7/27/2019 Banal v. Panganiban

1/1

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

GR No: 156747 Date: 02/23/2005BANAL V. PANGANIBAN

Petitioner: CONRADO BANAL IIIRespondent: HON. DELIA H. PANGANIBAN of RTC-MAKATI, MA. TERESA G. WINTERNITZ, et al.

Facts:

A complaint was filed by the respondents against petitioner for his articles entitled House of the RisingSun and Heist Cold Beer!, which appeared in petitioners Breaktime column in the Aug. 1, 2000 and August12, 2000 issues of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.1 6 informations for libel were filed in the RTC of Makati City. Uponarraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty and filed a Motion to Quash the 6 informations on the groundthat the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the offense charged. He argued that the informations failed to allegethe actual residence of the complainant at the time of the commission of the offense or the place wherethe allegedly libelous article was printed and first published. RTC granted motion to quash. Respondentsfiled an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of the informations and moved that an amendmentof the informations be allowed, averring that the failure to specifically allege that the libelous articles were printedand first published in Makati was merely a formal defect and can be cured by amendment . RTC granted theamendment. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition but CA dismissed it.

Issues: (1) Whether the RTC of Makati City has jurisdiction over the offense. YES(2) Whether the amendment was formal or substantial.

IT WAS MERELY A MATTER OF FORM

Rationale:

1. Jurisdiction of RTC.The portion of the original information reads: the newspaper column Breaktime of the Philippine Daily

Inquirer, which is published in English in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and of generalcirculation in the Philippines and abroad,. Thus, it was clearly stated in the information that the newspaper ispublished in Makati City but circulated throughout the country, which allegation accordingly vests jurisdiction overthe offense charged in the RTC of Makati City. 2

2. Validity of Amendment.The amendment in the informations was one of form. The amendment which states, That the libelous

article above-quoted was printed and first published in the City of Makati, more particularly at 3817 Mascardo street, Makati

City and/or at 1098 Chino Roces Avenue (formerly Pasong Tamo) corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City, is merelyformal.

As laid down by this Court, an amendment is only in form when it merely adds specifications to eliminatevagueness in the information and not to introduce new and material facts, and merely states with additionalprecision something which is already contained in the original information and which, therefore, adds nothingessential for conviction for the crime charged.

People v. Casey: An amendment to an information introduced after the accused has pleaded not

guilty thereto, which does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein, does not expose theaccused to a charge which could call for a higher penalty, does not affect the essence of the offense orcause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been heldto be one of form and not of substance not prejudicial to the accused, and therefore, not prohibited bySection 13, Rule 110 (now Section 14) of the Revised Rules of Court.

The original information is sufficient in form. Allowing the amendment does not alter the defense of theaccused. Indeed, it only states with precision that which is already contained in the original information. DENIED!

1that the said MARIA G. WINTERNITZ, as a nominal stockholder, member of the Board of Directors and officer of the WelbiltConstruction Corporation and Wack Wack Condominium Corporation, developer and owner respectively of the Wack WackApartments, was engaged, together with her two sisters and parents, in anomalous, unlawful and illegal transactions andother wrongdoings involving the sale and resale, occupancy, possession and ownership by unit buyers....2

Paragraph 3, Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code states: The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written

defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the Court of First Instance ofthe province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offendedparties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.

KIM DEBRA C. CLEDERA (2-A) Rule 110, Secs. 6, 1007/11/2009 ATTY. TRANQUIL SALVADOR III