Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c1c7c?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[BRUNO AREVALO v. RICARDO NEPOMUCENO](https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c1c7c?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c1c7c}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 45332, Oct 27, 1936 ]

BRUNO AREVALO v. RICARDO NEPOMUCENO +

DECISION

63 Phil. 627

[ G. R. No. 45332, October 27, 1936 ]

BRUNO AREVALO AND CECILIO AREVALO, PETITIONERS, VS. RICARDO NEPOMUCENO, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA ECIJA, AND THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF NUEVA ECIJA RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

AVANCEƃ'A, C.J.:

In the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, an information for the crime of murder was filed against Bruno Arevalo and Cecilio Arevalo, alleging that Bruno was armed with a knife and  Cecilio with a revolver.  After the accused had pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, and  upon proceeding with the trial of the case on the day fixed therefor, a witness was  presented who testified that it was Bruno who carried the revolver and Cecilio, the knife.  Alleging that according to the information it was Bruno who carried the knife and  Cecilio the revolver, the attorney for the defense "filed an objection to said testimony.  The court stated that if the  fiscal  did  not amend the information,  it would sustain the  objection.  The fiscal filed an amended information alleging  that it was Bruno who carried the revolver and Cecilio the knife.   The court admitted said amendment Bruno and Cecilio Arevalo, the petitioners in this  case, who are the accused in said information, filed this petition for certiorari and ask that the resolution so rendered be declared null and void on the  ground that  the  court exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion in permitting the  amendment to the information.

We are of the opinion that the court did not abuse its discretion.  The amendment to the information was merely a matter of form.   It neither affects nor alters the nature of the crime because, whether it be Bruno or Cecilio who inflicted the mortal wound,  the crime  would be the same. Neither does it affect the extent of the liability of the appellants because, it being alleged in the information that both accused conspired and helped each other to commit the crime, they  would be liable  to the same extent, whoever inflicted the wound which resulted in the death of the deceased.  Therefore, it is purely  an amendment of form which does not substantially alter the information nor affect the rights  of the accused.

The petition is denied, with the costs to the petitioners. So ordered.

Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, and Laurel, JJ., concur.

tags