Criminal Procedure Case Digests Rule110 2k A.Y. 2016 2017 (Version3)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE under ATTY. SENGA CASE DIGESTS PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD & JURISDICTION CLASS OF 2K, A.Y.
2016-2017
Abong. Abrio. Afable. Culajara. Dadayan. Lledo. Macabato. Manda. Mediodia. Pablo. Pelausa. Salonga. Santos, E. Santos, R. Sarmiento. Tolentino. Villanueva.
PEOPLE VS CAOILE The incident was reported to the Rosario police station when [CCC],
[AAA]s aunt, heard [AAA] blurt out that she was abused by the
DOCTRINE: accused. After executing the respective affidavits, [AAA] was
examined and it was found out that [AAA]s genitalia suffered a
For a complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state the name multiple hymenal laceration which, at the time of the examination,
of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; was already healed. Claire Baliaga, a psychologist of the Philippine
the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the Mental Health Association testified that she conducted a
name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission psychological evaluation on [AAA] and discovered [AAA] had mental
of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. age of a seven-year, nine-month old child.
FACTS: Accused-appellant Moises Caoile (Caoile), in two separate Amended

Informations filed before the RTC on January 5, 2006, was charged
The evidence for the prosecution provides that victim AAA was raped with two separate counts of Rape of a Demented Person under
on three instances by Moises Caoile. The first one was when the Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code. Caoile
accused invited [AAA] to go to the bamboo trees in their place. Upon pleaded not guilty to both charges upon his arraignment and joint
reaching thereat, the accused directed [AAA] to lie down on the trial on the merits ensued. The defense moved that it be allowed to
ground. [AAA] followed the instruction of the accused whom she have [AAA] be evaluated by a psychiatrist of its own choice who
called uncle Moises. The second one happened Four (4) days concluded that [AAA] is suffering from Mild Mental Retardation.
thereafter while [AAA] was at the pumping well near their house and
the accused invited her to gather guavas at the mountain. The third RTC rendered a Joint Decision finding Caoile guilty beyond reasonable
one happened when the accused invited [AAA] to gather santol fruits. doubt of two counts of rape. Caoile elevated the RTC ruling to the
[AAA] went with the accused, and once again the accused had carnal Court of Appeals, claiming that his guilt was not proven beyond
knowledge of her. reasonable doubt by attacking the credibility of AAA and the methods
used to determine her mental state.The Court of Appeals affirmed
On the other hand, the evidence for the defense provides that [AAA] with modification the RTC decision
was a frequent visitor in the accuseds house and during his so called
alone moments that the accused courted [AAA]. Soon thereafter, ISSUE: W/N the mistake in the Amended Informations will exonerate
accused and [AAA] found themselves falling in love with one other. Caoile vis--vis the crime Caoile was actually convicted of considering
The accused did not know that [AAA] was a demented person since that AAA, who was clinically diagnosed to be a mental retardate, can
she acted like a normal individual. In fact, she went to a regular be properly classified as a person who is "deprived of reason," and
school and she finished her elementary education. not one who is "demented."
RULING:
1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE under ATTY. SENGA CASE DIGESTS PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD & JURISDICTION CLASS OF 2K, A.Y. 2016-2017
Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, For a complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state the
provides for two circumstances when having carnal knowledge of a name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the
woman with a mental disability is considered rape: statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of
1. Paragraph 1(b): when the offended party is deprived of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense
reason x x x; and was committed. What is controlling is not the title of the complaint,
nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or
2. Paragraph 1(d): when the offended party is x x x part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law
demented.16 made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged
and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or omissions
Caoile was charged in the Amended Informations with rape of a complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable
demented person under paragraph 1(d). The term demented17 refers a person of common understanding to know what offense is
to a person who has dementia, which is a condition of deteriorated intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper
mentality, characterized by marked decline from the individuals judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not
former intellectual level and often by emotional apathy, madness, or accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged.
insanity.18 On the other hand, the phrase deprived of reason under Every element of the offense must be stated in the information.
paragraph 1(b) has been interpreted to include those suffering from What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein
mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation.19 must be determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of
the specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a
The mistake in the will not exonerate Caoile even though AAA, who crime in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of
was clinically diagnosed to be a mental retardate, can be properly the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare
classified as a person who is "deprived of reason," and not one who is his defense. The presumption is that the accused has no
"demented." independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.
.1wphi1 In the first place, he did not even raise this as an objection. AMPATUAN JR vs. SEC. LEILA DE LIMA, as Secretary of the Department of
More importantly, none of his rights, particularly that of to be Justice, CSP CLARO ARELLANO, as Chief State Prosecutor, National
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, was Prosecution Service, and PANEL OF PROSECUTORS OF THE
violated. Although the Amended Informations stated that he was MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE, headed by RSP PETER MEDALLE
being charged with the crime of rape of a demented person under G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013
paragraph 1(d), it also stated that his victim was "a person with a
DOCTRINE:
mental age of seven (7) years old." Elucidating on the foregoing, this
In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus
Court, in People v. Valdez,21 held:
cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way the judgment and
discretion are to be exercised. Consequently, the Secretary of Justice may
2
be compelled by writ of mandamus to act on a letter-request or a motion to

