People vs. Liu and Chung, G.R. No. 189272, Jan.

21, 2015
Were the accused denied their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation against him?
- Charging appellants with illegal possession when the information filed against them charges the crime
of importation does not violate their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation brought against them. The rule is that when there is a variance between the offense charged
in the complaint or information, and that proved or established by the evidence, and the offense as
charged necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved
included in that which is charged. An offense charged necessarily includes thatwhich is proved, when
some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as this is alleged in the complaint or
information, constitute the latter.
Indeed, We have had several occasions in the past wherein an accused, charged with the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, was convicted of illegal possession thereof. In those cases, this Court upheld the
prevailing doctrine that the illegal sale of dangerous drugs absorbs the illegal possession thereof except
if the seller was also apprehended in the illegal possession of another quantity of dangerous drugs not
covered by or not included in the illegal sale, and the other quantity of dangerous drugs was probably
intended for some future dealings or use by the accused. Illegal possession of dangerous drugs is
therefore an element of and is necessarily included in illegal sale. Hence, convicting the accused with
the former does not violate his right to be informed of the accusation against him for it is an element of
the latter.
In a similar manner, considering that illegal possession is likewise an element of and is necessarily
included in illegal importation of dangerous drugs, convicting appellants of the former, if duly
established beyond reasonable doubt, does not amount to a violation of their right to be informed of the
nature and cause of accusation against them. Indeed, where an accused is charged with a specific crime,
he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included
therein.
People vs. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, Apr. 5, 2015
Will the reinvestigation placed the accused in danger of double jeopardy?
such reinvestigation would not subject Estores and San Miguel to double jeopardy because the same
only attaches if the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy has attached before the second;
(2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as
in the first. In turn, a first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent
court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been
acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.133
In this case, the case against Estores and San Miguel was dismissed before they were arraigned. Thus,
there can be no double jeopardy to speak of