CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULING:

RULE 110  Yes. An accused cannot be convicted for the

PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES lesser offense necessarily included in the
crime charged if at the time of the filing of the
(2) FRANCISCO VS CA information, the lesser offense has already
FACTS: prescribed. To hold otherwise, according to
the Court, would be to sanction a
On February 6, 1966, Dr. Patrocinio Angeles, who circumvention of the law on prescription by
was then the Director of the Morong Emergency the simple expedient of accusing the
Hospital, filed a case for intriguing against honor defendant of the graver offense.
allegedly committed on December 26, 1965 by  Yes. Prescription is interrupted with the filing
Dr. Emiliano and Atty. Harry Bernardino. On May of the case even if the court is without
3, 1966, the Provincial Fiscal filed an information jurisdiction, even if it be merely for purposes
against Francisco and Bernardino with the CFI of of preliminary examination or investigation.
Rizal of the crime of grave oral defamation. Later, Thus, the filing of the complaint in the Fiscal's
upon order of the court, the information was office interrupts the period of prescription.
amended by adding statements allegedly uttered
by the two accused constituting the crime of (3) ISABELITA REODICA vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
slander. and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:
Further, Francisco claims that the CA should have
acquitted him on the ground that the said crime A complaint charging petitioner, Isabelita
had already prescribed as per evidence Reodica, with the crime of reckless imprudence
presented, the alleged defamatory remarks were resulting to damage to property and slight
committed on December 26, 1965, while the physical injuries was filed before the Fiscal’s
information charged against him was filed more office on October 20, 1987.
than four months later. The Solicitor General,
On January 13, 1988, an information was filed
however, contends that "for the purpose of
before the Regional Trial Court of Makati
determining the proper prescriptive period, what
charging the petitioner for the abovementioned
should be considered is the nature of the offense
offense. The Regional Trial Court found the victim
charged in the information which is grave oral
guilty as charged, the Court of Appeals affirmed
defamation, not the crime committed by the
the decision of the Regional Trial Court.
accused, as said crime was found by the Court to
constitute only simple slander". Since the ISSUE:
prescription for grave oral defamation is six
months, the crime has not yet prescribed when it Whether or not the duplicity of the information
the information was filed. Moreover, the Solicitor may be questioned for the first time on appeal.
General argues that the filing of the complaint in
RULING:
the Fiscal's office interrupts the period of
prescription. Only 39 days had passed from the Following Lontok, the conclusion is inescapable
time the offense was allegedly committed to the here, that the quasi offense of reckless
day of the filing of the complaint. imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries
should have been charged in a separate
ISSUES:
information because it is not covered by Article
 Whether or not the crime of simple slander 48 of the Revised Penal Code. However,
found by the CA to be the offense committed petitioner may no longer question, at this stage,
by the petitioners has prescribed. the duplicitous character of the information, i.e.,
 Whether or not the filing of a complaint in charging two separate offenses in one
the Fiscal's office interrupts the prescription information, to wit: (1) reckless imprudence
of an offense. resulting in damage to property; and (2) reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries. Trial Court, therefore the action already
This defect was deemed waived by her failure to prescribes. RTC granted the motion.
raise it in a motion to quash before she pleaded
to the information. On the other hand, the complainant argued that
the filing with the office of city prosecutor
Under Section 3, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, constitutes an interruption to the prescription.
when two or more offenses are charged in a
single complaint or information and the accused ISSUE:
fails to object to it before trial, the court may Is filing complaint to city prosecutor office
convict the accused of as many offenses as are considered a “judicial proceeding” that can
charged and proved and impose on him the interrupt prescription of crime under B.P. 22?
penalty for each of them.
