FIRST DIVISION
January 11, 2017
G.R. No. 198760
ATTY. ALLAN S. HILBERO, Petitioner,
vs.
FLORENCIO A. MORALES, JR., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Petitioner Atty. Allan S. Hilbero, through the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, assails the Decision1 dated June 7, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 111191, which (a) modified the Resolution2 dated September 30, 2009 of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in LS. No. 1428-07 finding probable cause to charge respondent Florencio A. Morales, Jr., along with Primo J. Lopez (Primo), Lorenzo M. Pamplona (Lorenzo), and Sandy M. Pamplona (Sandy), with the murder of petitioner's father, Atty. Demetrio L. Hilbero (Demetrio); and (b) ordered the dropping of the criminal charge against respondent.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Based on the initial criminal investigations conducted by the Calamba City Police Station,3 on June 16, 2007, Demetrio and his wife, Estela S. Hilbero (Estela), had just attended the Saturday evening anticipated mass at the Calarnba Catholic Church. Spouses Demetrio and Estela then proceeded to Demetrio's law office located along Gen. Lim St., Barangay 5, Calamba City, arriving at said office around 7:45 p.m. Estela alighted first from their car and immediately went inside the office, while Demetrio went to a nearby store to buy cigarettes. When Demetrio was about to enter the gate of his office, two armed men on-board a motorcycle suddenly appeared and shot Demetrio several times. The gunmen escaped towards the adjacent Mabini Street.
Estela thought that the gunshots were mere firecrackers, but when she checked, she found Demetrio sprawled on the ground. Estela cried for help. Demetrio was rushed to the Calamba Medical Center where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Initial medico-legal findings revealed that Demetrio sustained three gunshot wounds on the left side of his body.
Three spent shells and one deformed slug of a .45 caliber pistol were recovered from the crime scene. A cartographic sketch of one of Demetrio' s assailants was made based on the descriptions given by eyewitnesses to the shooting incident. Demetrio's relatives also informed police investigators that Demetrio was heard having a heated argument on the telephone with an unknown caller inside his office at around 12:30 p.m. on June 16, 2007. Demetrio seemed bothered and anxious after said telephone conversation.
On December 26, 2007, P/Supt. Mariano Nachor Manaog, Jr. of the Laguna Criminal Investigation and Detection Team (CIDT-Laguna) forwarded to the Calamba City Prosecution Office (CCPO) the records of the investigation relative to Demetrio' s killing. Among the documents submitted was a Sinumpaang Salaysay4dated December 26, 2007 executed by Reynaldo M. Leyva (Reynaldo), an alleged eyewitness to the shooting of Demetrio. In his Sinumpaang Salaysay, Reynaldo recounted:
SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY
AKO, si Reynaldo M. Leyva, may sapat na gulang, at nakatira sa Brgy. Real Calamba City, matapos manumpa na naayon sa batas ay nagsasalaysay ng mga sumusunod:
NA noong Hunyo 16, 2007 angoras sa pagitan ng 7:00 at 8:00 ng gabi, ako noon ay papunta sa Mercury Drug sa may lumang palengke Calamba upang bumili ng gamot para sa aking ubo pagkatapos ko manggaling sa simbahan sa bayan ng Calamba, Laguna. Habang binabaybay ko ang Gen. Lim St., Calamba City, Laguna, papuntang Mercury Drug sa lumang palengke, ako ay napadaan sa Morales-Alihan Tax Accounting Firm at doon ay napansin ko ang isang motorsiklo na nakaparada na katabi ang dalawang tao na nag-uusap. Agad kong nakilala ang dalawang tao na iyon na sina Sandy Pamplona at Florencio Morales, Jr. Nakilala ko sila dahil si Florencio Morales, Jr. ay ka-barangay ko sa Real samantalang si Sandy Pamplona naman ay madalas ko rin makita sa Real.