include a person in the information, but may not be compelled by writ of RULING:
mandamus to act in a certain way, i.e., to grant or deny such letter- request NO. Dalandags exclusion as an accused from the informations did not at all
or motion. amount to grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Panel of Prosecutors
whose procedure in excluding Dalandag as an accused was far from
FACTS: arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic. Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules
On November 23, 2009, 57 innocent civilians were massacred in Sitio of Court, which requires that the complaint or information shall be xxx
Masalay, Municipality of Ampatuan, Maguindanao Province. Among the against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved,
principal suspects was petitioner (Ampatuan Jr.), then the Mayor of the albeit a mandatory provision, may be subject of some exceptions, one of
Municipality of Datu Unsay, Maguindanao Province. The NBI and the which is when a participant in the commission of a crime becomes a state
Philippine National Police (PNP) charged other suspects, numbering more witness. While it is true that, as a general rule, the discharge or exclusion of
than a hundred, for what became aptly known as the Maguindanao a co-accused from the information in order that he may be utilized as a
massacre. The Department of Justice (DOJ) resolved to file the Prosecution witness rests upon the sound discretion of the trial court, such
corresponding informations for murder against Ampatuan Jr. Ampatuan Jr. discretion is not absolute and may not be exercised arbitrarily, but with due
pleaded not guilty. In the joint resolution, the Panel of Prosecutors charged regard to the proper administration of justice. Anent the requisite that there
196 individuals with multiple murder in relation to the Maguindanao must be an absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose
massacre. It appears that in issuing the joint resolution, the Panel of discharge is sought, the trial court has to rely on the suggestions of and the
Prosecutors partly relied on the twin affidavits of one Kenny Dalandag. information provided by the public prosecutor. The reason is obvious the
Dalandag was admitted into the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ. public prosecutor should know better than the trial court, and the Defense
The QC RTC issued its amended pre-trial order, wherein Dalandag was listed for that matter, which of the several accused would best qualify to be
as one of the Prosecution witnesses. Ampatuan Jr. through counsel, wrote discharged in order to become a state witness. There is no requirement
to respondent Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima and Assistant Chief State under Republic Act No. 6981 for the Prosecution to first charge a person in
Prosecutor Richard Fadullon to request the inclusion of Dalandag in the court as one of the accused in order for him to qualify for admission into the
informations for murder considering that Dalandag had already confessed Witness Protection Program. The admission as a state witness under
his participation in the massacre through his two sworn declarations. Republic Act No. 6981 also operates as an acquittal, and said witness cannot
However, Secretary De Lima denied petitioners request. Accordingly, subsequently be included in the criminal information except when he fails
Ampatuan Jr. brought a petition for mandamus in the RTC in Manila seeking or refuses to testify. The immunity for the state witness is granted by the
to compel respondents to charge Dalandag as another accused in the DOJ, not by the trial court. The admission of Dalandag into the Witness
various murder cases undergoing trial in the QC RTC. The RTC of Manila Protection Program of the Government as a state witness since August 13,
issued the assailed order dismissing the petition for mandamus. 2010 was warranted by the absolute necessity of his testimony to the
successful prosecution of the criminal charges. That he admitted his
ISSUE: participation in the commission of the Maguindanao massacre was no
Whether respondents may be compelled by writ of mandamus to charge hindrance to his admission into the Witness Protection Program as a state
Dalandag as an accused for multiple murder in relation to the Maguindanao witness, for all that was necessary was for him to appear not the most
massacre despite his admission to the Witness Protection Program of the guilty. Accordingly, he could not anymore be charged for his participation in
DOJ. the Maguindanao massacre, as to which his admission operated as an
3
acquittal, unless he later on refuses or fails to testify in accordance with the evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined
sworn statement that became the basis for his discharge against those now by law.
charged for the crimes.
Facts:
In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus
On January 31, 1997, petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust
may only be resorted to in order to compel respondent tribunal,
Company charged respondents before the
corporation, board, officer or person to take action, but it cannot be used to
direct the manner or the particular way discretion is to be exercised, or to Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila with the
compel the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph
of judgment or discretion. As such, respondent Secretary of Justice may be 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
compelled to act on the letter-request of petitioner, but may not be
compelled to act in a certain way, i.e., to grant or deny such letter-request. According to the audit officer of metrobank, Antonio Ivan S.
Considering that respondent Secretary of Justice already denied the letter- Aguirre, the special audit conducted on the cash and mending
request, mandamus was no longer available as petitioner's recourse. operations of its Port are branch uncovered fraudulent transactions
perpetrated by respondents in connivance with client Universal
Converter Philippines, Inc. (Universal). Respondents were the only
voting members of the branchs credit committee authorized to
Metropolitan Bank v. Reynado extend credit accommodation to clients up to P200,000.00. That
GR No. 164538 through the so-called Bills Purchase Transaction, Universal, which
Date: Aug 9, 2010 has a paid-up capital of only P125,000.00 and actual maintaining
balance of P5,000.00, was able to make withdrawals totaling
RULE 110 P81,652,000.00 against uncleared regional checks deposited in its
Doctrine: account at petitioners Port Area branch. Consequently, Universal
was able to utilize petitioners funds even before the seven-day
1. Novation is not one of the grounds prescribed by the Revised Penal clearing period for regional checks expired; that Universals
Code for the extinguishment of criminal liability. withdrawals against uncleared regional check deposits were
without prior approval of petitioners head office; that the
2. Generally, a public prosecutor is afforded a wide latitude of uncleared checks were later dishonored by the drawee bank for the
discretion in the conduct of a preliminary investigation. By way of reason Account Closed; and, that respondents acted with fraud,
exception, however, judicial review is allowed where respondent has deceit, and abuse of confidence.
clearly established that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of
discretion that is, when he has exercised his discretion in an arbitrary, In their defense, respondents denied responsibility in the
capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or anomalous transactions with Universal and claimed that they only
personal hostility, patent and gross enough as to amount to an
4
intended to help the Port Area branch solicit and increase its Co. v. Tonda, the negotiations pertain to and affect only the civil
deposit accounts and daily transactions. aspect of the case but do not preclude prosecution for the offense
already committed
Meanwhile, on February 26, 1997, petitioner and Universal entered
into a Debt Settlement Agreement whereby the latter Issue/s:
acknowledged its indebtedness to the former in the total amount of 1. WON novation and undertaking to pay the amount embezzled do
P50,990,976.27 as of February 4, 1997 and undertook to pay the not extinguish criminal liability.
same in bi-monthly amortizations in the sum of P300,000.00
starting January 15, 1997, covered by postdated checks, plus 2. WON it is the duty of the public prosecutor to implead all persons
balloon payment of the remaining principal balance and interest who appear criminally liable for the offense charged.
and other charges, if any, on December 31, 2001.
Held:
Following the requisite preliminary investigation, Assistant City
Prosecutor Winnie M. Edad (Prosecutor Edad) in her Resolution 1. Novation is not one of the grounds prescribed by the Revised
dated July 10, 1997 found petitioners evidence insufficient to hold Penal Code for the extinguishment of criminal liability.
respondents liable for estafa. Acccording to Edad: The execution of
the Debt Settlement Agreement puts complainant bank in estoppel Under Article 1311 of the Civil Code, contracts take effect only
to argue that the liability is criminal. Since the agreement was made between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in case where the
even before the filing of this case, the relations between the parties rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible
have changed, novation has set in and prevented the incipience of by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. The civil law
any criminal liability on the part of respondents principle of relativity of contracts provides that contracts can only
bind the parties who entered into it, and it cannot favor or prejudice a
DOJ decreed that there is no Estafa in the case third person, even if he is aware of such contract and has acted with
knowledge thereof.
Petitioner persistently insists that the execution of the Debt
Settlement Agreement with Universal did not absolve private In the case at bar, it is beyond cavil that respondents are not parties
respondents from criminal liability for estafa. Petitioner submits to the agreement. The intention of the parties thereto not to include
that the settlement affects only the civil obligation of Universal but them is evident either in the onerous or in the beneficent provisions
did not extinguish the criminal liability of the respondents. of said agreement. They are not assigns or heirs of either of the
Petitioner thus faults the CA in sustaining the DOJ which in turn parties. Not being parties to the agreement, respondents cannot take
affirmed the finding of Prosecutor Edad for committing apparent refuge therefrom to bar their anticipated trial for the crime they
error in the appreciation and the application of the law on committed. It may do well for respondents to remember that the
novation. By petitioners claim, citing Metropolitan Bank and Trust criminal action commenced by petitioner had its genesis from the
5
alleged fraud, unfaithfulness, and abuse of confidence perpetrated by remedy under the circumstances where persons who ought to be
them in relation to their positions as responsible bank officers. It did charged were not included in the complaint of the private
not arise from a contractual dispute or matters strictly between complainant is definitely not to dismiss the complaint but to include
petitioner and Universal. This being so, respondents cannot rely on them in the information. As the OSG correctly suggested, the proper
subject settlement agreement to preclude prosecution of the offense remedy should have been the inclusion of certain employees of
already committed to the end of extinguishing their criminal liability Universal who were found to have been in cahoots with respondents
or prevent the incipience of any liability that may arise from the in defrauding petitioner. The DOJ, therefore, cannot seriously argue
criminal offense. This only demonstrates that the execution of the that because the officers of Universal were not indicted, respondents
agreement between petitioner and Universal has no bearing on the themselves should not likewise be charged. Their non-inclusion
innocence or guilt of the respondents. cannot be perversely used to justify desistance by the public
prosecutor from prosecution of the criminal case just because not all
2. Yes, it is the duty of the public prosecutor. In a preliminary of those who are probably guilty thereof were charged.
investigation, a public prosecutor determines whether a crime has
been committed and whether there is probable cause that the In this case, mandamus is the proper remedy when the resolution of
accused is guilty thereof.The Secretary of Justice, however, may public respondent is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. It shall
review or modify the resolution of the prosecutor. issue when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
Generally, a public prosecutor is afforded a wide latitude of discretion specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.
in the conduct of a preliminary investigation. By way of exception, The writ of mandamus is not available to control discretion neither
however, judicial review is allowed where respondent has clearly may it be issued to compel the exercise of discretion. Truly, it is a
established that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion matter of discretion on the part of the prosecutor to determine which
that is, when he has exercised his discretion in an arbitrary, persons appear responsible for the commission of a crime. However,
capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or the moment he finds one to be so liable it becomes his inescapable
personal hostility, patent and gross enough as to amount to an duty to charge him therewith and to prosecute him for the same. In
evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined such a situation, the rule loses its discretionary character and
by law. becomes mandatory. Thus, where, as in this case, despite the
sufficiency of the evidence before the prosecutor, he refuses to file
Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court mandates that all criminal the corresponding information against the person responsible, he
actions must be commenced either by complaint or information in abuses his discretion. His act is tantamount to a deliberate refusal to
the name of the People of the Philippines against all persons who perform a duty enjoined by law. The Secretary of Justice, on the other
appear to be responsible therefor. Thus the law makes it a legal duty hand, gravely abused his discretion when, despite the existence of
for prosecuting officers to file the charges against whomsoever the sufficient evidence for the crime of estafa as acknowledged by the
evidence may show to be responsible for the offense. The proper investigating prosecutor, he completely ignored the latters finding
6
and proceeded with the questioned resolution anchored on purely last seen alive with respondent Philip Ronald P. Esteban (Philip) less
evidentiary matters in utter disregard of the concept of probable than an hour before the discovery of his lifeless body.
cause. Findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review
unless shown to have been made with grave abuse. The present case It was around 7:50 p.m., SG Abelardo Sarmiento Jr., while patrolling
calls for the application of the exception. Given the facts of this case, around the village, noticed that the side of the Honda Civic with plate
petitioner has clearly established that the public prosecutor and the JTG 333 had red streaks, which prompted him to move towards the
Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion. parked cars. He inspected the then empty vehicle and noticed that its
radio was still turned on. He checked the cars and discovered that the
rear and side of the Honda Civic with plate CRD 999 were smeared
CALLO CLARIDAD VS ESTEBAN with blood. He saw on the passenger seat a cellular phone covered
[G.R. No. 191567, March 20, 2013] with blood. It was then that he found the bloodied and lifeless body
of Chase lying between the parallel cars. The body was naked from
Doctrine: the waist up, with a crumpled bloodied shirt on the chest, and with
only the socks on.
The determination of probable cause to file a criminal complaint or
information in court is exclusively within the competence of the The Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Quezon City dismissed the
Executive Department, through the Secretary of Justice. The courts complaint in its resolution dated December 18, 2007.
cannot interfere in such determination, except upon a clear showing
that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion The OCP observed that there was lack of evidence, motive, and
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. circumstantial evidence sufficient to charge Philip with homicide,
much less murder; that the circumstantial evidence could not link
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing Philip to the crime; that several possibilities would discount Philips
that more likely than not a crime has been committed, and that it presence at the time of the crime, including the possibility that there
was committed by the accused. were more than one suspect in the fatal stabbing of Chase; that Philip
was not shown to have any motive to kill Chase; that their common
Facts: friends attested that the two had no ill-feelings towards each other;
that no sufficient evidence existed to charge Teodora with the crime,
The petitioner, Marie Callo-Claridad, is the mother of the late whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory; and that the
Cheasare Armani Chase Callo Claridad, whose lifeless but bloodied allegation that Teodora could have been the female person engaged
body was discovered in the evening of February 27, 2007 between in a discussion with a male person inside the car with plate JTG 333
vehicles parked at the carport of a residential house located at No.10 was unreliable being mere hearsay.
Cedar Place, Ferndale Homes, Quezon City. Allegedly, Chase had been
7
The Secretary of Justice stated that the confluence of lack of an only of such evidence as may engender a well-founded belief that an
eyewitness, lack of motive, insufficient circumstantial evidence, and offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty
the doubt as to the proper identification of Philip by the witnesses of the offense. The role and object of preliminary investigation were
resulted in the lack of probable cause to charge Philip and Teodora to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive
with the crime alleged. The Secretary of Justice held that the only prosecutions, and to protect him from open and public accusation of
circumstantial evidence connecting Philip to the crime was the crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial, and
allegation that at between 7:00 to 7:30 oclock of the evening in also to protect the State from useless and expensive prosecutions.
question, Chase had boarded the white Honda Civic car driven by
Philip; that the witnesses positive identification of Philip as the driver The determination of the existence of probable cause lies within the
of the car was doubtful, however, considering that Philip did not alight discretion of the public prosecutor after conducting a preliminary
from the car, the windows of which were tinted; and that the rest of investigation upon the complaint of an offended party. Probable
the circumstances were pure suspicions, and did not indicate that cause for purposes of filing a criminal information is defined as such
Philip had been with Chase at the time of the commission of the crime. facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime
has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty
Issue: thereof. Probable cause, although it requires less than evidence
justifying a conviction, demands more than bare suspicion.
Whether the CA committed a reversible error in upholding the
decision of the Secretary of Justice finding that there was no probable For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction,
cause to charge the respondents with murder for killing Chase Callo all the circumstances must be consistent with one another and must
Claridad. constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable
conclusion that a crime has been committed and that the
Ruling: respondents are probably guilty thereof. The pieces of evidence
must be consistent with the hypothesis that the respondents were
The Supreme Court denies the petition. probably guilty of the crime and at the same time inconsistent with
the hypothesis that they were innocent, and with every rational
According to Section 1, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, a hypothesis except that of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient,
preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine therefore, if: (a) there is more than one circumstance, (b) the facts
whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief from which the inferences are derived have been proven, and (c) the
that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. The investigation is conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
advisedly called preliminary, because it is yet to be followed by the
trial proper in a court of law. The occasion is not for the full and The records show that the circumstantial evidence linking Philip to the
exhaustive display of the parties evidence but for the presentation killing of Chase derived from the bare recollections of Ariane (sister of
8
Chase), and of Guray and Corpus (respectively, the house help and satisfied that they voluntarily executed and
nanny in the household of a resident of the subdivision) about seeing understood their affidavits.
Chase board the white Honda Civic at around 7:00 p.m. of February
27, 2007, and about Philip being the driver of the Honda Civic. But
there was nothing else after that, because the circumstances The CA explained that the requirement for the certifications under
revealed by the other witnesses could not even be regarded as the aforecited rule was designed to avoid self-serving and unreliable
circumstantial evidence against Philip. To be sure, some of the evidence from being considered for purposes of the preliminary
affidavits were unsworn. The statements subscribed and sworn to investigation, the present rules for which do not require a
before the officers of the Philippine National Police (PNP) having the confrontation between the parties and their witnesses; hence, the
authority to administer oaths upon matters connected with the certifications were mandatory.
performance of their official duties undeniably lacked the requisite
certifications to the effect that such administering officers had The Court denies the petition for review on certiorari, and affirms
personally examined the affiants, and that such administering officers the decision of the Court of Appeals.
were satisfied that the affiants had voluntarily executed and
understood their affidavits. The lack of the requisite certifications
from the affidavits of most of the other witnesses was in violation of Jimenez vs. Sorongon, G.R. No. 178607, December 5, 2012
Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which pertinently provides Doctrine:
thusly: In appeals of criminal cases before the CA and before this Court, the
OSG is the appellate counsel of the People, pursuant to Section 35(1),
Section 3. Procedure. The preliminary Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code. The
investigation shall be conducted in the following People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the OSG
manner: (a) The complaint shall state the address can represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or
of the respondent and shall be accompanied by the in this Court.
affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as Facts:
well as other supporting documents to establish On August 19, 2003, petitioner Jimenez, the President of Unland
probable cause. They shall be in such number of Shipping and Management Corporation, filed a complaint-affidavit
copies as there are respondents, plus two (2) with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City against the
copies for the official file. The affidavits shall be respondents for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment. The
subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or petitioner alleged that the respondents falsely represented their
government official authorized to administer oath, stockholdings in TMSIs articles of incorporation to secure a license to
or, in their absence or unavailability, before a operate as a recruitment agency from the POEA. The 3rd Assistant
notary public, each of who must certify that he City Prosecutor recommended the filing of information for syndicated
personally examined the affiants and that he is and large scale illegal recruitment against the respondents. The City
9
Prosecutor approved his recommendation and filed the issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as
corresponding criminal information with the RTC of Mandaluyong distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. By real
City. Subsequently, in a December 14, 2004 resolution, the City interest is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished from
Prosecutor reconsidered the May 4, 2004 resolution and filed a a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate or
motion with the RTC to withdraw the information. The petitioner and consequential interest. When the plaintiff or the defendant is not a
respondents Antzoulatos and Gaza filed their opposition and real party in interest, the suit is dismissible. Procedural law basically
comment to the opposition, respectively. RTC denied the motion to mandates that all criminal actions commenced by complaint or by
withdraw information as it found the existence of probable cause to information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a
hold the respondents for trial. Thus, the RTC ordered the issuance of public prosecutor. In appeals of criminal cases before the CA and
warrants of arrest against the respondents.The RTC granted before this Court, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People,
respondent Alamils motion for reconsideration. It treated pursuant to Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987
respondent Alamils motion for judicial determination as a motion to Administrative Code. This section explicitly provides: The People is the
dismiss for lack of probable cause. It found that no evidence on real party in interest in a criminal case and only the OSG can
record to indicate that the respondents gave any false information to represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in
secure a license to operate as a recruitment agency from the POEA. this Court.
The petitioner moved for reconsideration, stressing the existence of In this case, the petitioner has no legal personality to assail the
probable cause to prosecute the respondents and that respondent dismissal of the criminal case since the main issue raised by the
Alamil had no standing to seek any relief from the RTC. On April 26, petitioner involved the criminal aspect of the case, which is the
2006, respondent Alamil moved to expunge the motion for being a existence of probable cause. The petitioner did not appeal to protect
prohibited pleading since the motion did not have the public his alleged pecuniary interest as an offended party of the crime, but
prosecutors conformity. Then petitioner appealed to CA by way of to cause the reinstatement of the criminal action against the
certiorari but denied it. respondents. This involves the right to prosecute which pertains
Issue: exclusively to the People, as represented by the OSG.
Whether or not CA committed a reversible error in dismissing WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the appeal. The twin resolutions of the
outright the petitioners petition for certiorari for lack of legal Court of Appeals dated November 23, 2006 and June 28, 2007 in CA-
personality. G.R. SP No. 96584 are AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The petitioner has no
legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case It is well- People v Valdez
settled that "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the GR No.175602 January 18, 2012
name of the real party in interest" "who stands to be benefited or DOCTRINE The sufficiency of the allegations of the facts and
injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the circumstances constituting the elements of the crime charged is
avails of the suit." Interest means material interest or an interest in crucial in every criminal prosecution because of the ever-present
10
obligation of the State to duly inform the accused of the nature and continuously fired upon even after he was sprawled on the ground.
cause of the accusation. A practical consequence of the non- Ferdinand immediately approached the scene to help his brother
allegation of a detail that aggravates his liability is to prohibit the Moises. Ferdinand, however was shot on the left temporal portion of
introduction or consideration against the accused of evidence that his head and fell. Somebody told Joselito to run away, but he was hit
tends to establish that detail. The allegations in the information are at the back while running. Joselito fell on a burger machine. After
controlling in the ultimate analysis. Thus, when there is a variance shooting the Sayson brothers, Eduardo and Edwin escaped from the
between the offense charged in the information and that proved, and scene of the crime. The RTC convicted the two accused of three
the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the counts of murder and sentenced them to suffer reclusion perpetua
offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved for each count of murder. On appeal, the CA affirmed the convictions.
included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged included in ISSUE PO2 Valdez contends that the State did not establish the
the offense proved. In that regard, an offense charged necessarily qualifying circumstance of treachery.
includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or HELD The Court affirms the convictions, but holds PO2 Valdez guilty
ingredients of the former, as alleged in the information, constitute only of three counts of homicide due to the failure of the
the latter; an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense informations to allege the facts and circumstances constituting
proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or treachery. It cannot be otherwise, for, indeed, the real nature of the
form part of those constituting the latter. criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of
FACTS On March 1, 2000, at around 8:00 oclock in the evening, the information, or from the specification of the provision of law
Estrella Sayson, was at the canteen preparing for the celebration of alleged to have been violated, which are mere conclusions of law, but
the birthday of her second husband, Wilfredo Lladones, which was by the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information. In
held later in the evening. Estrellas family and other visitors ate and the case of People v Dimaano, for complaint or information to be
enjoyed themselves at the party. At about 10:00 oclock in the sufficient, it must state the name of the accused; the designation of
evening, the celebration was interrupted with the arrival of Eduardo the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of
and Edwin, who alighted from a motorcycle in front of the jai alai as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the
fronton. Eduardo and Edwin asked the jai alai teller, Jonathan Rubio, approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place
to come out. Jonathan was then attending to customers who were wherein the offense was committed. What is controlling is not the
buying jai alai tickets. Moises approached Eduardo and Edwin and title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or
tried to reason with them. Estrella saw Eduardo and Edwin armed the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere
with guns. She tried to prevent Moises from going near Edwin and conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the
Eduardo. Moises did not heed his mothers warning. He went out and crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or
advised Eduardo and Edwin not to force Jonathan to go out of the omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient
fronton. Estrella then heard one of the accused-appellants threaten to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense
Moises with the words Gusto mo unahin na kita? Moises replied is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper
huwag. Successive shots were thereafter heard. Moises fell and was judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not
11
accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. Every 2. Respondent court issued a warrant of arrest against the accused
element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts 3. Organo filed an Urgent Motion to Recall and /or Quash Warrant of
and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be Arrest Pending Resolution on the Issue of Lack of Jurisdiction and
determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the Other Incidents.
specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime 4. respondent court denied Organo's motion.
in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of the 5. Reason: accused movant is still a fugitive from justice and
accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his continues to evade arrest so that jurisdiction over her person has not
defense. The presumption is that the accused has no independent yet been acquired by this Court. Movant Organo should first
knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. surrender and place her person under the jurisdiction of this Court
before she may file any further pleading with this Court.
6. Organo filed before the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and
FLEURDELIZ B. ORGANO, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and the prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
JAIL WARDEN OF MANILA, respondents. ISSUE: WON the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over a case of
plunder when none of the accused occupy Salary Grade 27 or higher
FACTS: (Petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65) as provided under Republic Act No. 6758
The accused, among others, being then public officers and taking HELD: No.
advantage of their official positions as employees of the Bureau of REASON:
Internal Revenue criminally amass and acquire funds belonging to the - In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying
National Government by opening an unauthorized bank account with positions corresponding to salary grade 27 or higher, as prescribed
the Landbank of the Philippines, West Triangle Branch for and in in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officers
behalf of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and deposit therein money mentioned above, exclusive jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in
belonging to the government of the Philippines, consisting of revenue the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal
tax payments then withdraw therefrom the sum of P193,565,079.64 trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be,
between November, 1996 to February, 1997, without proper pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas
authority, through checks made payable to themselves and/or the Pambansa Blg. 129
sole proprietorship firms of the above-named private persons, - RA 7080 was impliedly repealed by RA 8249, such that prosecutions
thereby succeeding in misappropriating, converting, misusing and/or for plunder are cognizable by the Sandiganbayan only when the
malversing said public funds tantamount to a raid on the public accused is a public official with Salary Grade 27 or higher.
treasury, to their own personal gains, advantages and benefits, to the - As a consequence of these amendments, the Sandiganbayan partly
damage and prejudice of the government in the aforestated amount lost its exclusive original jurisdiction in cases involving violations of
PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS: R.A. No. 3019, as amended; R.A. No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section
1. Lilia B. Organo filed a Motion to Quash Information for lack of 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code. It retains only cases where
jurisdiction
12
the accused are those enumerated in subsection a, Section 4 above Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
and, generally, national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and with the Sandiganbayan against respondent Alas.
higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of The charges emanated from the alleged anomalous
1989 (R.A. No. 6758) advertising contracts entered into by Alas, in his capacity as
- However, it retains its exclusive original jurisdiction over civil and President and Chief Operating Officer of the Philippines Postal
criminal cases filed pursuant to or in connection with E.O. Nos. 1, 2, Savings Bank (PPSB), with Bagong Buhay Publishing Company
14, and 14-A. which purportedly caused damage and prejudice to the
government.
Oct. 30, 2002 Motion to Quash the Information: Respondent
Alas filed a motion to quash the information for lack of
PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN jurisdiction, which motion was vehemently opposed by the
GR Nos. 147706-07 - February 16, 2005 prosecution.
After considering the arguments of both parties, the
Doctrine: respondent court ruled that PPSB was a private corporation
and that its officers, particularly herein respondent Alas, did
The deliberate omission, in our view, clearly reveals the not fall under Sandiganbayan jurisdiction.
intention of the legislature to include the presidents, directors Dissatisfied, the People, through the OSP, filed this petition for
or trustees, or managers of both types of corporations within certiorari.
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan whenever they are
involved in graft and corruption. Had it been otherwise, it Sandiganbayans Ruling and Respondent Alas Contention reiterating
could have simply made the necessary distinction. But it did the ruling of the former:
not. The records disclosed that while PPSB is a subsidiary of the
Philippines Postal Corporation (PHILPOST), which is a
Facts: government owned corporation, the same is not created by
special law (original charter). It was organized and
Summary: Petitioner, represented by the Office of the Special incorporated under the Corporation Code (Batas Pambansa
Prosecutor (OSP), takes the affirmative position in this petition Blg. 68 which is a General Legislation).
for certiorari. Respondent Efren L. Alas and respondent court It was registered in the SEC. Under its Articles of
contends otherwise. Incorporation, the purpose for which said entity is formed was
Nov. 17, 1999 Filing of Information: The Office of the primarily for business, x x x likewise its 7 secondary purposes
Ombudsman filed two separate informations for violation of points that it exists for business.
13
Thus, its officers and employees are not covered by the GSIS
and are under the SSS law, and actions for reinstatement and Held:
backwages are not within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service
Commission but by the National Labor Relations Commission We find merit in the petition.
(NLRC).
According to jurisprudence, The test in determining whether It should be pointed out however, that the jurisdiction of the
a government-owned or controlled corporation is subject to Sandiganbayan is separate and distinct from the Civil Service
the Civil Service Law is the manner of its creation such that Commission. The same is governed by Article XI, Section 4 of the 1987
government corporation created by special charter are subject Constitution (not Article IX-B Section 2(1) of the Constitution) which
to its provision while those incorporated under the general provides that
corporation law are not within its coverage.
x x x the present anti-graft court known as the
Prosecutions Contention: Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its
The PPSB was a GOCC as the term was defined under Section 2 jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.
(13) of the Administrative Code of 1987. LIKEWISE, in further
defining the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan RA 8249 did not This provision, in effect, retained the jurisdiction of the anti-
make a distinction as to the manner of creation of the GOCCs graft court as defined under Art. XIII, Section 5 of the 1973
for their officers to fall under its jurisdiction. Hence, being the Constitution which mandated its creation, thus:
President and COO of the PPSB at the time of commission of
the crimes charged, respondent Alas came under the Sec 5. The Batasang Pambansa shall create a special
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. court, to be known as Sandiganbyan, which shall have jurisdiction
over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and
such other offense committed by public officers and employees,
Issue: including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the same relation to their office as may be determined by law.
officers in GOCCs organized and incorporated under the Corporation
Code in view of the delimitation provided for in Article IX-B Section On March 30, 1995, Congress, pursuant to its authority vested
2(1) of the Constitution which states that: under the 1987 Constitution, enacted RA 7975 maintaining the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over presidents, directors or
The Civil Service Commission embraces all branches, trustees, or managers of GOCCs without distinction whatsoever.
subdivisions, and instrumentalities, and agencies of the government, Thereafter, on Feb. 5, 1997, Congress enacted RA 8249 which