RULING:
(4) PEOPLE V. MA. THERESA PANGILINAN
YES. Following a catena of cases, the court held
FACTS: that, there is no more distinction between cases
On 16 September 1997, Virginia C. Malolos filed under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and those
an affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of covered by special laws with respect to the
Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22 against Ma. Theresa interruption of the period of prescription; that
Pangilinan (respondent) with the Office of the the institution of proceedings for preliminary
City Prosecutor of Quezon City. The complaint investigation in the office of prosecutor against
alleges that respondent issued nine (9) checks accused interrupts the period of prescription.
with an aggregate amount of Nine Million Six Following the factual finding the crime was
Hundred Fifty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred committed sometime in 1995, the filing of
Ninety-Two Pesos (P9,658,592.00) in favor of complaint on September 1997, two (2) years
private complainant which were dishonored upon from the commission of the crime validly
presentment for payment. interrupts the running of prescription. Therefore
Consequently the case was modified, and only on the action against the respondent Pangilinan did
February 3, 2000 that two counts for violation of not prescribe.
BP Blg. 22 were filed against respondent (5) PEOPLE vs. LODRIGO BAYYA
Ma.Theresa Pangilinan in the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Quezon City. On 17 June 2000, FACTS:
respondent filed an “Omnibus Motion to Quash
the Information and to Defer the Issuance of On October 9, 1995, appellant LodrigoBayya was
Warrant of Arrest” before MeTC, Branch 31, found guilty of incestuous rape and sentencing
Quezon City. She alleged that her criminal him to the ultimate penalty of DEATHby the RTC
liability has been extinguished by reason of of Ilagan, Isabela. The appellant pleaded not
prescription. guilty.

In defense of her claim, Pangilinan said that the From the decision of Nov. 15, 1996 under review,
prevailing law that governs the prescription of it can be gleaned that: "This is a case of a father
special penal law, B.P. 22, is Section 2 of Act No. raping his own daughter, a minor, aged 12 when
3326 (An Act To Establish Periods Of Prescription she was first sexually assaulted up to July 12,
For Violations Penalized By Special Acts) where 1995, the last molestation having done on her on
the right to file an action to a “proper court” and said date (sic). Finding the facts established by
not to merely to prosecution office for B.P. 22, the evidence falling squarely under Article 335 of
prescribes four (4) years from the commission of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic
the crime. The imputed violation occurred Act No. 7659, the lower court, after trial on the
sometime in 1995, and only on February 3, 2000 merits, rendered a judgment of conviction,
that a case was formally filed in the Metropolitan sentencing appellant to suffer the ultimate
penalty of DEATH,
Appellant questioned the penalty imposed, In the case under scrutiny, the information does
contending that since the information made no not allege the minority of the victim, Rosie S.
reference to Republic Act No. 7659 AN ACT TO Bayya.The omission is not merely formal in
IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN nature since doctrinally, an accused cannot be
HEINOUS CRIMES, ,it was a reversible error to held liable for more than what he is indicted for.It
convict thereunder. And because the only penal matters not how conclusive and convincing the
provision relied upon by the prosecution is Article evidence of guilt may be, but an accused cannot
335 of the Revised Penal Code, he could only be be convicted of any offense, not charged in the
sentenced to the maximum penalty of reclusion Complaint or information on which he is tried or
perpetua in accordance therewith. therein necessarily included.

ISSUE: The Information under consideration charges

nothing more than simple rape. Further theCourt
Whether there was a transgression of appellant’s emphasizesthat the death penalty may be
right to be informed of the nature and cause of imposed only If the information alleges and the
accusation against him, in view of the fact that evidence has proven both the age of the victim
the Information as defined under Section 6, Rule and her relationship to the offender.
110 of the Rules of Court, is silent about the
applicability of R.A. No. 7659. Since the appellant had been informed of the
elements of simple rape under the information
RULING: indicting him and nothing more, he could only be
The Supreme Court agrees with and adopts convicted of simple rape and sentenced to
appellant’s submission that the trial court erred reclusionperpetua as prescribed by law.
in imposing the capital punishment on him. (6) RAMON Y. TALAGA, JR.v. HON.