AKO ay nagpatuloy sa paglalakad papuntang Mercury Drug sa lurnang palengke. Pagkatapos kong makabili ng gamot, ay nagpasya ako na burnili ng okoy sa may Gen. Lim St., Calamba City. Habang ako ay nandoon sa tindahan, may nakita akong kotseng kulay gray na pumarada sa isang bahay na halos katapat ng tindahan ng okoy na pinagbibilihan ko. Nakita ko ang isang babae na bumaba sa sasakyan at pumasok sa gate ng bahay. Hang sandali pa, ang lalaki na nasa kotse naman ang bumaba ngunit hindi siya pumasok sa gate ng bahay. Namukhaan ko agad ang matandang lalaki na si Atty. Demetrio Hilbero dahil maliwanag naman sa lugar na kanyang kinatatayuan dahil sa ilaw sa bahay.
NA may bigla akong napansin na dalawang lalaki na nakasakay sa motorsiklo na biglang lumapit kay Atty. Hilbero habang siya ay nakatalikod. Isa sa mga lalaki ang biglang bumaba ng motorsiklo at bumunot ng baril at pinaputukan si Atty. Hilbero. Nakita kong burnagsak si Atty. Hilbero habang ang bumaril na lalaki ay agad sumakay sa motorsiklo, samantalang ang lalaki na naiwan sa motorsiklo ay nagpaputok rin ng baril pataas. Nakilala ko agad ang nasabing lalaki na si Lorie Pamplona dahil siya ay kabarangay ko din sa Real. Subalit ang lalaki na burnaril kay Atty. Hilbero ay hindi ko kakilala bagamat nakita ko ang kanyang mukha at kung makikita ko muli yung burnaril ay makikilala ko siya. Agad agad na umalis ang motorsiklo na lulan ang dalawang lalaki at sinundan sila ng isa pang motorsiklo na una kong nakita na nakaparada sa Morales-Alihan Accounting Firm na nadaanan ko kanina papuntang Mercury Drug pagkatapos silang senyasan ng bumaril kay Atty. Hilbero. Sakay sa nasabing motorsiklo si Sandy Pamplona na angkas naman si Florencio Morales, Jr.
NA, dahil sa pagkabigla sa aking nasaksihan ako ay hindi agad nakakilos sa aking kinalagyan. Nakita ko na lang ang asawa ni Atty. Hilbero na nagsisigaw at hurnihingi ng tulong. Ilang sandali pa, may mga tao ng tumulong at isang tricycle ang dumating at doon isinakay si Atty. Hilbero.
NA, dahil sa kalituhan ay agad agad ako na pumuntang palengke at surnakay sa tricycle pauwi ng Real.
Nang ako ay makauwi sa Real, wala akong pinagsabihan na tao sa aking nasaksihan. Natakot ako sa maaaring mangyari sa akin at sa aking mga anak kung irereport ko ang nakita ko sa pulisya ng Calamba.
NA, hindi ko nireport ang aking nasaksihan sa pulisya ng Calamba sa kadahilanan na ako ay nangangamba na si Lorie Pamplona ay maari akong balikan dahil alam ko na siya ay miyembro ng KALADRO na hawak ng isang pulis Calamba.
Ngunit habang tumatagal ang araw ay ako ay nababagabag ng aking kunsyensya. Lagi kong naiisip ang aking nasaksihan. Hanggang sa ako'y magpasya na pumunta na sa pulisya at ireport ang mga nakita ko. Pinili kong puntahan ang CIDG sa Cabuyao noong Disyembre 26, 2007 at sinabi sa kanila ang aking nasaksihan. May pinakitang mga larawan ang CIDG sa akin at doon ko nakilala at itinuro ang lalaki na burnaril kay Atty. Hilbero. Sinabi sa akin ng CIDG na ang pangalan ng aking itinuro ay si Primo Lopez na isa ring miyembro ng KALADRO. Si Primo Lopez ang aking nakita na bumaril kay Atty. Hilbero kasama sina Lorie Pamplona, Sandy Pamplona, at Florencio Morales, Jr.
