GR L 41077; (April, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-41077 April 28, 1983
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. LEO D. MEDIALDEA, and LILIA C. LOPEZ, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTO RUIZ, LUIS PADILLA and MAGSIKAP ONGCHENCO, respondents.
FACTS
Two informations for frustrated homicide were filed against Sixto Ruiz alone for a June 5, 1971 shooting incident. After a reinvestigation, the State Prosecutor moved to amend these original informations to include Luis Padilla and Magsikap Ongchenco as co-accuses, alleging conspiracy. The trial court denied the motion, deeming it a substantial amendment. Consequently, the prosecutor filed two new and separate informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674) solely against Padilla and Ongchenco. These new informations alleged that they conspired with Sixto Ruiz, who was referenced as the accused in the earlier pending cases.
Padilla and Ongchenco moved to quash the new informations, while Ruiz moved to strike out the conspiracy allegation referencing him. The trial court denied both motions. The respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which ruled in their favor. The CA annulled the trial court’s orders and directed the deletion of the conspiracy allegation implicating Ruiz from the new informations, holding that the trial judge abused his discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the trial court’s orders and in ordering the deletion of the conspiracy allegation referencing Sixto Ruiz from the new informations filed solely against Padilla and Ongchenco.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the nature of the new informations and the standing of the accused. The filing of the new informations against Padilla and Ongchenco was permissible after the denial of the motion to amend the original cases. The allegation in these new informations that Padilla and Ongchenco conspired with Sixto Ruiz was merely a descriptive reference to the fact that Ruiz was already separately charged for the same offense. It did not make Ruiz a co-accused in the new cases. Warrants were issued only for Padilla and Ongchenco; only they were arraigned in those cases.
Therefore, Sixto Ruiz had no legal personality or standing to file a motion to quash or strike out allegations in Criminal Cases Nos. 9673 and 9674, as he was not a party defendant therein. His remedy, if any, would be in his own separate cases. The trial court correctly sustained the informations. The Supreme Court set aside the CA decision and reinstated the trial court’s orders allowing the retention of the conspiracy allegation as a factual reference.