including government-owned and controlled corporations with preserved the subject provision mentioned.
original charters.
14
The deliberate omission, in our view, clearly reveals the The offended party can initiate a prosecution for rape even if she is a
intention of the legislature to include the presidents, directors or minor, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so upon
trustees, or managers of both types of corporations within the grounds other than her minority.
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan whenever they are involved in graft
and corruption. Had it been otherwise, it could have simply made the The complaint that starts the prosecutory proceeding, it is not the
necessary distinction. But it did not. complaint which confers jurisdiction in the court to try the case. The
courts jurisdiction is vested in it by the Judiciary Law.
In Quimpo v. Tanodbayan, this Court, already mindful of the
pertinent provisions of the 1987 Constitution, ruled that the A plea for forgiveness may be considered analogous to an attempt to
concerned officers of GOCCs, whether created by special law or compromise, which offer of compromise by the appellant may be
formed under the Corporation Code, come under the jurisdiction of received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt pursuant to
the Sandiganbayan for purposes of the provisions of the Anti-Graft Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence.
and Corrupt Practices Act.
Facts:
For indeed, a GOCC can conceivably create as many
subsidiaries under the Corporation Code as it might wish, use public On March 24, 1994, at about 11:00 oclock in the evening, while
funds, disclaim public accountability and escape the liabilities and complainant Charmelita D. Ruina, an invalid and mentally retarded,
responsibilities provided by law. By including the concerned officers was on her bed at the store of her mother at the Public Market at
of GOCCs organized and incorporated under the Corporation Code Carrascal, Surigao del Sur, where she and her mother lived, accused
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the legislature evidently Elmer Yparraguirre alias "Lalo" entered her room, the door of which
seeks to avoid just that. was not locked because her mother went to the store of her elder
sister. Upon getting inside, he undressed himself and approached the
Petition of prosecution GRANTED. Decision of respondent Complainant who was apparently awake. He caressed her and sucked
Sandiganbayan REVERSED and SET ASIDE. her breasts. She shouted for help but nobody came to rescue her,
perhaps because it was late already in the evening and her voice was
not loud enough to be heard at the distance as, in fact, it could be
PEOPLE V. YPARRAGUIRE heard at only about three to five meters away x x x. Accused told her
G.R. No. 124391. July 5, 2000 to keep quiet and when she put up some limpy resistance, he boxed
her. He then removed her panty went on top of her and inserted his
manhood into her most private part. She felt pain. After raping her,
Doctrine: he left her room. Soon her mother, Sanselas Leongas Ruina, arrived.
She reported to her the incident. The following morning, accused
went back to the store and apologized for what he did and promised
15
not to do it again. But his plea would not mollify Sanselas. She took prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through with the
the complainant to the Madrid (Surigao del Sur) District Hospital for scandal of a public trial.[4] The complaint simply starts the prosecutory
physical examination. Dr. Carlo P. Altrecha recorded the following proceeding but does not confer jurisdiction on the court to try the
findings in the Medical Certificate that he issued on March 26, 1994 case[5] because the overriding consideration in determining whether
the condition precedent in Article 344 has been complied with is the
Issue: intent of the aggrieved party to seek judicial redress for the affront
Whether the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the case committed.[6]
because the complaint was signed and filed by the chief of police and
not by the complainant. Article 344 was not enacted for the specific purpose of
benefitting the accused. When it is said that the
Held: requirement in Article 344 (that there should be a
complaint of the offended party or her relatives) is
The contention has no merit. Pursuant to the Section 5, Rule 110 jurisdictional, what is meant is that it is the complaint
provision, the offended party can initiate a prosecution for rape even that starts the prosecutory proceeding. It is not the
if she is a minor, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so complaint which confers jurisdiction in the court to try
upon grounds other than her minority. Although the victim in this the case. The courts jurisdiction is vested in it by the
case is no longer a minor, it is undisputed that she is a mental Judiciary Law.
retardate and suffering from physical deformity. No woman would
come out in the open, inform the authorities of the injustice done to
her, make a statement of what had happened unless her purpose is to
redress the wrong done against her honor. Once the violation of the Doctrine: Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses
law becomes known through a direct original participation initiated Title: PILAPIL v IBAY-SOMERA, 174 SCRA 653
by the victim, the requirements of Article 344 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC), to the effect that the offense of rape "shall not be FACTS:
prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or
her parents," are satisfied. Said provision is not determinative of the 1. On September 7, 1979, Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipina
jurisdiction of courts over the private offenses because the same is and the respondent to the case, and Erich Geiling, a German
governed by the Judiciary law, not the Revised Penal Code which national, were married at Friedenweiler in the Federal
deals with the definition of felonies and their punishment. Stated Republic of Germany. After about three and a half years of
differently, the complaint required in Article 344 is but a condition marriage, Geiling initiated a divorce proceeding against Pilapil
precedent to the exercise by the proper authorities of the power to in Germany in January 1983 while Pilapil filed an action for
prosecute the guilty parties. Such condition was imposed out of legal separation, support and separation of property before
consideration for the offended woman and her family who might
16
RTC of Manila in January 23, 1983 where it is still pending as a offended spouse. The fact that private respondent obtained a valid
civil case. divorce in his country in 1983, is admitted. According to Article 15 of
2. On January 15, 1986, the local Court of Germany promulgated the Civil Code, with relation to the status of Filipino citizens both
a divorce decree on the ground of failure of marriage of the here and abroad, since the legal separation of the petitioner and
spouses. The custody of the child, Isabella Pilapil Geiling, was respondent has been finalized through the courts in Germany and the
granted to petitioner. RTC inManila, the marriage of the couple were already finished, thus
3. On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed two complaints for giving no merit to the charges the respondent filed against the
adultery alleging that, while still married to respondent, petitioner. Private respondent, being no longer married to petitioner
petitioner had an affair with a certain William Chia and Jesus holds no legal merit to commence the adultery case asthe offended
Chua sometime in 1982 and 1983 respectively. spouse at the time he filed suit in 1986. The temporary restraining
4. The respondent city fiscal approved a resolution directing the order issued in this case was made permanent.
filing of two complaints for adultery against petitioner.
Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion in both criminal cases to RULING: WHEREFORE, the questioned order denying petitioner's
defer her arraignment and to suspend further proceedings motion to quash is SET ASIDE and another one entered DISMISSING
thereon. the complaint in Criminal Case No. 87-52435 for lack of jurisdiction.
5. Respondent judge merely reset the date of the arraignment The temporary restraining order issued in this case on October 21,
but before such scheduled date, petitioner moved for the 1987 is hereby made permanent. SO ORDERED.
suspension of proceedings. On September 8, 1987,
respondent judge denied he motion to quash and also
directed the arraignment of both accused.
6. Petitioner refused to be arraigned and thus charged with People v. Mariano
direct contempt and fined. G.R. No. L-47437 September 29, 1983
Doctrine:
ISSUE: It is not sanctioned by Section 4 of Rule 110 nor by Article 344
of the Revised Penal Code whose provisions do not
Whether or not the private respondents adultery charges against the categorically specify that the father has the preferential right
petitioner is still valid given the fact that both had been divorced prior to file the complaint for seduction, abduction, rape or abusos
to the filing of charges. deshonestos. It is noteworthy that the father and mother
jointly exercise parental authority over their legitimate
RATIO:
children who are not emancipated. It is their duty to
represent their emancipated children in all actions which may
The law provides that in prosecutions for adultery and concubinage,
redound to their benefit
the person who can legally file the complaint should only be the
17
"Under the circumstances, the complaint filed by the mother On September 27, 1976, a verified complaint for rape, signed
was a sufficient compliance with Article 344 and Section 4 of by Mrs. Maria Soria, was filed against appellant before the
Rule 110. It conferred jurisdiction on the court to try the case. Municipal Court of Daet, Camarines Norte. on the basis
The fathers passivity should not preclude the mother from thereof, an information was filed before the Court of First
securing redress for the outrage committed against her Instance of Camarines Norte.
daughter." It is settled in this jurisdiction that an accused who has carnal
knowledge with a mentally retarded or demented woman is
Facts:
guilty of rape the reason being that she is incapable of giving
Socorro Soria, a demented woman of 24 years, had been
rational consent to the sexual intercourse.
confined as a mental patient at the National Mental Hospital
Appellant further argues that the court a quo did not acquire
in Mandaluyong, Manila, since February 26, 1971 up to May 3,
jurisdiction over the case because the victims mother had no
1974 when she was transferred to the Don Susano J.
right or authority to file a complaint for rape inasmuch as the
Rodriguez Memorial Hospital in Pili, Camarines Sur for further
father was still living. He invokes the following provisions of
treatment.
Rule 110 of the Rules of Court
On May 26, 1975, her parents brought her home to Burabod,
Daet, Camarines Norte, to be treated by the appellant, known Issue: WON the victims mother had no right or authority to file a
in the locality as a faith healer or "spiritista." complaint for rape inasmuch as the father was still living. He invokes
chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library the following provisions of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.
In the afternoon of September 25, 1976, appellant went to the Held:
residence of the Sorias to treat Socorro. After securing some No. The mother had authority under Sec. 4 Rule 110.
"salonpas" from Mrs. Maria Soria, mother of Socorro, he Appellants contention is . . . based on a dubious technicality. If
entered the room of his patient, and locked the door. sustained, it might defeat the ends of justice. It is not sanctioned by
section 4 of Rule 110 nor by article 344 of the Revised Penal Code
Mrs. Soria proceeded to the room and when she noted that
whose provisions do not categorically specify that the father has the
the door was indeed locked from inside, she and Elizabeth
preferential right to file the complaint for seduction, abduction, rape
peeped through a small aperture and saw the appellant on top or abusos deshonestos. It is noteworthy that the father and mother
of Socorro in the act of sexual intercourse. jointly exercise parental authority over their legitimate children who
When Mrs. Soria confronted him, appellant expressed his are not emancipated. It is their duty to represent their emancipated
willingness to be Socorros husband and promise to construct children in all actions which may redound to their benefit [Arts. 311
an annex to his house where he would keep Socorro as his and 316, Civil Code].
wife. Under the circumstances the complaint filed by the mother was a
sufficient compliance with article 344 and section 4 of Rule 110. It
18
conferred jurisdiction on the court to try the case. The fathers Jinggoy filed a Very Urgent Omnibus Motion alleging that: (1) no
passivity should not preclude the mother from securing redress for probable cause exists to put him on trial and hold him liable for
the outrage committed against her daughter." plunder, it appearing that he was only allegedly involved in illegal
gambling and not in a series or combination of overt or criminal acts
as required in R.A. No. 7080; and (2) he is entitled to bail as a matter
of right. Petitioner prayed that he be excluded from the Amended
Jinggoy Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, People of the Philippines and Information and be discharged from custody. In the alternative,
Office of the Ombudsman petitioner also prayed that he be allowed to post bail in an amount to
GR No. 148965 February 26, 2002 be fixed by respondent court. The court denied the motions for lack
of merit. Jinggoy moved for reconsideration of the resolution but
Doctrine: The requirements on sufficiency of allegations are different respondent court denied the motion and proceeded to arraign
when conspiracy is not charged as a crime in itself but only as the Jinggoy. Jinggoy refused to make his plea prompting the court to
mode of committing the crime as in the case at bar / When enter a plea of not guilty for him. Hence, this petition. Jinggoy claims
conspiracy is charged as a crime (e.g. conspiracy to commit treason) that Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
governs.
Facts: November 2000, as an offshoot of the impeachment Issues:
proceedings against then president Joseph Estrada, five criminal (1)WON R.A. No. 7080 is unconstitutional on its face and, as applied
complaints against the former president and members of his family, to Jinggoy, and denying him the equal protection of the laws;
his associates, friends and conspirators were filed with the (2)WON the penalty for Jinggoy should be other than reclusion
respondent Office of the ombudsman. perpetua or death
The ombudsman found probable cause and filed with the (3)WON the court erred in sustaining the charge against Jinggoy for
Sandiganbayan several complaints against the former president and alleged offenses, and with alleged conspirators, with which and with
other respondents therein. One of the informations was the crime of whom he is not even remotely connected - contrary to the dictum
plunder under RA 7080 and among those respondents was Jinggoy that criminal liability is personal, not vicarious - results in the denial of
Estrada, then mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila. substantive due process;
The arraignment was set and no bail for petitioners provisional (4) WON the conspiracy was sufficiently alleged in the information as
liberty was fixed. Jinggoy filed a motion to Quash or Suspend the provided for in Sec. 6 Rule 110 of the Revised rules of Criminal
amended information on the ground that the Anti-Plunder Law is Procedure
unconstitutional and that it charged more than one offense. The
ombudsman opposed the motion. Held: The petition was dismissed.
The court issued a warrant of arrest. Thereafter, Jinggoy and his (1) Jinggoys contention that R.A. No. 7080 is unconstitutional as
co0accused were placed in custody of the law. applied to him is principally perched on the premise that the
19
Amended Information charged him with only one act or one offense Sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) in the Amended Information alleged the
which cannot constitute plunder. Pertinent to the case at bar is the different participation of each accused in the conspiracy. The
predicate act alleged in sub-paragraph (a) of the Amended gravamen of the conspiracy charge, therefore, is not that each
Information which is of receiving or collecting, directly or indirectly, accused agreed to receive protection money from illegal gambling,
on several instances, money in the aggregate amount of that each misappropriated a portion of the tobacco excise tax, that
P545,000,000.00 for illegal gambling in the form of gift, share, each accused ordered the GSIS and SSS to purchase shares of Belle
percentage, kickback or any form of pecuniary benefit x x x. In this Corporation and receive commissions from such sale, nor that each
sub-paragraph (a), Jinggoy, in conspiracy with former President unjustly enriched himself from commissions, gifts and kickbacks;
Estrada, is charged with the act of receiving or collecting money from rather, it is that each of them, by their individual acts, agreed to
illegal gambling amounting to P545 million. Contrary to petitioners participate, directly or indirectly, in the amassing, accumulation and
posture, the allegation is that he received or collected money from acquisition of ill-gotten wealth of and/or for former President
illegal gambling on several instances. The phrase on several Estrada.
instances means Jinggoy committed the predicate act in series.
(4) Conspiracy can be alleged in the Information as a mode of
(2) Jinggoy is under the impression that: (1) he is charged with only committing a crime or it may be alleged as constitutive of the crime
one act or offense and (2) he has not conspired with the other itself. When conspiracy is alleged as a crime in itself, the sufficiency
accused named in sub-paragraphs (b) to (d) of the Amended of the allegations in the Information charging the offense is
Information, ergo, the penalty imposable on him ought to be different governed by Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
from reclusion perpetua to death. R.A. No. 7080, he bewails, is cloudy Procedure. The complaint or information to be sufficient must state
on the imposable penalty on an accused similarly situated as he is. the name of the accused, designate the offense given by statute,
Jinggoy, however, overlooks that the second paragraph of the state the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of the
Amended Information charges him to have conspired with former offended party, the approximate date of the commission of the
President Estrada in committing the crime of plunder. His alleged offense and the place where the offense was committed.
participation consists in the commission of the predicate acts Our rulings have long settled the issue on how the acts or omissions
specified in sub-paragraph (a) of the Amended Information. If these constituting the offense should be made in order to meet the
allegations are proven, the penalty of petitioner cannot be unclear. It standard of sufficiency. Thus, the offense must be designated by its
will be no different from that of the former President for in name given by statute or by reference to the section or subsection of
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of the other. the statute punishing it. The information must also state the acts or
omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and
(3) In the crime of plunder, therefore, different parties may be aggravating circumstances. The acts or omissions complained of must
united by a common purpose. In the case at bar, the different be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common
accused and their different criminal acts have a commonalityto help understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and
the former President amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. No information for a
20
crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the and actually pursue it. A statement of this evidence is not necessary
elements of the crime charged. Every element of the offense must be in the information. In the case at bar, the second paragraph of the
stated in the information. What facts and circumstances are Amended Information alleged in general terms how the accused
necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to committed the crime of plunder. It used the words in
the definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. The connivance/conspiracy with his co-accused. Following the ruling in
requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is People v. Quitlong, these words are sufficient to allege the conspiracy
to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against him so of the accused with the former President in committing the crime of
as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense. The presumption is plunder
that the accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense.
However, The requirements on sufficiency of allegations are
different when conspiracy is not charged as a crime in itself but only RULE 110
as the mode of committing the crime as in the case at bar. There is ENRILE V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
less necessity of reciting its particularities in the Information because GR NO. 213455 AUGUST 11, 2015
conspiracy is not the gravamen of the offense charged. The
conspiracy is significant only because it changes the criminal liability DOCTRINE: An Information is an accusation in writing charging a
of all the accused in the conspiracy and makes them answerable as person with an offense, signed by the prosecutor and filed with the
co-principals regardless of the degree of their participation in the court. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, in implementing the
crime. constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and
Following the stream of the Supreme Courts jurisprudence, it cause of the accusation against him, specifically require certain
is enough to allege conspiracy as a mode in the commission of an matters to be stated in the Information for its sufficiency. The
offense in either of the following manner: (1) by use of the word requirement aims to enable the accused to properly prepare for his
conspire, or its derivatives or synonyms, such as confederate, defense since he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of
connive, collude, etc; or (2) by allegations of basic facts constituting the facts constituting the offense charged.
the conspiracy in a manner that a person of common understanding To be considered as sufficient and valid, an information must
would know what is intended, and with such precision as would state the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given
enable the accused to competently enter a plea to a subsequent by the statute; the acts or omissions constituting the offense; the
indictment based on the same facts. name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission
The allegation of conspiracy in the information must not be of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.
confused with the adequacy of evidence that may be required to Ultimate facts is defined as those facts which the
prove it. A conspiracy is proved by evidence of actual cooperation; of expected evidence will support. The term does not refer to the details
acts indicative of an agreement, a common purpose or design, a of probative matter or particulars of evidence by which these material
concerted action or concurrence of sentiments to commit the felony elements are tobe established. It refers to the facts that the
21
evidence will prove at the trial. Evidentiary facts, on the other hand,
are the facts necessary to establish the ultimate facts; they are the NATURE: Petition for certiorari with prayers (a) for the Court En Banc
premises that lead to the ultimate facts as conclusion. They are facts to act on the petition; (b) to expedite the proceedings and to set the
supporting the existence of some other alleged and unproven fact. case for oral arguments; and (c) to issue a temporary restraining
In general, a bill of particulars is the further specification of order to the respondents from holding a pre-trial and further
the charges or claims in an action, which an accused may avail of by proceedings in Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-02381 filed by
motion before arraignment, to enable him to properly plead and petitioner Juan Ponce Enrile (Enrile) challenging the July 11, 2014
prepare for trial. Its purpose is to enable an accused: to know the resolutions2 of the Sandiganbayan
theory of the governments case; to prepare his defense and to avoid
surprise at the trial; to plead his acquittal or conviction in bar of FACTS:
another prosecution for the same offense; and to compel the On June 5, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman filed an
prosecution to observe certain limitations in offering evidence. In Information for Plunder against Enrile, Jessica Reyes, Janet Lim
criminal proceedings, the motion for a bill of particulars is governed Napoles, Ronald Lim and John Raymond de Asis before the
by Section 9 of Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Sandiganbayan (SB).
The rule requires the information to describe the offense with Enrile responded by filing before the SB (1) an urgent omnibus
sufficient particularity to apprise the accused of the crime charged motion (motion to dismiss for lack of evidence on record to establish
with and to enable the court to pronounce judgment. The probable cause and ad cautelam motion for bail), and (2) a
particularity must be such that persons of ordinary intelligence may supplemental opposition to issuance of warrant of arrest and for
immediately know what the Information means. dismissal of Information, on June 10, 2014, and June 16, 2014,
A bill of particulars does not presuppose an invalid respectively.
information for it merely fills in the details on an otherwise valid On July 3, 2014, the SB denied Enriles motions and ordered
information to enable an accused to make an intelligent plea and the issuance of warrants of arrest on the plunder case against the
prepare for his defense. If the information does not charge an accused.
offense, then a motion to quash is in order. But if the information On July 8, 2014, Enrile received a notice of hearing informing
charges an offense and the averments are so vague that the accused him that his arraignment would be held before the SBs Third Division
cannot prepare to plead or prepare for trial, then a motion for a bill of on July 11, 2014.
particulars is the proper remedy. On July 10, 2014, Enrile filed a motion for bill of particulars
The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure grants the accused before the SB. On the same date, he filed a motion for deferment of
the remedy of a bill of particulars to better inform himself of the arraignment since he was to undergo medical examination at the
specifics or particulars concerning facts or matters that had not been Philippine General Hospital (PGH).
averred in the Information with the necessary clarity for purposes of On July 11, 2014, Enrile was brought to the SB pursuant to the
his defense. SBs order and his motion for bill of particulars was called for hearing.
Atty. Estelito Mendoza (Atty. Mendoza), Enriles counsel, argued the
22
motion orally. Thereafter, SB Presiding Justice (PJ) Amparo Cabotaje- Enrile further alleges that he was left to speculate on what his
Tang (Cabotaje-Tang), declared a 10-minute recess to deliberate on specific participation in the crime of plunder had been. He posits that
the motion. When the court session resumed, PJ Cabotaje-Tang the Information should have stated the details of the particular acts
announced the Courts denial of Enriles motion for bill of particulars that allegedly constituted the imputed series or combination of overt
essentially on the following grounds: acts that led to the charge of plunder.
(1) the details that Enrile desires are substantial reiterations of Enrile posits that his desired details are not evidentiary in
the arguments he raised in his supplemental opposition to the nature; they are material facts that should be clearly alleged in the
issuance of warrant of arrest and for dismissal of information; Information so Decision G.R. No. 213455 that he may be fully
and informed of the charges against him and be prepared to meet the
(2) the details sought are evidentiary in nature and are best issues at the trial.
ventilated during trial. Enrile adds that the grounds raised in his motion for bill of
The SB then directed Atty. Mendoza to immediately proceed particulars are cited in a context different from his opposition to the
with his motion for reconsideration. Atty. Mendoza thus orally issuance of a warrant of arrest. He maintains that the resolution of
presented his arguments for the reconsideration of the denial of the probable cause issue was interlocutory and did not bar the
Enriles motion for bill of particulars. The SB again declared a recess submission of the same issue in subsequent proceedings especially in
to deliberate on the motion. After five (5) minutes, PJ Cabotaje-Tang the context of a different proceeding.
announced the SBs denial of the motion for reconsideration.
Atty. Mendoza subsequently moved for the deferment of ISSUE: Whether or not the SBs denial of Enriles motion for bill of
Enriles arraignment. The SB responded by directing the doctors particulars is proper in that (a) the details sought are evidentiary in
present to determine whether he was physically fit to be arraigned. nature and (2) that Enriles cited grounds are reiterations of the
After he was declared fit, the SB proceeded with Enriles arraignment. grounds previously raised
Enrile entered a no plea, prompting the Sandiganbayan to enter a
not guilty plea on his behalf. RULING:
(1) (a) Proper Denial
Enriles contention: (1) Enriles requested details on Who among the accused
Enrile claims in this petition that the Sandiganbayan acted acquired the alleged ill-gotten wealth are not proper
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of subjects for a bill of particulars. The law on plunder provides
jurisdiction when it denied his motion for bill of particulars despite that it is committed by a public officer who acts by himself or
the ambiguity and insufficiency of the Information filed against him. in connivance with x x x. The term connivance suggests an
Enrile maintains that the denial was a serious violation of his agreement or consent to commit an unlawful act or deed with
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the another; to connive is to cooperate or take part secretly with
accusation against him. another. It implies both knowledge and assent that may either
be active or passive. Since the crime of plunder may be done
23
in connivance or in conspiracy with other persons, and the particularity in the Information, and may be passed upon at
Information filed clearly alleged that Enrile and Jessica Lucila the full-blown trial on the merits of the case.
Reyes conspired with one another and with Janet Lim Napoles, We also deny Enriles plea for details on who the
Ronald John Lim and John Raymund De Asis, then it is others were (aside from Napoles, Lim and De Asis) from
unnecessary to specify, as an essential element of the offense, whom he allegedly received kickbacks and commissions.
whether the ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least These other persons do not stand charged of conspiring with
P172,834,500.00 had been acquired by one, by two or by all of Enrile and need not therefore be stated with particularly,
the accused. In the crime of plunder, the amount of ill-gotten either as specific individuals or as John Does. The Court cannot
wealth acquired by each accused in a conspiracy is second- guess the prosecutions reason for not divulging the
immaterial for as long as the total amount amassed, identity of these others who may potentially be witnesses
acquired or accumulated is at least P50 million. for the prosecution.
We point out that conspiracy in the present case is not
charged as a crime by itself but only as the mode of (b) Improper Denial
committing the crime. Thus, there is no absolute necessity of (1) We hold that Enrile is entitled to a bill of particulars for
reciting its particulars in the Information because conspiracy is specifics sought under the following questions What are the
not the gravamen of the offense charged. particular overt acts which constitute the combination?
(2) We similarly rule that the petitioner is not entitled to a bill of What are the particular overt acts which constitute the
particulars for specifics sought under the questions For each series? Who committed those acts?
of the years 2004-2010, under what law or official document is It is not sufficient to simply allege that the amount of ill-
a portion of the Priority Development Assistance Fund gotten wealth amassed amounted to at least P50 million; the
identified as that of a member of Congress, in this instance, as manner of amassing the ill-gotten wealth whether through
ENRILEs, to be found? In what amount for each year is a combination or series of overt acts under Section 1(d) of
ENRILEs Priority Development Assistance Fund? and x x x what R.A. No. 7080 is an important element that must be alleged.
COA audits or field investigations were conducted which When the Plunder Law speaks of combination, it refers to at
validated the findings that each of Enriles PDAF projects in the least two (2) acts falling under different categories listed in
years 2004-2010 were ghosts or spurious projects? Section 1, paragraph (d) of R.A. No. 7080. On the other hand,
These matters will simply establish and support the to constitute a series there must be two (2) or more overt or
ultimate fact that Enriles PDAF was used to fund fictitious or criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration
nonexistent projects. Whether a discretionary fund (in the found in Section 1, paragraph (d).
form of PDAF) had indeed been made available to Enrile as a The heart of the Plunder Law lies in the phrase
member of the Philippine Congress and in what amounts are combination or series of overt or criminal acts. Hence, even
evidentiary matters that do not need to be reflected with if the accumulated ill-gotten wealth amounts to at least P50
million, a person cannot be prosecuted for the crime of
24
plunder if this resulted from a single criminal act. Considering (2) Enrile should likewise know the approximate dates, at least,
that without a number of overt or criminal acts, there can be of the receipt of the kickbacks and commissions, so that he
no crime of plunder,the various overt acts that constitute the could prepare the necessary pieces of evidence, documentary
combination and series the Information alleged, are or otherwise, to disprove the allegations against him. We
material facts that should not only be alleged, but must be point out that the period covered by the indictment extends
stated with sufficient definiteness so that the accused would from 2004 to 2010 or thereabout, of which, we again stress
know what he is specifically charged of and why he stands that different overt acts constituting of the elements of
charged, so that he could properly defend himself against the Plunder took place during this period.
charge. (3) Enrile is also entitled to particulars specifying the project that
A reading of the Information filed against Enrile in the Enrile allegedly funded coupled with the name of Napoles
present case shows that the prosecution made little or no NGO (e.g., Pangkabuhayan Foundation, Inc.), to sufficiently
effort to particularize the transactions that would constitute inform Enrile of the particular transactions referred to. Thus,
the required series or combination of overt acts. In fact, it the identified project and Napoles NGO are material
clustered under paragraph (a) of the Information its recital of facts that should be clearly and definitely stated in the
the manner Enrile and his co-accused allegedly operated, thus Information to allow Enrile to adequately prepare his defense
describing its general view of the series or combination of evidence on the specific transaction pointed to. The omission
overt criminal acts that constituted the crime of plunder. of these details will necessarily leave Enrile guessing on what
Without any specification of the basic transactions where transaction/s he will have to defend against, since he may
kickbacks or commissions amounting to at least have funded other projects with his PDAF. Specification will
P172,834,500.00 had been allegedly received, Enriles also allow him to object to evidence not referred to or
preparation for trial is obviously hampered. This defect is not covered by the Informations ultimate facts.
cured by mere reference to the prosecutions attachment, as (4) The government agencies to whom Enrile endorsed Napoles
Enrile already stated in his Reply that the desired details NGOs are also material facts that must be specified, since they
could not be found in the bundle of documents marked by the served a necessary role in the crime charged the alleged
prosecution, which documents are not integral parts of the conduits between Enrile and Napoles NGOs. They were
Information. Hence, the prosecution does not discharge its indispensable participants in the elaborate scheme alleged to
burden of informing Enrile what these overt acts were by have been committed.
simply pointing to these documents. To stress, this final sum is (5) In the present case, the particulars on the:(1) projects
not a general ball park figure but a very specific sum based on involved; (2) Napoles participating NGOs; and (3) the
a number of different acts and hence must have a breakdown. government agency involved in each transaction will
Providing this breakdown reinforces the required specificity in undoubtedly provide Enrile with sufficient data to know the
describing the different overt acts. specific transactions involved, and thus enable him to prepare
adequately and intelligently whatever defense or defenses he
25
may have. The purpose of a bill of particular is to clarify In the former, Enrile took the position that the Information did
allegations in the Information that are indefinite, vague, or not state a crime for which he can be convicted; thus, the Information
are conclusions of law to enable the accused to properly is void; he alleged a defect of substance. In the latter, he already
plead and prepare for trial, not simply to inform him of the impliedly admits that the Information sufficiently alleged a crime but
crime of which he stands accused. Verily, an accused cannot is unclear and lacking in details that would allow him to properly
intelligently respond to the charge laid if the allegations are plead and prepare his defense; he essentially alleged here a defect of
incomplete or are unclear to him. form. Note that in the former, the purpose is to dismiss the
Information for its failure to state the nature and cause of the
In the light of all these considerations, we hold that the accusation against Enrile; while the details desired in the latter (the
Sandiganbayans denial of the petitioners motion for a bill of motion for bill of particulars) are required to be specified in sufficient
particulars, on the ground that the details sought to be itemized or detail because the allegations in the Information are vague,
specified are all evidentiary without any explanation supporting this indefinite, or in the form of conclusions and will not allow Enrile to
conclusion constitutes grave abuse of discretion. As discussed adequately prepare his defense unless specifications are made.
above, some of the desired details are material facts that must be That every element constituting the offense had been alleged
alleged to enable the petitioner to properly plead and prepare his in the Information does not preclude the accused from requesting for
defense. The Sandiganbayan should have diligently sifted through more specific details of the various acts or omissions he is alleged to
each detail sought to be specified, and made the necessary have committed. The request for details is precisely the function of a
determination of whether each detail was an ultimate or evidentiary bill of particulars.
fact, particularly after Enrile stated in his Reply that the desired Hence, while the information may be sufficient for purposes of stating
details could not be found in the bundle of documents marked by the cause and the crime an accused is charged, the allegations may
the prosecution. We cannot insist or speculate that he is feigning still be inadequate for purposes of enabling him to properly plead and
ignorance of the presence of these desired details; neither can we put prepare for trial.
on him the burden of unearthing from these voluminous documents
what the desired details are. The remedy of a bill of particulars is
precisely made available by the Rules to enable an accused to
positively respond and make an intelligent defense. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RENATO alias BONG
TORRECAMPO and RENE TORRECAMPO, appellants.
(2) While both the motion to dismiss the Information and the motion [G.R. No. 139297. February 23, 2004]
for bill of particulars involved the right of an accused to due process, Doctrines:
the enumeration of the details desired in Enriles supplemental - Circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for purposes of conviction
opposition to issuance of a warrant of arrest and for dismissal of must have the following elements: (a) there is more than one
information and in his motion for bill of particulars are different circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
viewed particularly from the prism of their respective objectives. proved; and, (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to
26
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances

