B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Soberano v People Soberano v People
I. Recit-ready summary
Certain PNP-PAOCTF members were charged with double murder
for having abducted and killed public relations practitioner Dacer, and his
driver Corbito. It was found that Dacer and Corbito were abducted in
Manila, and their charred bodies were later found in Cavite. An information
was filed against the accused for double murder. A Motion to Admit
Amended Information was later filed by the prosecution to discharge
certain accused as state witnesses. This was opposed by herein petitioners
Soberano et al., who are claiming that the CA erred in applying Sec. 14,
Rule 110 of the Rules of Court (ROC) which is about the Amendment and
substitution in an information instead of Sec. 17, Rule 119 about Discharge
of accused to be state witness.
SC held that Sec. 14, Rule 110 is what is applicable because Section
17, Rule 119 cannot be applied at the level of amending the information
before the plea because this is essentially an executive function and not a
judicial one. Since the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion for
reinvestigation, the trial court deferred to the authority of the prosecutorial
arm of the Government. Thus, at this juncture, the discretion is with the
prosecutor. The prosecutor must then satisfy itself that an accused excluded
from the information to be discharged as a state witness is qualified for it.
II. Facts of the case
In November 2000, public relations practitioner, Salvador “Bubby”
Dacer, and his driver, Emmanuel Corbito, were abducted in Manila. Their
charred bodies were found in Cavite. Both victims were killed by
strangulation. The DOJ conducted a preliminary investigation.
On May 23 2001, an Information was filed with the RTC of Manila
charging certain private individuals and police officers (members of the PNP
assigned in the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force1 (PAOCTF))
with double murder, aggravated by evident premeditation, treachery, abuse
of superior strength, nighttime, and remoteness of place, and with deliberate
1SPO4 Soberano, SPO3 Torres, SPO3 Escalante, P/Supt. Dumlao, P/C Insp. Arnado, P/Insp.
Langcauon, SPO4 Taladua, SPO3 Villanueva, SPO1 Sarmiento, SPO1 Reed, PO3 Lacasandile,
PO1 Sarmiento, and SPO1 Nemeno)
G.R. NO: 154629
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Remedies available; amendment/substitution of information
October 5, 2005
intent to kill, conspiring, confabulating, and confederating with one another.
The information claimed that the accused killed Dacer and Corbito by
strangulation and disposed of their bodies by incineration.
The case was later raffled to another RTC in Manila, presided by Judge
Ponferrada.
However, on May 23, 2001, the prosecution filed a Motion to Admit
Amended Information, which was granted. It amended the original
information by stating that the accused abducted Dacer and Corbito at the
corner of Osmeña Highway (formerly South Super Highway. The next
day, accused Soberano, Escalante, Torrest, Purificaition, etc., moved to quash
the information. Accused Dumlao, who was later arrested, sworn a statement
implicating other police officers in the double murder. One of the accused,
Danila Villanueva, also filed a Motion for Reinvestigation, asserting that he
was mistakenly identified. It was a certain “Allan Villanueva” who witnesses
saw as one of the culprits.
On June 26, 2001, the prosecution filed a Motion for Reinvestigation,
which was granted. However, the joint Motion to Quash the Information,
filed by the accused Soberano, et al. were denied.
Afterwards, the National Bureau of Investigation filed a new complaint
with the DOJ against a new suspect in the same case, Viña, who was also a
member of the PAOCTF. After the reinvestigation, the prosecution filed a
Motion to Discharge Villanueva from the Information and be immediately
released. This was granted. Later on, a Manifestation and Motion to Admit
Amended Information was filed by the prosecution. The Amended
Information included the discharge of accused Jimmy L. Lopez, Alex B.
Diloy, William L. Lopez and Glen Dumlao as they are now witnesses for the
State; substituted SPO3 Allan Villanueva for P/Insp. Danilo Villanueva; and
harged as additional accused P/Supt. Michael Ray Aquino, P/Supt. Cezar
Mancao II and P/Sr. Supt. Teofilo Viña.
This was opposed by accused Soberano et al. They prayed that the
Amended Information and the Discharge be denied. This was denied by the
PONENTE: Chico-Nazario, J.
DIGEST MAKER: Alec
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Soberano v People
Trial Court. Later on, the prosecution moved to inhibit Judge Ponferrada from
the case. This was granted by the CA who ordered to admit the Amended
Information substituting Allan Villanueva for Danila Villanueva.
Accused Soberano et al. moved for reconsideration, which was denied.
Thus, this present petition.
Points of contention:
- Petitioners: Petitioners submit that the CA erred in applying Sec.
14, Rule 110 on amendment or complaints. They argue that that Sec.