Instructive in this regard is Section 6, Rule 110 of SANDIGANBAYAN, 4th Division, and PEOPLE OF
the Rules of Court, which reads: xxxSEC.6. THE PHILIPPINES
Sufficiency of complaint or information. A FACTS:
complaint or information is sufficient if it states
the name of the accused; the designation of the Criminal and administrative complaints were filed
offense by the statute; the acts or omissions by Elan Recreation, Inc. (ELAN) against petitioner
complained of as constituting the offense; the with the Office of the Ombudsman. The
name of the offended party; the approximate complaints alleged that petitioner, in his capacity
time of the commission of the offense, and the as mayor of the City of Lucena, had unlawfully
place wherein the offense was committed. granted favors to a third party with respect to the
operation of bingo games in the city, to the
The purpose of the above-quoted rule is to damage and prejudice of the complainants.
inform the accused of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him, a right guaranteed by Three criminal information charging the
no less than the fundamental law of the land.xxx petitioner of violation of R.A. 3019 was
recommended by the Office of the Special
The Court held recently that to sustain a Prosecutor. Only one information was sustained
conviction under Article 335 of the Revised Penal by the Sandiganbayan, the criminal information
Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the for giving unwarranted benefits to Jose Sy Bang
prosecution must allege and prove the basic by approving an ordinance granting him to
elements of: 1) sexual congress; 2) with a woman; operate bingo games in the city.However,said
3) by force and without consent, and in order to Information was referred back to the Office of
warrant the imposition of the death penalty, the the Ombudsman and ordered the latter to
additional elements that 4) the victim is under 18 conduct further preliminary investigation.
years of age at the time of the rape; and 5) the
offender is a parent (whether legitimate, An Information was filed by the prosecution in
illegitimate or adopted) of the victim. the Sandiganbayan for the alleged conspiracy
between petitioner and the City Councilors.
Petitioner and the City Councilors filed a Motion
to Quash the Information on the ground that Prosecution countered by saying that: (1) the
there is no valid information because allegation Information sought to be dismissed is sufficient in
does not constitute an offense. form and substance; (2) the lack of proof of MCLE
compliance by the prosecutor who prepared and
ISSUE: signed the Information should not prejudice the
interest of the State in filing charges against
Whether there is a valid information which persons who have violated the law; and (3) and
constitutes an offense. administrative edict cannot prevail over
RULING: substantive or procedural law, by imposing
additional requirements for the sufficiency of a
Yes. Section 9, Rule 110, Rules of Court provides criminal information;
the guideline for the determination of the validity
or sufficiency of allegations in an information, to RTC dismissed the case without prejudice to the
wit: refiling of the Information with the required
details. An MR for the same was likewise denied,
The test is whether the crime is described in leading the Prosecution to file a petition for
intelligible terms with such particularity as to Certiorari and/or Mandamus before the CA.
appraise the accused, with reasonable certainty, However, the said Petition and the subsequent
of the offense charged. The raison d'etre of the MR over its ruling were both denied by the CA.
rule is to enable the accused to suitably prepare Hence, the instant Petition for review on
his defense. Certiorari under Rule 45.

Based on the foregoing test, the Information ISSUES:

sufficiently apprises petitioner of the charges
against him. The Information charged the WON an Information is a “pleading” subject to
petitioner of evident bad faith and manifest the rules on pleadings regarding the indication of
partiality when as Mayor of Lucena City, MCLE Compliance Certificate details.
petitioner, in conspiracy with the City Council, RULING:
gave unwarranted benefits to Jose Sy Bang.
Moreover, it states the specific act which Yes.The Information, for all intents and purposes,
constituted the giving of unwarranted benefits, is the initiatory pleading that commences a
namely, granting unto the said Jose Sy Bang a criminal case, thereby subject to all rules on
local franchise to operate a bingo business in pleadings.The Court ruled that an Information,
Lucena City in violation of existing laws. These being the document that initiates a criminal
allegations are clear enough for a layman to proceeding in court, is for all intents and
understand. purposes a “pleading” and is therefore subject to
the pertinent rules on pleadings. Thus:
(7) PEOPLE v. ARROJADO
Under Section 4, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court,
FACTS: an information is defined as an accusation in
Accused was charged with the crime of murder writing charging a person with an offense,
by the Prosecution in 23 March 2009; subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the
court. In accordance with the above definitions, it
On 16 June 2009, a Motion to Dismiss the is clear that an information is a pleading since the
Information against him was filed by the Accused allegations therein, which charge a person with
on the ground that the investigating prosecutor an offense, is basically the same as a complaint in
failed to indicate therein the number and date of a civil action which alleges a plaintiff’s cause or
issue of her Mandatory Continuing Legal causes of action.