proved should constitute an unbroken chain, which leads to one fair Jovito was a tenant of the Escosio family. He shared a room with his
and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion brother Randy and first cousins Nora and Karen Torrecampo. The
of all others, as the guilty person. Escosios occupied the other room of the house. Erlinda Escosio
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure testified that on November 11, 1994, she was seated at the door of
provide: their room removing lice from the hair of her daughter when she saw
Sec. 8. Designation of the Offense. The complaint or information shall Nora and Renato pass by. They were followed by Rene
state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts Torrecampo. All three (3) went to the room of Jovito. A while later,
or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and Erlinda heard a weepy Nora pleading to get into Jovitos room where
aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, the loud noise of the radio could be heard. Some minutes after, she
reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute saw Nora and appellant Renato come out of the room. Appellant
punishing it. Renato dragged Nora to the direction of Sampaguita
Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained of Compound. Appellant Rene left the room after them. He was carrying
as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating a bag.
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and Erlinda continued that after the departure of appellants and Nora, she
not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms walked to the toilet and noticed blood at the door of Jovito. Curious,
sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what she peeped inside and was shocked by the sight of a body drenched
offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating in blood with its head severed from the neck. It was Jovito. Terrified,
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. she called for her neighbors and the barangay tanods. People milled
- Aggravating circumstances, whether qualifying or generic, must be to the crime scene until the authorities arrived. She felt that
alleged in the information before they can be considered by the appellants were the culprits. She explained that the main door is the
court. These new provisions apply even if the crime was committed only way in and out of the house. Either way, one would have to pass
prior to their effectivity since they are favorable to the accused, as in by their room to get to Jovitos. On subject date and time, she only
this case. saw appellants and Nora go in and come out of the scene of the
crime. At the police station, she identified both appellants.
Facts: According to Cherry Francisco, a neighbor who lives in front of the
Jovito Caspillo was found stabbed and decapitated in his rented house of the Escosios, she was eating breakfast with her family when
room. For his death, brothers Renato alias Bong and Rene she heard noises coming from the room of Jovito. She went out to
Torrecampo were charged before the RTC of Las Pinas with murder. investigate and noticed Nora beating at the door crying out, Bakit
The above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with one, ninyo siya pinatay? The door was suddenly opened and someone
Nora Torrecampo whose present whereabouts still unknown, they grabbed Nora by the hair and pulled her inside the room.
stabbed Caspillo in the different part(s) of his body and even cut off
his head with a bladed weapon.
27
Rene Torrecampo testified in his defense. He averred that on 10:30 A.M. based on his interview of Erlinda Escosio. He took down
November 11, 1994, he left for work and arrived at LFS Engineering the statement of Erlinda on November 12, 1994. He believed her
an hour later as indicated in the office logbook. He claimed that he story and submitted a report on his findings.
found out about Jovitos death only during his coffee break when Edgardo Gremio and SPO4 Esmeraldo Lucena gave corroborative
Renatos wife telephoned them about it. According to him, they left testimonies. Gremio testified that he is a member of the Barangay
for Laong immediately after getting permission from their employer Police Force in Laong Street, Barangay Almanza Uno, Las Pinas.
Lamberto Samonte. On their way home, Rene and Karen stopped by
the latters place primarily to find out what happened to Jovito and On the basis of circumstantial evidence, the court a quo found Renato
incidentally to get some of her things. The room was a mess and and Rene Torrecampo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and
Jovito was nowhere to be found. Rene added that at work the next sentenced them to death. It likewise ordered them to solidarily pay
day he read in Abante that his brother Renato was being tagged as the heirs of the victim Jovito Caspillo P100,000.00 as indemnity for
the principal suspect in the killing. Hence, he and his brother the loss of life; P35,014.00 in actual damages for the wake, funeral
immediately requested their employer Lamberto Samonte to and burial expenses; and, the costs of the suit. Hence, this automatic
accompany them to the Las Pinas Police Station to surrender. The review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
police took them to the Office of then Municipal Mayor Ben Casimiro by Republic Act No. 7659.
where they were presented to the media. An investigation
ensued. Appellants were detained and ultimately charged for the In convicting appellants, the trial court relied on the following
murder of Jovito. Renato Torrecampo basically related a similar circumstances: (a) at about 9:00 A.M. on November 11, 1994, Erlinda
story. Together with his brother, he asked their employer to escort saw Jovito very much alive; (b) after an hour, Erlinda saw appellant
him to the police station to clear his name. However, they were Renato and his sister Nora pass by, followed shortly by appellant
detained instead and threatened into admitting the commission of Rene; (c) Erlinda heard a commotion inside the room of Jovito and
the crime. They insisted that they had no knowledge thereof and after a few minutes saw appellants emerging from the room with
explained that they were at their place of work when it Nora in tow; (d) Cherry heard a loud banging from the room of Jovito
happened. The police did not believe them. Forthwith, they were so she went outside and saw Nora frantically pounding at the door,
charged with murder. then Nora was pulled inside the room; (e) after thirty (30) minutes,
Cherry witnessed a seemingly weak Nora being assisted by appellant
The defense likewise offered in evidence the testimonies of SPO1 Renato coming out of the room; and, (f) Cherry likewise observed
Benjamin Javier, Edgardo Gremio and SPO4 Esmeraldo Lucena. SPO1 appellant Rene leaving the room with his hands and clothes covered
Javier of the Las Pinas Police Criminal Investigation Division was with blood.
assigned to investigate the death of Jovito. He said that he found the
dead body of Jovito in his small rented room, which was adjacent to Circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for purposes of conviction
the room of the owner of the two (2)-bedroom house. The rooms must have the following elements: (a) there is more than one
were separated by a plywood wall. He placed the time of death at circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
28
proved; and, (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to an affiant from making an elaboration thereof or from correcting
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances inaccuracies during the trial.
proved should constitute an unbroken chain, which leads to one fair Second. To merit belief, alibi and denial must be buttressed by strong
and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion evidence of non-culpability. The records reveal that appellants
of all others, as the guilty person. employer only substantiated their claim that they left LFS Engineering
at 10:00 A.M. on that ill-fated day. No clear and convincing evidence
In the instant case, the circumstances enumerated by the trial court was adduced to establish that it was physically impossible for them to
establish an unbroken chain of events showing the complicity of be at the scene of the crime when it was committed. Indeed, they
appellants and no other in the killing of victim Jovito Caspillo. Indeed, admitted leaving LFS Engineering to go to the locus criminis though
the case of the prosecution is woven principally around the they claimed to have arrived there only at 11:00 A.M. Their testimony
testimonies of witnesses Erlinda Escosio and Cherry Francisco whose cannot prevail over the positive identification of Erlinda and Cherry,
testimonies were sufficiently tested and found credible on the who are disinterested witnesses.
crucible of cross-examination. Notably, as correctly observed by the Third. It may be in keeping with human experience for anyone
court a quo, appellants failed to demonstrate ill motive on the part of including appellants to wash the blood away from their clothes and
the prosecution witnesses to testify against them. Absent any body after committing a crime. However, it is also natural for them to
evidence showing any reason or motive for the witnesses to act with haste so they could immediately leave the crime scene and
prevaricate, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive avoid suspicion. It is thus not incredible that the hurried and
exists, and their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit. haphazard attempt to remove the bloodstains left the herein
appellants with some traces of blood still visible to the naked eyes of
Issue: W/N the decision of the trial court is not supported and witnesses Erlinda and Cherry.
contrary to the evidence adduced during trial Fourth. The court in criminal prosecution is always guided by
evidence that is tangible, verifiable and in harmony with the usual
Ruling: No. The Court rejected this contention. course of human experience and not by mere surmises.
First. Appellants submit that the trial court should have completely Fifth. Appellants also assail the denial by the trial court of their
rejected both oral and written accounts of prosecution witness motion for an ocular inspection of the crime scene. They suggest that
Erlinda Escosio considering that her in-court testimony is contrary to had it been granted, the accuracy or inexactitude of the description
her sworn statement. Clearly, reference is made on what Erlinda did by SPO1 Javier could have been established. The Court agreed with
not mention in her sworn statement. This is not an inconsistency but the Solicitor General that the ocular inspection would have been an
merely an incompleteness of narration. Sworn statements, being exercise in futility for the reason that the house had then long been
taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for renovated.
various reasons, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of
suggestion and inquiries. There is no rule of evidence to the effect The Information alleged the circumstances of taking advantage of
that omission of certain particulars in a sworn statement would estop superior strength and/or evident premeditation, and charged the
29
crime of murder. The circumstances that qualify the killing to murder there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the
must be proved indubitably as the killing itself. The prosecution failed section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
to prove these circumstances. Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained of
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is inequality of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating
forces between the victim and the aggressor. This assumes a situation circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and
of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms
and selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what
crime. The evidence does not show that appellants took advantage of offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
their number in order to overpower the victim. The evidence against circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
appellants is merely circumstantial.
Nor was evident premeditation proved. There is no proof in the Clearly, under the aforesaid provisions, aggravating circumstances,
instant case of (a) the time when appellants determined to commit whether qualifying or generic, must be alleged in the information
the crime; (b) an overt act manifestly indicating that they clung to before they can be considered by the court. These new provisions
their determination to commit the crime; and, (c) the lapse of apply even if the crime was committed prior to their effectivity since
sufficient period of time between the determination and the they are favorable to the accused, as in this case. Appellants cannot
execution of the crime, to allow appellants to reflect upon the invoke the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. For
consequences of their act. Hence, this circumstance cannot likewise voluntary surrender to be considered, it must be shown that: (1) the
be appreciated. offender was not actually arrested; (2) he surrendered himself to a
person in authority or to an agent of that person; and, (3) his
The Solicitor General submits that treachery should be appreciated surrender was voluntary. The records disclose that appellants
against the appellants as Jovito was asleep when killed. He contends voluntarily presented themselves to the Las Pinas Police Department
that while treachery was not alleged in the Information, it could be to clear their name.
appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. The Court
however did not agreed with this. Erlinda testified that Jovito was Prescinding from these premises, the Court held that the decision of
asleep prior to the arrival of appellants but she did not say that he the trial court finding appellants Torrecampos guilty of murder and
was still sleeping when the attack commenced. Even assuming that imposing upon them the penalty of death is MODIFIED; they are
treachery was proved, it could not be considered a generic instead found guilty of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised
aggravating circumstance. Sections 8 and 9 of the Revised Rules of Penal Code.
Criminal Procedure provide: Sec. 8. Designation of the Offense. The
complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense
given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the People vs Jugueta
offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If As a general rule, a complaint or information must charge only one
offense, otherwise, the same is defective.
30
FACTS: victims was not the result of a single act but of several acts of
That on or about 9:00 oclock in the evening of 6th day of June, 2002, appellant and his cohorts. In the same vein, appellant is also guilty of
at Barangay Caridad Ilaya, Municipality of Atimonan, Province of 4 counts of the crime of Attempted Murder and not Multiple
Quezon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. 7702-G. It bears stressing
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating that the Informations in this case failed to comply with the
together and mutually helping one another, armed with short requirement in Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court that
firearms of undetermined calibres, with intent to kill, qualified by an information must charge only one offense.
treachery, with evident premeditation and abuse of superior However, since appellant entered a plea of not guilty during
strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously arraignment and failed to move for the quashal of the Informations,
attack, assault, and shoot with the said firearms the house occupied he is deemed to have waived his right to question the same.
by the family of Norberto Divina, thereby commencing the It is also well-settled that when two or more offenses are charged in a
commission of the crime of Murder, directly by overt acts, but did not single complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it
perform all the acts of execution which would have produced it by before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are
reason of some cause or accident other than the spontaneous charged and proved, and impose upon him the proper penalty for
desistance of the accused, that is, the occupants Norberto Divina, his each offense.
wife Maricel Divina and children Elizabeth Divina and Judy Ann Divina,
both elementary pupils and who are minors, were not hit.
At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Norberto
Divina, the victim, and Dr. Lourdes Taguinod who executed the MATALAM vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
Medico-Legal Certificate and confirmed that the children of Norberto,
namely, Mary Grace and Claudine, died from gunshot wounds. G.R. No. 165751
Finding appellants defense to be weak, and ascribing more credence
to the testimony of Norberto, the trial court ruled that the evidence Doctrine:
clearly established that appellant, together with two other assailants,
conspired to shoot and kill the family of Norberto. Appellant was then SEC. 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint or information may
convicted of Double Murder in Criminal Case No. 7698-G and Multiple be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any
Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. 7702-G. time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the
ISSUE: trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and
Whether or not the information is valid when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the
HELD: accused.
The facts, as alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 7698-G,
and as proven during trial, show that appellant is guilty of 2 counts of
the crime of Murder and not Double Murder, as the killing of the
31
But if amended in substance, the accused is entitled to another