17, Rule 119 of the discharge of the accused as a witness of the state
is what should be used instead. They also aver that even if it is only
a simple discharge under Sec. 14, Sec. 110, it is still necessary to
seek prior leave of court. The prosecution, in filing an Amended
Information excluding Lopez’, Diloy and Dumlao, didn’t seek prior
leave of court. The accused also questions jurisdiction; they claim
that the discharge of an accused when an Information has already
been filed lies with the court. They also assert that the Motion for
Reinvestigation which was approved by the trial court is not
tantamount to a Motion For Leave to File an Amended Information
which is required under Sec. 14, Rule 110.
- Prosecution: The amended information they filed is not violative
of Sec. 17, Rule 119. Sec. 14, Rule 110 should be applied because
(1) while the case was already in court, the accused have not been
arraigned yet, (2) the trail court ordered the reinvestigation of the
case, (3) new evidence dictate the necessity to amend the
information to include the new accused and exclude those who will
be state witnesses.
III. Issue/s
WON CA was right in applying Sec. 14, Rule 110 instead of Sec. 17,
Rule 119. YES.
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
SC held that what is involved here is an amendment of an information
to exclude some accused and that the amendment is made before plea. Thus,
they held that, at the very least, Sec. 14, Rule 110, is applicable, which
G.R. NO: 154629
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Remedies available; amendment/substitution of information
October 5, 2005
Soberano v People
requires that the amendment should only be made upon motion by the
prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court. But
what complicates matters is that the exclusion of the accused is for the
purpose of discharging them as state witnesses. This then poses the question
of: should the requirements for discharge of an accused as state witness (Sec.
17, Rule 119) be made as additional requirements to Sec. 14, Rule 110 or
should only one provision be applied?
Section 14 doesn’t qualify the grounds for the exclusion of the accused
Sec. 14, Rule 110 requires the following to validly amend an information
made before a plea, excluding some or one of the accused:
1. Made upon motion by the prosecutor
2. With notice to the offended party
3. With leave of court
Nothing in the rule qualifies the grounds for the exclusion of the accused.
Thus, the provision is in equal force when the exclusion is sought on the
ground of lack of probable cause or when it’s utilized for discharging the
accused as a state witness.
Section 17, Rule 119 cannot be applied at the level of amending the
information before the plea because this is essentially an executive
function, not a judicial one
Sec. 17 requires the need for the prosecution to present evidence and
the sworn statement of each state witness at a hearing in support of the
discharge of the accused. This doesn’t come into play yet when what is being
determined is who should be criminally charged. This is an executive
function, vested in the prosecutor, who has the wide range of discretion on
whether, what, and whom to charge.
Since the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion for
reinvestigation, the trial court deferred to the authority of the prosecutorial
arm of the Government. Thus, at this juncture, the discretion is with the
prosecutor. The prosecutor must then satisfy itself that an accused excluded
from the information to be discharged as a state witness is qualified for it.
Section 17, Rule 119 is applied when an accused is retained in the
information but his discharge as state witness is sought after by the
prosecution before they rest their case
PONENTE: Chico-Nazario, J.
DIGEST MAKER: Alec
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Soberano v People
This means that Sec. 17, Rule 119 will be applied when no
amendment is involved as a by-product of reinvestigation and trial proceeds
thereafter. It is then when the accused to be discharged is included in the
information that the prosecution must present evidence and the sworn
statement of each propsed state witness at a hearing in support of their
discharge (AKA Sec. 17, Rule 119).
SC agrees with the CA’s decision
SC holds that there are no impairment of the substantial rights of the
accused or the right of the people to due process. It is undisputed that the
amended information seeking the exclusion of the accused was with notice
to the offended party and was set for hearing. Moreover, the trial court’s grant
of the prosecution’s motion for reinvestigation operates as leave of court to
amend the information. Thus, all requisites for Sec. 14, Rule 110 is complied
with. Moreover, the trial court erred in simply denying the motion to admit
the amended information, stating that it’s violative of Sec. 17, Rule 119,
without stating any reasons for it.
V. Disposition
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 04 April 2002 and 12 August 2002,
respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION to include
P/Sr. Supt. GLEN G. DUMLAO as one of the accused excluded from the
Amended Information dated 17 September 2001. No costs.
VI. Notes
Section 14. Amendment or substitution. — A complaint or information
may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time
before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal
amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done
without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
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
G.R. NO: 154629
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Remedies available; amendment/substitution of information
October 5, 2005
Soberano v People
its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its order shall be furnished
all parties, especially the offended party.
Section 17. Discharge of accused to be state witness. — When two or
more persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon
motion of the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or
more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be
witnesses for the state when, after requiring the prosecution to present
evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing
in support of the discharge, the court is satisfied that:
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose
discharge is requested;
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper
prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;
(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in
its material points; DAcSIC
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense
involving moral turpitude.
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form
part of the trial. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as
state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.
PONENTE: Chico-Nazario, J.
DIGEST MAKER: Alec