G.R. No. L-21528 - Reyes vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-21528)

Factual Background

Petitioner was a former civilian employee of the Navy Exchange, Sangley Point, whose services were terminated on May 6, 1961. On June 6, 1961 petitioner led a group of about twenty to thirty persons in a demonstration at the main gate of the United States Naval Station at Sangley Point; the demonstrators bore placards carrying threatening messages directed at Agustin Hallare and another person named Frank Nolan. The base commander summoned Col. Patricia Monzon, the Philippine Military Liaison Officer, who spoke with petitioner and others and was informed the demonstration targeted Hallare and Nolan and was not intended to use violence. When Hallare, then inside the station, learned of the demonstration he sought Col. Monzon’s protection. The colonel escorted Hallare and companions out and purposely slowed the car to allow Hallare to see the demonstrators. The demonstrators followed in three jeeps and, after returning twice past Hallare’s residence at 967 Burgos Street, one jeep stopped, petitioner alighted, posted himself at the gate, placed his right hand in his pocket and loudly shouted repeated threats including the phrase, “Agustin, putang ina mo. Agustin, mawawala ka. Agustin lumabas ka, papatayin kita.” Petitioner then reboarded his jeep and the motorcade left; Hallare remained inside his house frightened.

Charges Filed

On July 24 and 25, 1961 the City Fiscal filed an information charging petitioner with the crime of Grave Threats under Article 282 (Criminal Case No. 2594) and Grave Oral Defamation under Article 358 (Criminal Case No. 2595). The information for grave threats initially alleged that petitioner “orally threaten[ed] to kill one Agustin Hallare.” The complaint for oral defamation alleged that petitioner uttered before several persons the insulting words “AGUSTIN, PUTANG INA MO.”

Trial Court Proceedings and Sentences

Petitioner pleaded not guilty to both informations and the cases proceeded to a joint trial. On the day of the hearing the prosecution moved to amend the information in Criminal Case No. 2594 by deleting the word “orally.” The defense objected on the ground that petitioner had already been arraigned and that the amendment would materially affect his interests, but the trial court allowed the amendment and proceeded to trial. The municipal court convicted petitioner of both offenses. In Criminal Case No. 2594 the court sentenced him to four months and ten days of arresto mayor and a fine of P300, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. In Criminal Case No. 2595 the court imposed an indeterminate penalty from four months of arresto mayor to one year and eight months of prision correccional and ordered payment of P800 as moral damages to Hallare, with costs in both cases.

Appeals and Grounds of Error

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the convictions. He then brought the matter to the Supreme Court by certiorari, assigning errors that the Court of Appeals erred in: allowing a substantial amendment of the information after arraignment; trying the grave threats case without requiring a plea to the amended information; convicting him of both offenses thereby subjecting him to double punishment; convicting him of grave threats when evidence showed only light threats; and convicting him of grave oral defamation when evidence showed simple slander only.

Legal Standard for Amendment of Information

The Court restated the rule that after plea the information may be amended as to matters of form by leave of the court when no prejudice to the defendant results, but amendments touching matters of substance are not permitted after plea (Section 13, Rule 110, New Rules of Court). The Court examined the original information for grave threats and found it to allege the essential elements of Article 282: that the offender threatened another with the infliction upon the person of a wrong amounting to a crime, and that the threat was unconditional. The Court emphasized that the particular mode or manner in which the threat was made was not a constitutive element of the offense.

Ruling on the Amendment and Necessity of a New Plea

The Court held that the deletion of the word “orally” was a formal amendment effected to make the information conform to the evidence and that it did not alter the nature or essence of the crime charged. The amendment did not expose petitioner to a different penal provision under paragraph 1 of Article 282, because the amended information did not allege any conditional threat. Because the amendment was not substantial, the trial court did not err in failing to require a new plea.

Sufficiency of the Evidence to Establish Grave Threats

Applying the facts to the elements of Article 282, the Court concluded that the totality of the conduct—organizing and leading a demonstrative procession with threatening placards, pursuing Hallare to his residence, petitioner’s overt posturing with a hand in his pocket, and the repeated shouted declarations that Hallare would be killed—established threats made “with the deliberate purpose of creating in the mind of the person threatened the belief that the threat would be carried into effect.” The Court observed that Hallare’s palpable apprehension, his request for military escort and his remaining in the house during the demonstration corroborated the threatening character of the acts. The Court cited U.S. vs. Sevilla, 1 Phil. 143, and U.S. vs. Paguirigan, 14 Phil. 450, for the proposition that such deliberate threats constitute grave threats. The Court therefore affirmed peti

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-21528)

Parties and Posture

Rosauro Reyes was the accused and appellant in criminal prosecutions arising from a June 6, 1961 demonstration in Cavite City.
The People of the Philippines prosecuted Reyes in two separate informations filed on July 24 and July 25, 1961.
The municipal court of Cavite City convicted Reyes in both cases and imposed distinct penalties and damages.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the municipal court's convictions and sentences.
Reyes appealed by certiorari to the Supreme Court challenging the amendment of the information, the absence of a second plea, alleged double punishment, and the legal characterization of the offenses.

Key Facts

Reyes was a former civilian employee of the Navy Exchange whose employment was terminated on May 6, 1961.
On June 6, 1961, Reyes led a group of about twenty to thirty persons in a demonstration in front of the main gate of the United States Naval Station at Sangley Point.
Demonstrators carried placards bearing various hostile statements directed at Agustin Hallare and a certain Frank Nolan.
Col. Patricia Monzon, as Philippine Military Liaison Officer, met the demonstrators and learned the demonstration targeted Hallare and Nolan, not the naval station.
Col. Monzon escorted Hallare from the station to his residence while the demonstrators followed in a motorcade and eventually parked in front of Hallare’s house at 967 Burgos St., Cavite City.
Reyes alighted, positioned himself at the gate, and shouted repeatedly: "Agustin, putang ina mo. Agustin, mawawala ka. Agustin lumabas ka, papatayin kita."
Hallare remained inside his residence due to apprehension for his safety and sought protection from Col. Monzon.

Charges Filed

The City Fiscal charged Reyes with grave threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 2594.
The complainant, Agustin Hallare, filed a separate charge of grave oral defamation under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 2595.
The informations alleged the time and place of the offenses and the oral utterances complained of in relation to the demonstration.

Trial and Amendment

Upon arraignment Reyes pleaded not guilty to both informations and the cases were set for joint trial.
On the day of trial the prosecution moved to amend the information for grave threats by deleting the word "orally," and the defense objected on grounds of prejudice after arraignment.
The trial court allowed the amendment and proceeded without requiring Reyes to enter a second plea to the amended information.
The municipal court convicted Reyes of both offenses and imposed the sentences and damages later affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in allowing the amendment of the information after arraignment in violation of Section 13, Rule 110, New Rules of Court.
W