preliminary investigation, unless the amended charge is related to
Section 14 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
or is included in the original charge.
Procedure provides:
SEC. 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint or information may

Facts:
be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any
An information dated 15 November 2004 was filed before the time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the
Sandiganbayan charging petitioner Datu Guimid Matalam, Habib A. trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and
Bajunaid, Ansari M. Lawi, Muslimin Unga and Naimah Unte with when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the
violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, for accused.
their alleged illegal and unjustifiable refusal to pay the monetary
claims of Kasan I. Ayunan, Abdul E. Zailon, Esmael A. Ebrahim, However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature
Annabelle Zailon, Pendatun Mambatawan, Hyria Mastura and Faizal I. of the offense charged in or excludes any accused from the complaint
Hadil. The accusatory portion of the information reads: or information, can be made only upon motion by the prosecutor,
with notice to the offended party and with leave of court. The court
On 14 August 2002, petitioner filed a Motion for Reinvestigation.
shall state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its order
shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended party. After
After the reinvestigation, the public prosecutor filed a Manifestation
arraignment, a substantial amendment is proscribed except if the
and Motion to Admit Amended Information Deleting the Names of same is beneficial to the accused
Other Accused Exept Datu Guimid Matalam.
A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the amended constituting the offense charged and determinative of the
information charges an entirely new cause of action. The corpus jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form.
delicti of the amended information is no longer his alleged refusal to
pay the backwages ordered by the Civil Service Commission, but the The following have been held to be merely formal amendments:
alleged willful, unlawful and illegal dismissal from the service of the (1) new allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty
complaining witnesses. that the court might impose in the event of conviction; (2) an
amendment which does not charge another offense different or
Issue: Whether or not Matalam was deprived of due process of law distinct from that charged in the original one; (3) additional
when the Sandiganbayan admitted the Amneded Information without allegations which do not alter the prosecutions theory of the case so
conducting another or new preliminary investigation. 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
Ruling: affect any substantial right of the accused; (5) an amendment that
32
merely adds specifications to eliminate vagueness in the A component part of due process in criminal justice, preliminary
information and not to introduce new and material facts, and investigation is a statutory and substantive right accorded to the
merely states with additional precision something which is already accused before trial. To deny their claim to a preliminary investigation
contained in the original information and which adds nothing would be to deprive them of the full measure of their right to due
essential for conviction for the crime charged. process.
The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the As to statement of the court a quo that the conduct of another
amendment has been said to be whether a defense under the preliminary investigation would be merely a waste of time, it must be
information as it originally stood would be available after the emphasized that though the conduct thereof will hold back the
amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might progress of the case, the same is necessary in order that the accused
have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form may be afforded his right to a preliminary investigation. The right of
as in the other. An amendment to an information which does not the accused to a preliminary investigation should never be
change the nature of the crime alleged therein does not affect the compromised or sacrificed at the altar of expediency.
essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an
opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to be one
of form and not of substance.
In the case at bar, the amendment was indeed substantial.
PEOPLE VS TUBONGBANUA y PAHILANGA
According to Retired Senior Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado,
before the plea is taken, the information may be amended in DOCTRINE:
substance and/or form, without leave of court; but if amended in
substance, the accused is entitled to another preliminary Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, 18 provides that an
investigation, unless the amended charge is related to or is included amendment after the plea of the accused is permitted only as to
in the original charge. matters of form, provided leave of court is obtained and such
amendment is not prejudicial to the rights of the accused. A
If the amended information contains a charge related to or is substantial amendment is not permitted after the accused had
included in the original information, a new preliminary investigation is already been arraigned. A substantial amendment consists of the
not required. recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of
the jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form.
If petitioner is not to be given a new preliminary investigation for
the amended charge, his right will definitely be prejudiced because he FACTS:
will be denied his right to present evidence to show or rebut evidence
regarding the element of evident bad faith and manifest partiality on
the alleged dismissal. He will be denied due process.
33
Accused was employed as a family driver by Atty. Evelyn Sua-Kho. On The Court of Appeals disregarded appellants claim of self defense for
February 12, 2001, at the condominium of Sua-Kho, the housemaid lack of evidence and for being incredible considering the number and
heard her employer screaming, and she saw the accused stabbing her location of wounds sustained by the victim and his flight from the
with their kitchen knife. She tried to stop the accused, shouting "Kuya crime scene. However, the appellate court found that evident
Bert!", but the latter continued to stab Atty. Sua-Kho. The victim was premeditation was adequately established which qualified the killing
brought to the Cardinal Santos Memorial Hospital, where doctors to murder. Likewise, it appreciated abuse of superior strength as an
tried to revive her, but failed. The accused, meanwhile, fled, using the aggravating circumstance. As regards the aggravating circumstances
victims car. He was arrested soon afterwards in Calapan, Mindoro, of dwelling and insult to the rank, sex and age of the victim, the
while on his way to his home province. Court of Appeals noted that these circumstances were included as
amendments to the information after the presentation by the
Appellant Elberto Tubongbanua was charged with the crime of prosecution of its evidence. As such, the same should not be
murder in an amended Information. In the amended Information, it allowed because it will prejudice the rights of the appellant.
states that the accused, with intent to kill and with evident
premeditation, treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, did ISSUE: W/N the CA err in not allowing the amendments in the
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and information regarding the aggravating circumstances of dwelling
stab Evelyn Kho y Sua on the different parts of her body with the use and insult or disregard of the respect due to rank, age or sex
of a deadly weapon, thereby inflicting upon said Evelyn Kho y Sua
stab wounds, which directly caused her death; that the act was RULING: YES. We agree with the findings of the trial court and the
committed inside the dwelling of Evelyn Kho y Sua and with insult or Court of Appeals that appellants claim of self-defense is self-serving
in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of hence should not be given credence. We find, however, that the
his (sic) rank, age or sex. Court of Appeals erred in not allowing the amendments in the
information regarding the aggravating circumstances of dwelling
When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty and trial on the merits and insult or disregard of the respect due to rank, age or sex.
ensued where the accused raised the defense of self-defense. The Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, 18 provides that an
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City rendered judgment finding Elberto amendment after the plea of the accused is permitted only as to
Tubongbanua y Pahilanga GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the matters of form, provided leave of court is obtained and such
crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and is amendment is not prejudicial to the rights of the accused. A
sentenced to suffer the severe penalty of death by lethal injection. substantial amendment is not permitted after the accused had
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court because the penalty already been arraigned. 19
imposed was death. However, the case was transferred and referred
to the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modifications the In Teehankee, Jr. v. Madayag, 20 we had the occasion to distinguish
decision of the trial court. between substantial and formal amendments:
34
A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting respect due to the offended party on account of rank, age or
the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the sex. 23 Without any objection by the defense, the defect is deemed
court. All other matters are merely of form. Thus, the following have waived. 24
been held to be merely formal amendments, viz.: (1) new
allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty that the There is no dispute that Atty. Sua-Kho was killed in her home.
court might impose in the event of conviction; (2) an amendment Appellant could have killed her elsewhere but he decided to commit
which does not charge another offense different or distinct from the crime at her home; thus we appreciate the aggravating
that charged in the original one; (3) additional allegations which do circumstance of dwelling. However, it was not convincingly shown
not alter the prosecutions theory of the case so as to cause surprise that appellant deliberately intended to offend or disregard the
to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume; respect due to rank, age, or sex of Atty. Sua-Kho.
and (4) an amendment which does not adversely affect any
substantial right of the accused, such as his right to invoke The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with
prescription. MODIFICATION. Appellant Elberto Tubongbanua y Pahilanga
isfound GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER qualified by
The test as to whether an amendment is only of form and an evident premeditation and with the attendant aggravating
accused is not prejudiced by such amendment is whether or not a circumstances of taking advantage of superior strength and dwelling,
defense under the information as it originally stood would be with no mitigating circumstances.
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; if the
answer is in the affirmative, the amendment is one of form and not
of substance. 21
PEOPLE VS TUBONGBANUA y PAHILANGA
The insertion of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and insult
or disregard of the respect due to rank, age, or sex of the victim is DOCTRINE:
clearly a formal, not a substantial, amendment. These amendments
do not have the effect of charging another offense different or Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, 18 provides that an
distinct from the charge of murder as contained in the original amendment after the plea of the accused is permitted only as to
information. They relate only to the range of the penalty that the matters of form, provided leave of court is obtained and such
court might impose in the event of conviction. The amendment did amendment is not prejudicial to the rights of the accused. A
not adversely affect any substantial right of appellant. 22 Besides, substantial amendment is not permitted after the accused had
appellant never objected to the presentation of evidence to prove the already been arraigned. A substantial amendment consists of the
aggravating circumstances of dwelling and insult or in disregard of the
35
recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of The case was elevated to the Supreme Court because the penalty
the jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form. imposed was death. However, the case was transferred and referred
to the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modifications the
FACTS: decision of the trial court.
Accused was employed as a family driver by Atty. Evelyn Sua-Kho. On The Court of Appeals disregarded appellants claim of self defense for
February 12, 2001, at the condominium of Sua-Kho, the housemaid lack of evidence and for being incredible considering the number and
heard her employer screaming, and she saw the accused stabbing her location of wounds sustained by the victim and his flight from the
with their kitchen knife. She tried to stop the accused, shouting "Kuya crime scene. However, the appellate court found that evident
Bert!", but the latter continued to stab Atty. Sua-Kho. The victim was premeditation was adequately established which qualified the killing
brought to the Cardinal Santos Memorial Hospital, where doctors to murder. Likewise, it appreciated abuse of superior strength as an
tried to revive her, but failed. The accused, meanwhile, fled, using the aggravating circumstance. As regards the aggravating circumstances
victims car. He was arrested soon afterwards in Calapan, Mindoro, of dwelling and insult to the rank, sex and age of the victim, the
while on his way to his home province. Court of Appeals noted that these circumstances were included as
amendments to the information after the presentation by the
Appellant Elberto Tubongbanua was charged with the crime of prosecution of its evidence. As such, the same should not be
murder in an amended Information. In the amended Information, it allowed because it will prejudice the rights of the appellant.
states that the accused, with intent to kill and with evident
premeditation, treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, did ISSUE: W/N the CA err in not allowing the amendments in the
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and information regarding the aggravating circumstances of dwelling
stab Evelyn Kho y Sua on the different parts of her body with the use and insult or disregard of the respect due to rank, age or sex
of a deadly weapon, thereby inflicting upon said Evelyn Kho y Sua
stab wounds, which directly caused her death; that the act was RULING: YES. We agree with the findings of the trial court and the
committed inside the dwelling of Evelyn Kho y Sua and with insult or Court of Appeals that appellants claim of self-defense is self-serving
in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of hence should not be given credence. We find, however, that the
his (sic) rank, age or sex. Court of Appeals erred in not allowing the amendments in the
information regarding the aggravating circumstances of dwelling
When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty and trial on the merits and insult or disregard of the respect due to rank, age or sex.
ensued where the accused raised the defense of self-defense. The Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, 18 provides that an
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City rendered judgment finding Elberto amendment after the plea of the accused is permitted only as to
Tubongbanua y Pahilanga GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the matters of form, provided leave of court is obtained and such
crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and is amendment is not prejudicial to the rights of the accused. A
sentenced to suffer the severe penalty of death by lethal injection.
36
substantial amendment is not permitted after the accused had distinct from the charge of murder as contained in the original
already been arraigned. 19 information. They relate only to the range of the penalty that the
court might impose in the event of conviction. The amendment did
In Teehankee, Jr. v. Madayag, 20 we had the occasion to distinguish not adversely affect any substantial right of appellant. 22 Besides,
between substantial and formal amendments: appellant never objected to the presentation of evidence to prove the
aggravating circumstances of dwelling and insult or in disregard of the
A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting respect due to the offended party on account of rank, age or
the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the sex. 23 Without any objection by the defense, the defect is deemed
court. All other matters are merely of form. Thus, the following have waived. 24
been held to be merely formal amendments, viz.: (1) new
allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty that the There is no dispute that Atty. Sua-Kho was killed in her home.
court might impose in the event of conviction; (2) an amendment Appellant could have killed her elsewhere but he decided to commit
which does not charge another offense different or distinct from the crime at her home; thus we appreciate the aggravating
that charged in the original one; (3) additional allegations which do circumstance of dwelling. However, it was not convincingly shown
not alter the prosecutions theory of the case so as to cause surprise that appellant deliberately intended to offend or disregard the
to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume; respect due to rank, age, or sex of Atty. Sua-Kho.
and (4) an amendment which does not adversely affect any
substantial right of the accused, such as his right to invoke The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with
prescription. MODIFICATION. Appellant Elberto Tubongbanua y Pahilanga
isfound GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER qualified by
The test as to whether an amendment is only of form and an evident premeditation and with the attendant aggravating
accused is not prejudiced by such amendment is whether or not a circumstances of taking advantage of superior strength and dwelling,
defense under the information as it originally stood would be with no mitigating circumstances.
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; if the SOBERANO VS PEOPLE
answer is in the affirmative, the amendment is one of form and not G.R. No. 154629
of substance. 21 Date: October 5, 2005
The insertion of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and insult Rule 110
or disregard of the respect due to rank, age, or sex of the victim is Doctrine:
clearly a formal, not a substantial, amendment. These amendments
do not have the effect of charging another offense different or
37
Section 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint or information An information was filed by the panel of prosecutors with RTC ,
may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at Manila charging a number of accused some of whom are public
any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during officers of double murder.
the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court
and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of On 23 May 2001, the prosecution filed a Motion to Admit Amended
the accused. Information which was granted and the Amended Information was
admitted by the trial court. The new information included now the
"However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the allegation that: (the previous info did not assert that the victims
nature of the offense charged in or excludes any accused from the were abducted)
complaint or information, can be made only upon motion by the
prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court. xxx abduct SALVADOR (Bubby) DACER and EMMANUEL
The court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of CORBITO at the corner of Osmea Highway (formerly South
its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended party. Super Highway) and Zobel Roxas Street in Manila, and
later brought them to Indang, Cavite, xxx
"If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been
made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the On 18 June 2001, one of the accused, P/Insp. Danilo Villanueva,
original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one filed a Motion for Reinvestigation asserting that he was mistakenly
charging the proper offense in accordance with Section 19, Rule 119, identified as a participant in the double murder. He stressed that it
provided the accused shall not be placed in double jeopardy. The was not him but a certain SPO3 Allan Cadenilla Villanueva who was
court may require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at previously identified by several witnesses as one of the culprits.
the trial. This was granted by the trial court.
Facts: A Manifestation and Motion to Admit Amended Information dated