NA ginawa ko itong salaysay na ito upang tumestigo laban kina Primo Lopez, Lorie Pamplona, Florencio Morales, Jr., at Sandy Pamplona at iba pang sangkot sa pagpaslang kay Atty. Demetria Hilbero.
The CCPO docketed the preliminary investigation of Demetrio's killing as LS. No. 1428-07.
The Preliminary Investigation in I.S. No.1428-07 by the ORSP-Laguna and the appeals before the DOJ
Acting on the voluntary inhibition of Prosecutor Miguel Noel T. Ocampo of the CCPO, Regional State Prosecutor Ernesto C. Mendoza officially designated Assistant Regional State Prosecutor Dominador A. Leyros (Leyros) as the Acting City Prosecutor of Calamba City in charge of LS. No. 1428-07.5 Prosecutors Oscar T. Co and Elnora L. Nombrado of the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor of Region IV, San Pablo City, Laguna (ORSP-Laguna) joined Prosecutor Leyros in conducting the preliminary investigation.
In a Resolution6 dated May 6, 2008, the ORSP-Laguna stated that there was well-founded belief that Primo and Lorenzo were responsible for the murder of Demetrio and ordered that an information for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, attended by the qualifying aggravating circumstance of night time, be filed against them. In the same Resolution, the ORSP-Laguna directed that the case against Sandy and respondent be dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. The ORSP-Laguna evaluated the evidence before it, thus:
Primo Lopez was positively identified by the eyewitness Reynaldo M. Leyva as the gunman who shot Atty. [Demetria] Hilbero, while x x x Lorenzo Pamplona was positively identified by the same eyewitness as the driver of the motorcycle where the gunman alighted before shooting Atty. [Demetria] Hilbero and mounted the same after the shooting and sped away.
The defense of alibi presented by Lorenzo Pamplona cannot overcome the positive, clear and convincing identification made by the eyewitness as narrated in his sworn statement. His self-serving declaration that the witness has erred in identifying him affords him no respite. Neither the sworn statement of his witness purportedly seeing him and with him in a place other than the place of the shooting at the given time nor the production and submission of pictures and/or photographs depicting that he was in Baguio City on the fateful day of the shooting incident could extricate him from being indicted. They have no probative value to overcome the testimony of the eyewitness pointing to his possible participation in the commission of the crime. The quantum of evidence necessary to put up a finding of probable cause is not proof beyond reasonable doubt or moral certainty for purposes of charging the respondent in criminal information before the courts. We can only restate the time honored principle that alibi is inherently weak and easily contrived. Furthermore, in the case before us there had been a positive identification made by the witness that x x x Primo Lopez and Lorenzo Pamplona are the perpetrators of the crime.
x x x x
With regard to x x x Sandy Pamplona and [respondent] Florencio Morales, Jr., we find no evidence had been introduced that may tend to establish their direct or indirect participation or cooperation in the commission of the crime. Even if we assume that what was stated by the witness Reynaldo M. Leyva in his sworn statement, in so far as x x x Sandy and [respondent] Florencio were concerned, was factual, still that would not be enough basis to include them in the indictment in the absence of any other independent evidence. For such alleged "thumb's-up sign" allegedly executed by the gunman Primo Lopez immediately after shooting Atty. [Demetrio] Hilbero, and which the witness perceived to be a signal intended for the other two persons on board a motorcycle, that immediately sped off does not necessarily or absolutely mean that the two persons (Sandy and [respondent] Florencio) riding in tandem on a motorcycle were co-plotters in the crime committed. We cannot reasonably draw the inference from such events and conclusively assert that x x x Sandy Pamplona and [respondent] Florencio Morales, Jr., who happened to be there- if indeed they were there!, had anything to do with the murder of Atty. [Demetrio] Hilbero. What we have here is at best a suspicion, which is tantamount to doubt or skepticism. For that alleged "thumb's-up sign" could be at risk to varying interpretation. It could be taken as a boastful expression for achieving an objective. It could also be a demonstration directed to nobody or such did not happen at all and was just perceived to be so. The speeding off of the other motorcycle after the shooting incident is just but a natural reaction of persons fleeing from danger. It is noteworthy to mention that other than the speeding off of the other motorcycle, which was allegedly boarded by x x x Sandy and [respondent] Florencio, no evidence was proffered to show that the latter participated or conspired before, during and after the commission of the crime of murder against Atty. [Demetrio] Hilbero. One could always speculate, however, but it is not evidence.
