Leticia I. Kummer vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 174461, September 11, 2013; per Brion, J.

Facts

An information was filed against petitioner Leticia Kummer and her son, Johan, a minor, for homicide. According to the prosecution's evidence, on June 19, 1988 Jesus Mallo, the victim, accompanied by Amiel Malana went to the house of Kummer. When Kummer opened the door, her son Johan shot Mallo twice.

The prosecution filed an information for homicide on January 12, 1989 against the petitioner and Johan. Both accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. They waived the pre-trial, and the trial on the merits accordingly followed.

Meanwhile, the prosecutor made some amendment in the date of the complaint that was from July 19, 1988 to June 19, 1988, or a difference of only one month.

Both RTC and Court of Appeals found both the petitioner and Johan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Petitioner questioned the sufficiency of prosecution’s evidence. She claimed that she was not arraigned on the amended information for which she was convicted.

Issue

Whether or not the change in the date of commission of crime requires formal amendment of complaint

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the change in the date of the commission of the crime, where the disparity is not great, is merely a formal amendment, thus, no arraignment is required.

The records of the case evidently show that the amendment in the complaint was from July 19, 1988 to June 19, 1988, or a difference of only one month. It is clear that consistent with the rule on amendments and the jurisprudence, the change in the date of the commission of the crime of homicide is a formal amendment— it does not change the nature of the crime, does not affect the essence of the offense nor deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment, and is not prejudicial to the accused.