17 September 2001 was filed by the prosecution. The Amended
In November 2000, the prominent public relations practitioner, Information
Salvador Bubby Dacer, together with his driver, Emmanuel Corbito,
was abducted along Zobel Roxas St. in the City of Manila. Their (1) discharged accused Jimmy L. Lopez, Alex B. Diloy, William
charred remains, consisting of burnt bones, metal dental plates and L. Lopez and Glen Dumlao as they are now witnesses for the State;
a ring, were later found in Barangay Buna Lejos, Indang, Cavite. (2) substituted SPO3 Allan Villanueva for P/Insp. Danilo
They were positively identified by their dentists and by forensic Villanueva; and
pathologists from the University of the Philippines. Both victims (3) charged as additional accused P/Supt. Michael Ray Aquino,
were killed by strangulation. P/Supt. Cezar Mancao II and P/Sr. Supt. Teofilo Via.
38
Accused Soberano, Torres, Escalante, Purificacion, Renato and Section 14, Rule 110 (Prosecution of Offenses) of the Revised Rules of
Jovencio Malabanan opposed the Manifestation and Motion to Criminal Procedure, as amended, reads
Admit Amended Information in an Opposition14 dated 28
September 2001. They prayed that the Motion to Admit Amended "Section 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint or
Information and the discharge of accused Dumlao, Diloy and the information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave
brothers Lopez be denied. In its Order dated 01 October 2001, the of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea
trial court denied the Motion to Admit Amended Information. The and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with
prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied in leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to
an Order15 dated 24 October 2001. On 16 November 2001, the the rights of the accused.
prosecution moved in open court to inhibit Judge Ponferrada from
hearing the case. Acting on this motion, Judge Ponferrada, on 22 "However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the
November 2001, ordered that the case be re-raffled. The case was nature of the offense charged in or excludes any accused from the
re-raffled to Branch 18, RTC, Manila, presided by Judge Perfecto complaint or information, can be made only upon motion by the
A.S. Laguio. On 04 January 2002, the prosecution filed a special civil prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court.
action for certiorari with prayer for issuance of a temporary The court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of
restraining order before the Supreme Court praying that the Orders its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended party.
of then Judge Ponferrada dated 01 and 24 October 2001 be
annulled and set aside and that Judge Perfecto A.S. Laguio of "If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been
Branch 18 be restrained, in the meantime, from proceeding with made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the
the case in accordance with said orders. In a Resolution16 dated 21 original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one
January 2002, this Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals charging the proper offense in accordance with Section 19, Rule 119,
for appropriate action. provided the accused shall not be placed in double jeopardy. The
court may require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at
the trial."
Issue/s:
WON the Court a quo erred in allowing the discharge of accused Diloy Applying the import of the afore-quoted Section 14, Rule 110, it
and the Lopez brothers appears that the Amended Information sought to be admitted by the
petitioner finds sufficient support therein, considering, firstly, that
Held: there has been no arraignment yet. Secondly, when respondent
JUDGE RODOLFO A. PONFERRADA granted the motion for
No the court did not erred in allowing the discharge of accused Diloy reinvestigation in the Order dated July 04, 2001, there was in effect a
and the Lopez brothers prior leave of court given to the State Prosecutors of the Department
of Justice to conduct the same, substantially complying with such
39
requirement under the second paragraph of Section 14, Rule 110. 110 and Section 17, Rule 119) or should only one provision apply as
After all, a leave of court is defined a "permission obtained from a ruled by the trial court and the Court of Appeals (i.e., Section 14, Rule
court to take some action which, without such permission, would not 110 or Section 17, Rule 119)?
be allowable: as, to sue a receiver, to file an amended pleading, to
plead several pleas." An amendment of the information made before plea which excludes
some or one of the accused must be made only upon motion by the
n the case of People v. Montesa, Jr., the Supreme Courts pertinent prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court
ruling, which We now reiterate, finds application in the case at bench, in compliance with Section 14, Rule 110. Section 14, Rule 110 does
i.e., where a judge grants a motion for reinvestigation [as in this case], not qualify the grounds for the exclusion of the accused. Thus, said
he is deemed to have deferred to the authority of the prosecution provision applies in equal force when the exclusion is sought on the
arm of the Government to consider the so-called new relevant and usual ground of lack of probable cause, or when it is for utilization of
material evidence and to determine whether the information it has the accused as state witness, as in this case, or on some other ground.
filed should stand, and that the final disposition on the
reinvestigation should be the sole and only valid basis for the judges At this level, the procedural requirements of Section 17, Rule 119 on
final action with respect to the reinvestigation. the need for the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn
statement of each state witness at a hearing in support of the
Thus, in accord with the aforesaid Montesa, Jr. ruling, respondent discharge do not yet come into play. This is because, as correctly
JUDGE RODOLFO A. PONFERRADAs "sole and only basis" for the pointed out by the Court of Appeals, the determination of who should
inclusion (or exclusion, for that matter) of the additional accused be criminally charged in court is essentially an executive function, not
should be the final disposition on the reinvestigation conducted by a judicial one.29 The prosecution of crimes appertains to the
the State Prosecutors of the Department of Justices. executive department of government whose principal power and
responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully executed. A
There can be no quarrel as to the fact that what is involved here is necessary component of this power to execute our laws is the right to
primary an amendment of an information to exclude some accused prosecute their violators. The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor
and that the same is made before plea. Thus, at the very least, with a wide range of discretion the discretion of whether, what and
Section 14, Rule 110 is applicable which means that the amendment whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of
should be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to factors which are best appreciated by prosecutors.30 By virtue of the
the offended party and with leave of court. What seems to trial court having granted the prosecutions motion for
complicate the situation is that the exclusion of the accused is reinvestigation, the former is deemed to have deferred to the
specifically sought for the purpose of discharging them as witnesses authority of the prosecutorial arm of the Government.31 Having
for the State. The consequential question is, should the requirements brought the case back to the drawing board, the prosecution is thus
for discharge of an accused as state witness as set forth in Section 17, equipped with discretion -- wide and far reaching regarding the
Rule 119 be made as additional requirements (i.e., Section 14, Rule disposition thereof.
40
alleged in the Information which public respondent registered as