Lastly, the evidence for the prosecution in its entirety strongly implies the presence of all the elements of the crime of Murder perpetrated by x x x Primo Lopez and Lorenzo Pamplona.
Accordingly, an Information7 for murder against Primo and Lorenzo was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City on May 15, 2008, docketed as Criminal Case No. 15782-2008-C.
Petitioner challenged before the DOJ the Resolution dated May 6, 2008 of the ORSP-Laguna in LS. No. 1428-07 insofar as it found no sufficient evidence to indict Sandy and respondent for the murder of Demetrio. Primo and Lorenzo likewise assailed before the DOJ the same Resolution of the ORSP-Laguna for finding that there was probable cause to charge them for the murder of Demetrio.
The DOJ, through Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez (Gonzalez), issued a Resolution8 dated March 18, 2009, which (a) granted the appeal of Primo and Lorenzo and denied the appeal of petitioner; (b) reversed and set aside the Resolution dated May 6, 2008 of the ORSP-Laguna in I.S. No. 1428-07; and (c) directed the ORSP-Laguna to withdraw the Information against Primo and Lorenzo filed with the R TC and inform the DOJ of the action taken. DOJ Secretary Gonzalez reasoned in his Resolution that:
Culled from the records, it is undeniable that the entire case of the [petitioner] rests upon the statement of alleged eyewitness Reynaldo Leyva. Simply put, without his statement, there is nothing to hold [Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent] for trial.
Thus, the bone of contention is whether or not such statement of Reynaldo Leyva is sufficient for purposes of indicting [Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent].
After a thorough evaluation of the evidence on record, this Office is not convinced that probable cause exists to indict [Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent] for the offense levelled against them.
While it is true that positive identification ordinarily prevails over alibi, it admits of qualifications as held in the case of People v. Ondalok, to wit:
"Positive identification where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter prevails over the alibi and denial which if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law." (G.R. Nos. 95682-83, May 27, 1997)
In the instant case, [Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent] allege that Reynaldo Leyva not only works for the [petitioner] but a relative as well. In addition, they claimed that said witness has an ax to grind against Florencio Morales, Sr. [father of respondent] the latter having impounded his motorcycle for having been involved in a crime.
Such allegations are imputations of motive on the part of the said witness to lie and the failure of the [petitioner] to refute the same bodes ill to the credibility of his witness. Had said witness really been present at the time of the incident, had he really been a relative and at the employ of the [petitioner], it behoves this Office why he did not rush to the aid of the victim even after the assailants had already left, why he waited more than six (6) months before corning out with what he supposedly know.
In addition, there appears to be other pieces of evidence which had they been presented, would either corroborate or damage the statement of the said witness, among which is a picture from the CIDG where [Primo] was supposed to have been identified from by Reynaldo Leyva.
This Office is not oblivious to the jurisprudential declaration that "a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect" (Webb v. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652). However, we should also be mindful that the instant case is for the crime of murder, a non-bailable offense where a person stands to be deprived of his liberty. If in the first place we are not certain that the person committed the act imputed, it would not only be unwise but downright reckless for us to indict him in court.
To the mind of this Office, the statement of Reynaldo Leyva still leaves much to be desired with to convince us that [Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent] were the ones who committed the crime.
