People v. Bungaoil
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The appellant was charged with the theft of a cow and calf belonging to one Almonda, with the information alleging the crime occurred in or about February 1915. The cow was valued at P80. Procedural History: The accused pleaded guilty and was convicted by the trial court, sentenced to one year, 8 months, and 21 days of prision correccional, with indemnity and subsidiary imprisonment. The defense assigned two errors: failure to dismiss due to a failure of evidence on a material point, and admission of evidence of a crime committed seven years prior to the charged date. The Petition: The appellant argued that a variance existed because the evidence showed the theft occurred in 1908, not 1915 as alleged, and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the earlier crime. The appellant contended this variance entitled him to acquittal.
Issue(s)
Whether a variance between the alleged date of commission of a crime in the information and the date proven by evidence warrants acquittal. Whether the admission of evidence concerning a crime committed seven years prior to the date alleged in the information is fatal to the prosecution's case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that a variance in the date of the commission of the crime, as alleged in the information and as proven by evidence, does not necessarily warrant acquittal, especially when the accused does not raise an objection during the trial and fails to show prejudice. The Court also modified the penalty based on the applicable law at the time the crime was committed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of variance in the date of commission: The Court held that a variance between the allegations in the information and the evidence regarding the time of the commission of the crime is of no consequence unless the accused takes advantage of it during the trial by making an appropriate objection and satisfying the trial court that he has been prejudiced thereby. In this case, the accused did not call the trial court's attention to the variance, entered upon his defense, and produced his own witnesses, indicating he was not surprised or prejudiced. The case proceeded to decision with the consent of the defendant upon the evidence adduced by both parties, all directed to the same event and issue. The Court cited United States vs. Javier Dichao (27 Phil. Rep., 421) to emphasize that objections to indefiniteness regarding the time of commission must be made opportunely in the lower court. The Court clarified that even if a variance occurs and the accused is surprised, the trial court may order an amendment to the information and grant an adjournment to allow the defendant to prepare, rather than grant an acquittal. The Court noted that the accused's failure to object and his subsequent participation in presenting evidence meant the objection raised in the appellate court could not be sustained. The Court further stated that the reception of evidence of a crime committed seven years prior to the time alleged does not necessarily mean the accused is being tried for a different crime, especially if no objection is raised and the accused accepts the issue tendered by the prosecution's evidence and meets it with his own. On the admission of evidence of a prior crime: The Court found that the admission of evidence concerning the crime committed in 1908, despite the information alleging 1915, was permissible because the accused did not object and proceeded to defend himself against the charge, effectively accepting the issue presented by the evidence. The Court reasoned that if the accused does not object to such a variance, it must be assumed that he is not prejudiced thereby and that the change in date has in no wise affected his ability or opportunity to defend himself. This is particularly true when the accused permits such evidence to be introduced without objection and then offers his own evidence. Therefore, an objection in the appellate court based on this ground cannot be sustained under these circumstances.
Main Doctrine
A variance between the allegations in the information and the evidence presented regarding the time of the commission of the crime is of no consequence unless the accused takes advantage thereof by appropriate objection during the trial and demonstrates prejudice. If no objection is made, it is assumed the accused is not prejudiced and can defend himself.