Education (MCLE) Certificate of Compliance as
required by Bar Matter No. 1922;
(8) PEOPLE VS. DALISAY disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the
crime of rape in which only two persons are
FACTS: usually involved, the testimony of the
An Information for rape in relation to Republic complainant must be scrutinized with extreme
Act (R.A.) No. 7610 was filed, pertinently reading: caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution
must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot
That on or about the 10th day of July 2003 in be allowed to draw strength from the weakness
Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named of the evidence for the defense.
accused, with lewd design, with force and
intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge (9)TEEHANKEE JR., V MADAYAG
with one [name withheld], his stepdaughter, 16 FACTS:
years old, a minor, against her will and without
her consent, to the damage and prejudice of said On July 19, 1991, frustrated murder case was
offended party.Appellant, on arraignment, filed against Claudio Teehankee Jr. for the death
pleaded not guilty, and, for his defense, mainly of one Maureen Navarro Hultman. After the
denied the accusation. After trial on the merits, prosecution had rested its case, the petitioner
the RTC rendered the decision convicting moved for leave to file a demurrer to evidence,
appellant of qualified rape. On intermediate but before the motion was filed, the victim died.
review, the CA convicted the accused not of The private prosecutor filed an omnibus motion
qualified rape but of simple rape. for leave of court to file the amended
information. It which was filed on October 31,
ISSUE: 1991, charging now Teehankee from the crime of
frustrated to murder.
Whether or not the CA erred in convicting the
accused not of qualified rape but of simple rape. The trial court admitted the amended
information. During the arraignment, the
RULING: petitioner refused to be arraigned on the
amended information questioning the lack of a
NO. The Court affirm the conviction of appellant preliminary investigation. The judge then,
Dalisay for simple rape. entered a plea of “not guilty” for the petitioner.
While it has been proven that appellant was the The prosecution was ordered to present its
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim evidence. The petitioner now seeks to nullify the
and the child was a minor at the time of the respondent judge’s admittance of the amended
incident, the Court cannot convict appellant of information and claimed that it constitutes a
qualified rape because the special qualifying substantial amendment since it involves a change
circumstances of minority and relationship were in the nature of the offense charged and
not sufficiently alleged in the information. To therefore requires a preliminary investigation.
recall, the information here erroneously alleged ISSUE:
that appellant was the stepfather of the victim.
Proven during the trial, however, was that Whether an amended information involving a
appellant was not married to the victim’s mother, substantial amendment without preliminary
but was only the common-law spouse of the investigation, after the prosecution has rested on
latter. Following settled jurisprudence, appellant the original information, may legally and validly
is liable only of simple rape punishable by be admitted
reclusion perpetua.
RULING:
Three principles guide the courts in resolving rape
cases: (1) an accusation for rape can be made Yes, the amended information may be validly
with facility; it is difficult to prove but more admitted by the court. Section 14, Rule 110 of the
difficult for the accused, though innocent, to 1985 Rules on Criminal procedure provides that
“the information or complaint may be amended,
in substance or form without leave of court, at not the variance in the nature of different
any time before the accused pleads; and offenses charged, but only a change in the
thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of execution of the same offense from frustrated
form, by leave and at the discretion of the court, murder to murder therefore a preliminary
when the same can be done without prejudice to investigation is unnecessary and cannot be
the rights of the accused”. demanded by the accused.

If it appears at any time before judgment that a (10) Matalam vs 2nd Division of the
mistake has been made in charging the proper Sandiganbayan et. al.,
offense, the court shall dismiss the original
complaint or information upon the filing of a new FACTS:
one charging the proper offense in accordance An information dated 15 November 2004 was
with Section 11 of Rule 119, provided the accused filed before the Sandiganbayan charging
would not be placed in double jeopardy and may petitioner Datu Guimid Matalam (ARMM Vice
also require the witnesses to give bail for their Governor and Regional Director of Department of
appearance at the trial. Substantial amendments Agrarian Reform), Habib A. Bajunaid (high ranking
are recital of facts constituting the offense public official), Ansari M. Lawi, Muslimin Unga
charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of and Naimah Unte (all low ranking public officials)
the court. All other matters are merely of form. with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No.