Petitioner filed with the DOJ a Motion for Declaration of Nullity of the DOJ Resolution, or In the Alternative, For its Reconsideration. 9 Petitioner alleged in his Motion that neither he nor his counsel were furnished a copy of DOJ Secretary Gonzalez's Resolution dated March 18, 2009; petitioner only learned three days earlier that the CCPO had long received a copy of said Resolution (apparently forwarded by the ORSP-Laguna); and petitioner merely photocopied the copy of said Resolution of the CCPO. According to petitioner, there was a clandestine and deliberate design by some operators at the DOJ to conceal from petitioner the issuance of DOJ Secretary Gonzalez's Resolution dated March 18, 2009, which invalidated the said Resolution. In the alternative, petitioner sought reconsideration of DOJ Secretary Gonzalez's Resolution dated March 18, 2009 because: (a) based on Reynaldo's testimony during the preliminary investigation before the ORSP-Laguna, Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent were companions and confederates in the perpetration of the murder of Demetrio; (b) the preliminary investigation was not a trial on the merits; (c) Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent were all positively identified; (d) the allegations of Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent that Reynado is a relative of petitioner, worked for petitioner, and had an ax to grind against respondent's father, were baseless and unsubstantiated; (e) Reynaldo's supposed delay in coming forward as eyewitness did not affect his credibility as he explained that it was because he feared for his life and the safety of his family; (t) Reynaldo's behavior after witnessing the murder of Demetrio, i.e., failing to aid Demetrio and waiting six months before coming forward, was natural as there is no standard form of human behavioral response to a strange or frightful experience; (g) the allegations of Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent were purely evidentiary, which should be tested in a full-blown trial; (h) the appeals of Primo and Lorenzo, who were fugitives from justice, should have been dismissed; and (i) there was no basis for dismissing the criminal complaint against Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent without any evaluation of the issue of conspiracy.
Respondent, in his Comment & Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration filed by Allan S. Hilbero, 10 defended DOJ Secretary Gonzalez's Resolution dated March 18, 2009. Respondent contended that Reynaldo's averments in his Sinumpaang Salaysay were lies and fabrications. Respondent presented for the first time the Kusang Loob na Salaysay dated March 7, 2008 executed by Lydia M. Leyva-Alcaide (Lydia), purportedly Reynaldo's sister, who claimed that a certain Jesus Bengco repeatedly visited Lydia's home trying to convince Lydia's husband to present himself as an eyewitness to the killing of Demetrio in exchange for money, but Lydia's husband refused; if Lydia's husband truly witnessed the killing of Demetria, he would not hesitate to come forward as a witness since Demetrio was their relative; Reynaldo was convinced to testify and identify Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent as Demetrio's killers because Demetrio was their relative and Reynaldo received a sum of money; and Lydia was aware that Reynaldo had a grudge against respondent's family because respondent's father refused to help Reynaldo when Reynaldo's tricycle was impounded. Respondent additionally asserted that Reynaldo's statements on the killing of Demetrio were insufficient to hold Sandy and respondent liable for the crime, as their mere presence at the scene, assuming it to be true, was not evidence of conspiracy with the killers.
The DOJ, this time through Acting Secretary Agnes VST De Vanadera (De Vanadera), in its Resolution dated September 30, 2009, granted petitioner's motion for reconsideration and set aside DOJ Secretary Gonzalez's Resolution dated March 18, 2009. Acting DOJ Secretary De Vanadera held that petitioner and/or his counsel were indeed not furnished with a copy of DOJ Secretary Gonzalez's Resolution dated March 18, 2009, which amounts to a denial of petitioner's right to file a motion for reconsideration. Nevertheless, Acting DOJ Secretary De Vanadera deemed it best to disregard the procedural issue, and dwell on the actual merits of the case, thus:
Clearly, the DOJ resolution [dated March 18, 2009] dwelt on the evaluation and interpretation of the probative value of the testimony of eyewitness Reynaldo Leyva even if such matter is not within the ambit of the prosecution's duty of finding probable cause. The matter is certainly evidentiary in nature and is best addressed to the trial court whose proximate contact with witnesses places it in a more competent position to discriminate between true and false testimony.
