Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 935 views

    Kummer V People

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Abad
    Kumer v People concerned whether Kumer needed to be arraigned again after an amendment was made to the information charging her with homicide. The Court held that no new arraignment was needed because changing the date of the crime by one month was a mere formality and did not prejudice Kumer's rights, as it did not alter the nature of the offense or prevent her from presenting the same defenses. As the amendment was only minor, Kumer's initial arraignment satisfied her right to be informed of the charges against her.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Kummer V People

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Abad
    935 views2 pages
    Kumer v People concerned whether Kumer needed to be arraigned again after an amendment was made to the information charging her with homicide. The Court held that no new arraignment was needed because changing the date of the crime by one month was a mere formality and did not prejudice Kumer's rights, as it did not alter the nature of the offense or prevent her from presenting the same defenses. As the amendment was only minor, Kumer's initial arraignment satisfied her right to be informed of the charges against her.

    Original Title

    10. Kummer v People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Kumer v People concerned whether Kumer needed to be arraigned again after an amendment was made to the information charging her with homicide. The Court held that no new arraignment was needed because changing the date of the crime by one month was a mere formality and did not prejudice Kumer's rights, as it did not alter the nature of the offense or prevent her from presenting the same defenses. As the amendment was only minor, Kumer's initial arraignment satisfied her right to be informed of the charges against her.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    935 views2 pages

    Kummer V People

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Abad
    Kumer v People concerned whether Kumer needed to be arraigned again after an amendment was made to the information charging her with homicide. The Court held that no new arraignment was needed because changing the date of the crime by one month was a mere formality and did not prejudice Kumer's rights, as it did not alter the nature of the offense or prevent her from presenting the same defenses. As the amendment was only minor, Kumer's initial arraignment satisfied her right to be informed of the charges against her.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Kumer v People

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


    Digest prepared by Joyce

    FACTS:
    1. Petitioner Kumer, together with her son, Johan were accused of shooting a certain Mallo. This
    was witnessed by Malana who was with the victim when it happened.
    2. Prosecution filed an information for homicide against petitioner and her son. Both were
    arraigned and pleaded not guilty. They waived pre-trial and trial on the merits followed.
    3. RTC found prosecution’s evidence persuasive based on testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses
    who testified that petitioner shot Mallo. Also traces of gunpowder were found on petitioner’s
    right hand. RTC found both GUILTY
    4. Petitioner’s son was still a minor so he was released on recognizance of his father. He
    subsequently left the country without notifying the court. Hence only petitioner appealed the
    judgment of conviction with the CA.
    5. CA affirmed RTC.
    6. NOTE: Complaint was amended. Date the commission of the crime was changed from July 19,
    1988 to June 19, 1988

    ISSUE:
    WON she should be arraigned again because of the amendment of the information – NO

    HELD
    WHEREFORE Kumer is GUILTY. No need for 2nd arraignment.

    RATIO
    1. The petitioner claims that she was not arraigned on the amended information for which she was
    convicted.
    2. Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court permits a formal amendment of a complaint even
    after the plea but only if it is made with leave of court and provided that it can be done
    without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
    3. However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the offense charged in
    or excludes any accused from the complaint or information, can be made only upon motion by
    the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court. The court shall state
    its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties,
    especially the offended party.
    4. If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper
    offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a new
    one charging the proper offense in accordance with section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused
    [would] not be placed in double jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses to give bail for
    their appearance at the trial.
    5. A mere change in the date of the commission of the crime, if the disparity of time is not great,
    is more formal than substantial. Such an amendment would not prejudice the rights of the
    accused since the proposed amendment would not alter the nature of the offense.
    a. It is not even necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise time at which
    the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense. The act
    may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near as to the actual date at which
    date the offense was committed, as the information will permit. Under the circumstances,
    the precise time is not an essential ingredient of the crime of homicide.
    6. The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or
    information is:
    a. When a defense under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no longer
    be available after the amendment is made
    b. When any evidence the accused might have would no longer be available after the
    amendment is made
    c. When any evidence the accused might have would be inapplicable to the complaint or
    information, as amended.
    7. Arraignment is indispensable. The importance of arraignment is based on the constitutional
    right of the accused to be informed.
    a. Accused is arraigned so that he may be informed of the reason for his indictment, the
    specific charges he is bound to face, and the corresponding penalty that could be possibly
    meted against him.
    8. The need for arraignment is equally imperative in an amended information or complaint. This
    however, we hastily clarify, pertains only to substantial amendments and not to formal
    amendments that, by their very nature:
    a. Do not charge an offense different from that charged in the original complaint or
    information; do not alter the theory of the prosecution;
    b. Do not cause any surprise and affect the line of defense; and
    c. Do not adversely affect the substantial rights of the accused, such as an amendment in the
    date of the commission of the offense.
    9. An amendment done after the plea and during trial, in accordance with the rules, does not call
    for a second plea since the amendment is only as to form.
    a. The purpose of an arraignment, that is, to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the
    accusation against him, has already been attained when the accused was arraigned the first
    time. The subsequent amendment could not have conceivably come as a surprise to the
    accused simply because the amendment did not charge a new offense nor alter the theory
    of the prosecution.
    10. IN THIS CASE: 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 cited above, the change in the date of the
    commission of the crime of homicide is a formal amendment
    a. 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.
    b. Further, the defense under the complaint is still available after the amendment, as this was,
    in fact, the same line of defenses used by the petitioner. This is also true with respect to the
    pieces of evidence presented by the petitioner.
    c. The effected amendment was of this nature and did not need a second plea.

    You might also like