GR L 62737; (June, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-62737 June 29, 1983
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and CELSO M. GIMENEZ, Acting City Fiscal of Mandaue City, petitioners, vs. JOAQUIN BORROMEO and HONORABLE TEMISTOCLES BOHOLST, JR., City Judge of Mandaue City, respondents.
FACTS
The prosecution filed an information for grave coercion against private respondent Joaquin Borromeo, alleging the crime was committed “on or about the 24th day of June, 1981.” After the accused pleaded not guilty to an amended information containing the same date, trial commenced. During the testimony of the complainant, it was revealed the actual date of the alleged offense was August 28, 1981. The prosecution immediately made an oral motion to amend the information to correct the date. The respondent Judge denied the motion, citing the case of People vs. Reyes, on the ground that the amendment would impair the substantial rights of the accused as guaranteed by the Constitution. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge erred in denying the prosecution’s motion to amend the information by changing the date of the alleged commission of the crime from June 24, 1981 to August 28, 1981, after the accused had pleaded not guilty.
RULING
Yes, the respondent Judge erred. The proposed amendment is one of form, not substance, and does not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused. The test for prejudice is whether a defense under the original information remains available after the amendment, and whether the accused’s evidence is equally applicable. Changing the date by approximately two months does not alter the nature of the offense of grave coercion, for which precise time is not an essential ingredient. The phrase “on or about” used in the information is designed to cover minor discrepancies and does not require proof of a precise date, provided the variance is not so great as to cause surprise.
The reliance on People vs. Reyes is misplaced. In Reyes, the change involved a five-year gap, which was deemed too substantial. Here, the difference of two months and five days is amply comprehended within the “on or about” allegation and allows for a reasonable approximation. Furthermore, the accused could not have been surprised, as the affidavits of prosecution witnesses uniformly stated the date as August 28, 1981, and the motion for amendment was made promptly upon discovery of the error during trial. Following precedents like People vs. Rivera and U.S. vs. Ramos, amendments correcting the date of commission, even after plea, are permissible when they do not affect the essence of the offense or deprive the accused of a defense. The orders of the respondent Judge were set aside, and he was directed to admit the amendment.