having qualified the crime to Murder.
PACOY vs CAJIGAL Acting upon such Order, the prosecutor entered his amendment
[ G.R. NO. 157472, September 28, 2007 ] by crossing out the word Homicide and instead wrote the word
Murder in the caption and in the opening paragraph of the
Doctrine: Information. The accusatory portion remained exactly the same
Rule 110, section 14 of the Rules of Court provides for the as that of the original Information for Homicide, with the
Amendment or substitution. A complaint or information may be correction of the spelling of the victims name
amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any from Escuita to Escueta
time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and
during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with On October 28, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash with
leave of court and when it can be done without causing Motion to Suspend Proceedings Pending the Resolution of the
prejudice to the rights of the accused. Instant Motion on the ground of double jeopardy. Petitioner
alleged that in the Information for Homicide, he was validly
Facts: indicted and arraigned before a competent court, and the case
On July 4, 2002, an Information for Homicide was filed in was terminated without his express consent; that when the case
the RTC against petitioner, SGT. Jose M. Pacoy. That petitioner for Homicide was terminated without his express consent, the
shot his commanding officer 2Lt. Frederick Esquita with subsequent filing of the Information for Murder in lieu of
his armalite rifle hitting and sustaining upon 2Lt. Homicide placed him in double jeopardy.
Frederick Esquita multiple gunshot wounds on his body, which
caused his instantaneous death. Issue/s:
Whether the amendment was tantamount to a termination of the
On September 12, 2002, upon arraignment, petitioner, duly charge of Homicide and that prosecuting him for the same
assisted by counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty to the charge of offense would place him in double jeopardy.
Homicide. On the same day and after the arraignment, the
respondent judge issued another Order, directing the trial Ruling:
prosecutor to correct and amend the Information to Murder in No.
view of the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank
41
Petitioner confuses the procedure and effects of cause to detain him. In such case, the court shall
amendment or substitution under Section 14, Rule 110 of commit the accused to answer for the proper offense
the Rules of Court, to wit -- and dismiss the original case upon the filing of the
proper information.
SEC. 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint
or information may be amended, in form or in While the amended Information was for Murder, a reading of the
substance, without leave of court, at any time before the Information shows that the only change made was in the
accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the caption of the case; and in the opening paragraph or preamble
trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of the Information, with the crossing out of word Homicide and
of court and when it can be done without causing its replacement by the word Murder. There was no change in
prejudice to the rights of the accused. the recital of facts constituting the offense charged or in
the determination of the jurisdiction of the court. The
xxx
averments in the amended Information for Murder are
exactly the same as those already alleged in the original
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake
has been made in charging the proper offense, the court
Information for Homicide, as there was not at all
shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon any change in the act imputed to petitioner, i.e., the killing of
the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in 2Lt. Escueta without any qualifying circumstance. Thus, the
accordance with Rule 119, Section 11, provided the amendment made in the caption and preamble from Homicide to
accused would not be placed thereby in double Murder as purely formal.
jeopardy, and may also require the witnesses to give
bail for their appearance at the trial. Also, Section 14, Rule 110 also provides that in allowing
formal amendments in cases in which the accused has
with Section 19, Rule 119 of which provides: already pleaded, it is necessary that the amendments do
not prejudice the rights of the accused. The test of whether
SEC. 19. When mistake has been made in the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a
charging the proper offense. - When it becomes complaint or information is whether a defense under the
manifest at any time before judgment that a mistake
complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no longer
has been made in charging the proper offense and the
be available after the amendment is made; and when any
accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or
any other offense necessarily included therein, the
evidence the accused might have would be inapplicable to the
accused shall not be discharged if there appears good complaint or information. Since the facts alleged in the
accusatory portion of the amended Information are
42
identical with those of the original Information for against Mario Fl. Crespo in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena
Homicide, there could not be any effect on the City.
prosecution's theory of the case; neither would there be When the case was set for arraignment the accused filed a
any possible prejudice to the rights or defense of petitioner. motion to defer arraignment on the ground that there was a
pending petition for review filed with the Secretary of Justice
Regarding the double jeopardy issue, a reading of the of the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal for the
Order dated December 18, 2002 showed that the respondent filing of the information.
judge granted petitioner's motion for reconsideration, not on the In an order of August 1, 1977, the presiding judge, His Honor,
ground that double jeopardy exists, but on his realization that Leodegario L. Mogul, denied the motion. A motion for
disregard of rank is a generic aggravating circumstance which reconsideration of the order was denied in the order of August
does not qualify the killing of the victim to murder. Thus, he 5, 1977 but the arraignment was deferred to August 18, 1977
rightly corrected himself by reinstating the original Information to afford time for petitioner to elevate the matter to the
for Homicide. The requisite of double jeopardy that the first appellate court.
jeopardy must have attached prior to the second is not present, A petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a
considering that petitioner was neither convicted nor acquitted; preliminary writ of injunction was filed by the accused in the
nor was the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated Court of Appeals. In an order of August 17, 1977 the Court of
without his express consent. Appeals restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with the
arraignment of the accused until further orders of the Court.
In a comment that was filed by the Solicitor General he
Crespo vs. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987 recommended that the petition be given due course.
Doctrine: On May 15, 1978 a decision was rendered by the Court of
It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either commenced by
Appeals granting the writ and perpetually restraining the
complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction
judge from enforcing his threat to compel the arraignment of
and control of the fiscal. The institution of a criminal action depends
upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. The reason for placing the the accused in the case until the Department of Justice shall
criminal prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to have finally resolved the petition for review.
prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by private persons. On March 22, 1978 then Undersecretary of Justice, Hon.
Facts: Catalino Macaraig, Jr., resolving the petition for review
On April 18, 1977 Assistant Fiscal Proceso K. de Gala with the reversed the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal
approval of the Provincial Fiscal filed an information for estafa and directed the fiscal to move for immediate dismissal of the
information filed against the accused.
43
A motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence was filed by Whether the trial court, acting on a motion to dismiss a criminal case
the Provincial Fiscal dated April 10, 1978 with the trial court, filed by the Provincial Fiscal upon instructions of the Secretary of
attaching thereto a copy of the letter of Undersecretary Justice to whom the case was elevated for review, may refuse to
Macaraig, Jr. In an order of August 2, 1978 the private grant the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial on the
prosecutor was given time to file an opposition thereto. merits.
Ruling:
On November 24, 1978 the Judge denied the motion and set
Yes. The rule in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or
the arraignment, stating that the motions trust being to
information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal
induce this Court to resolve the innocence of the accused on or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound
evidence not before it but on that adduced before the discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and
Undersecretary of Justice, a matter that not only disregards control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is
the requirements of due process but also erodes the Courts already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The
independence and integrity. Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it.
The accused then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and
mandamus with petition for the issuance of preliminary writ competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be
of prohibition and/or temporary restraining order in the Court addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same.
of Appeals. It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of
the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or
On January 23, 1979 a restraining order was issued by the
upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the
Court of Appeals against the threatened act of arraignment of
records of the investigation.
the accused until further orders from the Court. In a decision In order therefor to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion of the
of October 25, 1979 the Court of Appeals dismissed the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal may be
petition and lifted the restraining order of January 23, 1979. disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice should, as far as
A motion for reconsideration of said decision filed by the practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal
accused was denied in a resolution of February 19, 1980. from the action of the fiscal, when the complaint or information has
Hence this petition for review of said decision. Petitioner and already been filed in Court. The matter should be left entirely for the
private respondent filed their respective briefs while the determination of the Court.
Solicitor General filed a Manifestation in lieu of brief WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit without
reiterating that the decision of the respondent Court of pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
Appeals be reversed and that respondent Judge be ordered to
dismiss the information.
Fronda-Baggao v People
Issue: GR No.151785 December 10, 2007
44
DOCTRINE Petitioner contends that the amendment of the four accused.

