PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUDY PERALTA Y MABBONAG, CESAR LIBAN Y PERALTA, PHILIP SORIANO Y PASION, ADVIENTO SORIANO Y PASION, ROBERTO SORIANO Y PASION, FERDINAND SORIANO Y PASION ALIAS 'MAR,' AND NAPOLEON LIBAN (AT LARGE), ACCUSED; RUDY PERALTA Y MABBONAG AND CESAR LIBAN Y…
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 257105
- Promulgated: 2025-08-27
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Rudy Peralta y Mabbonag (Peralta), Cesar Liban y Peralta (Liban), and other co-accused were initially charged with frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 6621 for the shooting of Virgilio Remigio (Virgilio) on June 11, 1994. Virgilio subsequently died on November 19, 1994. Following his death, the prosecution filed an Amended Information dated January 26, 1995, changing the charge to murder. Peralta pleaded not guilty to the "crime charged" on January 30, 1995, and Liban, upon his arrest, pleaded not guilty to murder on June 24, 1999. In 2007, during trial, the defense filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing the charge was still frustrated murder because the RTC had not formally admitted the Amended Information. The RTC initially denied the demurrer and later issued an Order in September 2007, admitting the Amended Information for murder, leading to a motion for reconsideration from the defense citing double jeopardy. The RTC proceeded with the trial, and eventually convicted Peralta, Liban, and Philip Soriano of murder. Peralta and Liban appealed, arguing that they were only arraigned for frustrated murder and that the amendment to murder was not properly admitted, and that the prosecution failed to prove the cause of death. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's judgment with modifications on damages. Peralta died during the pendency of the appeal, thus extinguishing his criminal liability. The Supreme Court is asked to review the conviction of Liban. ## Issues 1. Did the trial court err in proceeding with the charges for murder despite the alleged lack of a formal order admitting the amended information and the accused's claim that they were not re-arraigned for murder? 2. Was there sufficient evidence to prove Liban's guilt for murder beyond reasonable doubt? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Court ruled that the trial court did not err in proceeding with the charges for murder. The Court explained that an amendment to an information, whether in form or substance, before the accused pleads, is a **matter of right** and does not require leave of court, unless it downgrades the nature of the offense or excludes an accused. In this case, the amendment from frustrated murder to murder was made before Peralta's plea. The Court cited **Rule 110, Section 14 of the Rules of Court**, which states that the information may be amended without leave of court at any time before the accused pleads. Consequently, the Amended Information **ipso facto superseded** the original information without an explicit order of admission from the court. The RTC's 2007 order admitting the amended information was therefore a **superfluity**. Furthermore, the amendment from frustrated murder to murder was considered a **formal amendment** because frustrated murder is necessarily included in murder, and the additional allegation was merely the supervening fact of the victim's death. Citing **Teehankee, Jr. v. Madayag**, the Court reiterated that for a formal amendment, a new preliminary investigation and re-arraignment are not required. The purpose of arraignment, which is to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation, was already satisfied. **Issue 2:** The Court found that there was sufficient evidence to prove Liban's guilt for murder beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved all elements of murder. Even if only one malefactor directly inflicted the fatal shot, **conspiracy** among the accused was established through their concerted actions, such as arriving together at the crime scene fully armed. The Court noted that the defense of alibi presented by Liban was **inherently weak** and could not overcome the positive identification by credible witnesses. The Court generally accords high respect to the findings of trial courts unless they are arbitrary or unfounded, or if substantial facts were overlooked. The Court modified the monetary awards, increasing civil…