PEOPLE v TUBONGBANUA

Elberto Tubongbanua was employed as a family driver by Atty. Evelyn Sua-Kho

since 1998. On February 12, 2001, at around 6:00 oclock in the evening, the
accused drove Atty. Sua Kho to her condominium unit in San Juan. After
handing his employers bag to Marissa Hiso, the housemaid, accused
proceeded to the kitchen where he drank a glass of water. Shortly thereafter,
Marrisa heard her employer screaming and the accused stabbing her with their
kitchen knife. She tried to stop the accused, shouting "Kuya Bert!", but the
latter continued to stab Atty. Sua-Kho. The accused fled using the victims car.
He was arrested soon afterwards in Calapan, Mindoro, while on his way to his
home province. Upon examination of the victims body, it was found that she
suffered 18 stab wounds which were all directed to her chest, heart and lungs.

The victims legal secretary and an associate testified that prior to the killing of
Atty. Kho, the accused had confided to them about his grudges against the
victim, such as being given spoiled food, that his meals were being measured,
that he worked long hours of the day and served many bosses, and being
called a thief, a killer and other bad names. He told them that he would finish
off Atty. Kho.

The accused raised the defense of self-defense. He testified that the victim
didnt want her husband to know that she had been taking trips with a certain
Phillip Robinson and that something bad would happen to him if her husband
would learn about it. She and the accused argued about Phillip Robinson,
thereafter, the victim got a knife and stabbed him with it.

Trial court and CA ruled against the accused. However, CA disregarded the
aggravating circumstances of dwelling and insult to the rank, sex and age of
the victim, noting that these circumstances were included as amendments to
the information after the presentation by the prosecution of its evidence. As
such, the same should not be allowed because it will prejudice the rights of the
appellant.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in disregarding the amendments

HELD: YES, the CA erred in not allowing the amendments in the information
regarding the aggravating circumstances in the amendments. Section 14, Rule
110 of the Rules of Court provides that an amendment after the plea of the
accused is permitted only as to matters of form, provided leave of court is
obtained and such amendment is not prejudicial to the rights of the accused. A

substantial amendment is not permitted after the accused had already been
arraigned.

The following have been held to be merely formal amendments:

1. new allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty that the
court might impose in the event of conviction
2. an amendment which does not charge another offense different or
distinct from that charged in the original one
3. additional allegations which do not alter the prosecutions theory of the
case so as to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of
defense he has or will assume
4. an amendment which does not adversely affect any substantial right of
the accused, such as his right to invoke prescription.

The test as to whether an amendment is only of form and an accused is not

prejudiced by such amendment is whether or not a defense under the
information as it originally stood would be equally available after the
amendment is made, and whether or not any evidence which the
accused might have would be equally applicable to the information in
one form as in the other.

Tested against these guidelines, the insertion of the aggravating circumstances

is clearly a formal, not a substantial, amendment. Besides, appellant never
objected to the presentation of evidence to prove the aggravating
circumstances. Without any objection by the defense, the defect is deemed
waived.

The Court found Tubongbanua guilty of murder. The proper imposable penalty
would have been death. However, in view of the enactment of RA 9346 the
penalty meted is reclusion perpetua.