Villarba Vs CA

OMAR VILLARBA, PETITIONER, VS.
COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 227777, June 15, 2020
Facts:
Petitioner Omar Villarba, along with members of the Junior Order of Kalantiao fraternity, were all
charged in 2003 with the violation of the Anti-Hazing Act for their acts against Wilson Dordas III.
The accusatory portion of the original Information reads:
xxxThat on or about the 15th day of September 2001, in the City of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused, members and officers of the Junior Order of
Kalantiao, a fraternity, conspiring and confederating with each other, working together and helping
one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally subject one Wilson Dordas to
hazing or initiation by placing Wilson Dordas, the recruit, in some embarrassing or humiliating
situation such as forcing him to do physical activity or subjecting him to physical or psychological
suffering or injury which resulted to his confinement and operation and prevented him from engaging
in his habitual work for more than ninety (90) days.
CONTRARY TO LAW. Xxx
All the accused were arraigned under the original Information, and they accordingly pleaded not
guilty to the crime charged. Later on, the Information was amended by adding the suffix 'III' to the
name 'Wilson Dordas to correct his name. Pre-trial and trial ensued without arraignment on the
amended Information.
The Regional Trial Court found all the accused guilty of the crime charged. Villarba appealed. He
argued that the information charged against him was invalid for two reasons:
a. The phrase "as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or
organization" was an essential element of hazing, which should have been alleged in the
Information.
b. He also questions not being arraigned under the amended Information, which added 'III' to
the victim's name.
The Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the RTC's decision hence this appeal.
Issue:
a.Wheter or not the phrase "as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity,
sorority or organization" which is an essential element of hazing should have been included in the
information
b.Whether or not the Information was valid despite the amendment of the victim's
name
Ruling:
The Supreme Court also denied the appeal.
a. On the issue of adding "III" to Wilson Dordas
Petitioner argues that the inclusion of the suffix 'III' to the name of Dordas in the Information was a
substantial amendment, which should have warranted a second arraignment. The Court disagreed.
The amendment does not change the crime charged and the theory or defense of petitioner. It
added nothing crucial for a conviction of the crime charged. It did not change the essence of
the offense or cause surprise as to deprive the petitioner of the opportunity to meet the new
information. Instead, the amendment only states with precision something that was already included
in the original Information. It is, therefore, merely a formal amendment.
Formal amendments under the Rules of Procedure can be done after the plea and during the
trial without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused like in this case.
Since the amendment was only of form, and not of substance, an arraignment under the amended
Information is therefore unnecessary.
b. On the issue of not adding the phrase “as a prerequisite for admission into
membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization"
Rule 110, Section 9 of the Rules of Court is clear that the information does not need to use the exact
language of the statute.
The lack of the phrase "prerequisite to admission" does not make the Information invalid. Even with
its absence, the alleged facts, which include the controlling words 'fraternity,' 'initiation,' 'hazing,' and
'recruit, ' would have reasonably informed petitioner of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.
Petitioner's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
is upheld as long as the crime, as described, is reasonably adequate to apprise him of the offense
charged. This mandate does not require a verbatim reiteration of the law. The use of
derivatives, synonyms, and allegations of basic facts constituting the crime will suffice.
Moreover, this Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that petitioner was able to prepare his
defense and evidence based on the Information. There is no showing that petitioner was caught by
surprise during trial or that he was oblivious to the crime charged.

Villarba Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Villarba Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Villarba Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OMAR VILLARBA, PETITIONER, VS.

COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE

CONTRARY TO LAW. Xxx

a. On the issue of adding "III" to Wilson Dordas

You might also like