Informations for illegal recruitment into a single Information for However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature
illegal recruitment in large scale violates her substantial rights as this of the offense charged in or excludes any accused from the complaint
would deprive her of the right to bail which she already availed of. or information, can be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with
Such contention is misplaced. Obviously, petitioner relies on Section notice to the offended party and with leave of court. The court shall
14 of the same Rule 110 which provides that after the plea and during state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its order shall
the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court be furnished all parties, especially the offended party.
and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been
the accused. As stated earlier, petitioner has not yet been arraigned. made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the
Hence, she cannot invoke the said provision. original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one
FACTS Sometime in 1989, the Provincial Prosecutor of Abra filed charging the proper offense in accordance with section 19, Rule 119,
with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Bangued, four separate provided the accused would not be placed in double jeopardy. The
Informations for illegal recruitment against Susan Fronda-Baggao, court may require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at
petitioner, and Lawrence Lee. Petitioner eluded arrest for more than the trial. (Emphasis ours)
a decade; hence, the cases against her were archived. On July 25, A careful scrutiny of the above Rule shows that although it uses the
1999, petitioner was finally arrested. On July 26, 1999, the prosecutor singular word complaint or information, it does not mean that two or
filed with the trial court a motion to amend the Informations. He more complaints or Informations cannot be amended into only one
prayed that the four separate Informations for illegal recruitment be Information. Surely, such could not have been intended by this Court.
amended so that there would only be one Information for illegal Otherwise, there can be an absurd situation whereby two or more
recruitment in large scale. On the same day, the trial court denied the complaints or Informations could no longer be amended into one or
motion for lack of merit. On August 6, 1999, the prosecutor filed a more Informations. On this point, Section 6, Rule 1 of the Revised
motion for reconsideration. In its Order dated January 26, 2000, the Rules of Court is relevant, thus:
trial court granted the motion and admitted the Information for SEC. 6. Construction. - These Rules shall be liberally construed in order
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale. to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
ISSUE W/NOT the four Informations for illegal recruitment could be disposition of every action and proceeding.
amended and lumped into one Information for illegal recruitment in
large scale.
HELD YES. As provided under Section 14 of Rule 110:
Section 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint or information
may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at
any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during
the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court
and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the
45

Criminal Procedure Case Digests Rule110 2k A.Y. 2016 2017 (Version3)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Criminal Procedure Case Digests Rule110 2k A.Y. 2016 2017 (Version3)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE under ATTY. SENGA CASE DIGESTS PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD & JURISDICTION CLASS OF 2K, A.Y.

FACTS: Accused-appellant Moises Caoile (Caoile), in two separate Amended

be compelled by writ of mandamus to act on a letter-request or a motion to

produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances

But if amended in substance, the accused is entitled to another

SEC. 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint or information may

Facts: A Manifestation and Motion to Admit Amended Information dated

alleged in the Information which public respondent registered as

DOCTRINE Petitioner contends that the amendment of the four accused.

S-ar putea să vă placă și