G.R. No. L-32557 October 23, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. ALFREDO C. REYES as Presiding Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court, Fourth Judicial District, and FRANCISCO ESTRELLA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Francisco Estrella was initially charged in a municipal court with qualified theft allegedly committed in August 1964. Subsequently, an information was filed before the Circuit Criminal Court charging the same offense but alleging its commission in August 1969. Estrella was arraigned on this 1969 information and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution did not seek to amend the information at the arraignment. It was only on the day of trial, May 21, 1970, that the prosecution verbally moved to amend the information by changing the year of commission from “1969” to “1964.” The defense objected, arguing prejudice. The trial court heard testimony from a discharged co-accused, Florentino Alcantara, who stated the theft occurred in 1964. The defense moved to strike this testimony as it referred to a crime not charged. The respondent judge then required memoranda and subsequently denied the motion to amend, holding it would prejudice the substantial rights of the accused, citing People v. Opemia. A motion for reconsideration was also denied.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the prosecution’s motion to amend the information to change the date of the alleged offense from August 1969 to August 1964.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the protection of the accused’s substantial rights against surprise and prejudice. While time is generally not a material ingredient of the crime of qualified theft, the prosecution is not permitted to allege an approximate date and then prove a date so remote as to prejudice the accused. The disparity between 1964 and 1969 is too great, constituting a substantive amendment that alters the theory of the prosecution. The accused had already pleaded to a charge alleging 1969 and prepared his defense accordingly. Allowing the amendment at the trial stage would fundamentally surprise him. The prosecution had multiple opportunities to correct its error: during the preliminary proceedings in the municipal court (which cited 1964), at the arraignment on January 28, 1970, and in the months leading to the trial. Its failure to act diligently until the trial date justified the denial. The ruling in People v. Opemia, which prohibits amendments prejudicial to the accused’s rights, was correctly applied. The orders were affirmed, and the petition was dismissed.