yes so as to re6uire the petitioner to
undergo any material change or modification in his defense. Contrary to his claim, made 'ith the concurrence of the -olicitor @eneral, petitioner 'as not eposed after the amendment to the danger of conviction under paragraph # of Article 2)2, 'hich provides for a different penalty, since there 'as no allegation in the amended information that the threat 'as made sub:ect to a condition. 0n our vie' the deletion of the 'ord 3orally3 'as effected in order to ma4e the information conformable to the evidence to be presented during the trial. 0t 'as merely a formal amendment 'hich in no 'ay pre:udiced petitioner
therein derogatory to the person named do not constitute an independent crime of libel, for 'hich the 'riter maybe prosecuted separately from the threats and 'hich should be considered as part of the more important offense of threats. The foregoing ruling applies 'ith e6ual force to the facts of the present case. =*+R+9R+, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and petitioner is ac6uitted, 'ith costs de oficio, insofar as Criminal Case No. 255 of the Court a #uo (for oral defamation" is concerned and affirmed 'ith respect to Criminal Case No. 25!, for grave threats, 'ith costs against petitioner. Concepcion, C.J., $eyes, J.%.&., 'izon, (aldi)ar, Santos, Sanchez, Fernando, *eehan+ee and %arredo, JJ., concur. Castro and Capistrano, JJ., too+ no part. !oo$no$%s # ART. 2)2. Gra)e threats. E Any person 'ho shall threaten another 'ith the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any 'rong amounting to a crime, shall suffer
#. The penalty net lo'er in degree than that prescribed by la' for the crime he threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unla'ful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. 0f the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lo'er by t'o degrees shall be imposed. 0f the threat made in 'riting or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its maimum period. 2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not eceeding 5$$ pesos, if the threat shall not have been made sub:ect to a condition. .-. vs. -evilla, # %hil. #!& .-. vs. %aguirigan, #! %hil. !5$.
2