Perforce, we are not in the position to depart from the settled rule that positive identification, when categorical and consistent on the part of the eyewitness, prevails over the defense of alibi and denial (People v. Dela Tonga, 534 SCRA 135 [2007]). As between the self-serving testimony of the accused [(Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent)], and the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses, the latter deserves greater credence (People v. Ducabo, 534 SCRA 458 [2007]). Indeed, a witness who testifies that an event occurred is more credible and trustworthy than a witness who testifies to the non-happening of such event. An eyewitness' account is sterling since its accuracy and authenticity may be tested. In contrast, denials and alibi are inherently weak defenses for they are easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. Even if we assume for argument's sake that eyewitness Reynaldo Leyva's statement is tainted by improper motive, still, it is incumbent upon [Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent] to show by clear and convincing evidence that their alibis and denials are feasible in the present case. Otherwise, their defenses cannot stand against the positive testimony of eyewitness Reynaldo Leyva. Likewise, [Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent's] denials must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability in order to merit credibility. Priscinding (sic) from these premises, [Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent] have certainly failed to discharge such burden.
Moreover, it must be admitted that we overlooked the fact that the criminal information against x x x the persons of Primo Lopez and Lorenzo Pamplona was already filed with the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Laguna, and the corresponding warrants of arrest against them were already issued by said court. The said warrants of arrest were issued upon a judicial determination of probable cause by the judge assigned to handle the case. The finding of probable cause made by a judge is independent of any pronouncement in regard to probable cause made by the public prosecutor in the preliminary investigation. With this in mind, judicial determination of probable cause made by the judge should be accorded with respect and should not be disturbed as a matter of courtesy. On this score alone, the petitions for review of Primo Lopez and Lorenzo Pamplona must necessarily fail.
Again, we respect the doctrine enunciated in the case of Crespo v. Mogul (G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987) that:
""In order therefore to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal may be disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice should, as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when the complaint or information has already been filed in Court. The matter should be left entirely for the determination the Court.
As regards Sandy Pamplona and [respondent] Florencio Morales, Jr. who were earlier cleared by the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor of Region IV for insufficiency of evidence, we find that there exists probable cause to indict them for murder. It is incontrovertible that a crime has been committed and the only question that remains unanswered would be the identity of the perpetrators. This fact was established by eyewitness Reynaldo Leyva when he positively identified x x x Pamplona and [respondent] as among the perpetrators.
In this case, [Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent] appear to have conspired with each other in the commission of the crime. x x x
x x x x
A revisit of the statement of the eyewitness reveals that [respondent and Sandy] were not mere bystanders at the scene of the crime but, rather, they were active participants whose actions were indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal. They acted as lookouts to ensure the execution of the crime and the identification of the victim. It is highly unusual for mere bystanders to wait for the victim at the scene of the crime before its occurrence, stay there without budging from their positions while the crime is being executed and then finally leave the crime scene only after the crime was consummated and upon a signal from the gunman for them to flee. This theory of conspiracy by [petitioner] was further reinforced by the action of [respondent and Sandy] in fleeing from the crime scene together with Primo Lopez, the gunman, and Lorenzo Pamplona, riding in tandem in two motorcycles, at the same time and in the same direction. From all indications, [Primo, Lorenzo, Sandy, and respondent] acted in a synchronized and coordinated manner in carrying out the criminal enterprise, thus evincing the existence of conspiracy among them. 11
Acting DOJ Secretary De Vanadera decreed in the end:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The DOJ resolution [dated March 18, 2009] (Resolution 212, series of 2009) is hereby RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor of Region IV, San Pablo City, is directed to file the necessary information for murder against x x x Primo Lopez, Lorenzo Pamplona, [respondent] Florencio Morales, Jr. and Sandy Pamplona, should the information filed earlier against x x x Primo Lopez and Lorenzo Pamplona was already withdrawn, otherwise, to cause the amendment thereof to include x x x Sandy Pamplona and [respondent] Florencio Morales, Jr. in the information as co-accused, and report the action taken hereon within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. 12