Hence, the following matters were decided to be 3019, as amended, for their alleged illegal and
merely formal amendments such as (1)new unjustifiable refusal to pay the monetary claims
allegations relating only to the range of penalty of DAR employees, Kasan I. Ayunan, Abdul E.
which the court might impose in the event of Zailon, Esmael A. Ebrahim, Annabelle Zailon,
conviction; (2) amendment which does not Pendatun Mambatawan, Hyria Mastura and
charge another offense different or distinct from Faizal I. Hadilfor the period of January 1998 to
that charged in the original one; (3) additional June 1999 amounting to P1,606,788.50 as
allegations which do not alter the prosecution’s contained in Civil Service Resolutions Nos.
theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the 982027 and 990415 in the nature of unpaid
accused and affect the form of defense he or she salaries during the period when they have been
will assume; and (4) an amendment which does illegally terminated, including salary differentials
not adversely affect any substantial right of the and other benefits.Per order of the court, a
accused, such as his right to invoke prescription. reinvestigation of the case was conducted where
In the present case, it is evident that frustrated petitioner filed his Counter-Affidavit.After the
murder is but a stage in the execution of a crime reinvestigation, the public prosecutor filed a
of murder, hence the former is necessarily "Manifestation and Motion to Admit Amended
included in the latter.It is indispensable that the Information Deleting the Names of Other
essential element of intent to kill, as well as Accused Except Datu Guimid Matalam" to which
qualifying circumstances such as treachery or petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss and
evident premeditation, be alleged in both Opposition to the Motion to Admit the Alleged
information for frustrated murder and murder, Amended Information Against the Accused
proving that the same material allegations are Guimid P. Matalam.
essential to the sufficiency of the informations In his Motion to Dismiss, petitioner alleged that
filed for both. This is because, except for the the amended information charges an entirely
death of victim, the essential elements of murder new cause of action. The corpus delicti of the
likewise constitute the essential ingredients to amended information is no longer his alleged
convict the petitioner for the offense of refusal to pay the backwages ordered by the Civil
frustrated murder. Service Commission, but the alleged willful,
Therefore, in the case at bar, there is an identity unlawful and illegal dismissal from the service of
of offenses charged in both the original and the complaining witnesses. He insists that the
amended information. What is involved here is amended information charging a separate and
entirely different offense cannot be admitted pay monetary claims to illegal dismissal, and he
because there would be a serious violation of due was not given the opportunity to submit his
process of law. He claims he is entitled to a evidence on the absence or presence of evident
preliminary investigation since he was not bad faith and manifest partiality as to the illegal
informed that he is being charged for the alleged dismissal. Accused has not waived his right to a
dismissal of the complaining witnesses and that new preliminary investigation and in fact asked
he was not given the opportunity to explain.What for one
seems to be more crucial here is, whether the
amendments made are not prejudicial to the (11) LEVISTE VS ALMEDA ET.AL.,
rights of the accused and are considered as a FACTS:
matter of form only, so that, if the Amended
Information is admitted, there would be no need On January 16, 2007, an Information was filed
to require the Public Prosecutor to conduct against Jose Antonio Leviste charging him with
another preliminary investigation in the homicide for the death of Rafael de las Alas on
observance of the rights of the accused to due January 12, 2007 before the RTC of Makati. The
process. On the other hand, if the amendment private complainants-heirs of de las Alas filed an
would be substantial, necessarily, another Urgent Omnibus Motion praying for the
preliminary investigation should be accorded to deferment of the proceedings to allow the public
the accused. Distinction of the two is thus prosecutor to re-examine the evidence on record
imperative.Interestingly, however, the change in or to conduct a reinvestigation to determine the
the recital of cause of action in the Amended proper offense. The RTC thereafter issued the
Information is very much noticeable. As correctly Order granting the motion by the complainants,
pointed out by accused Matalam, the corpus thus, allowing the prosecution to conduct a
delictiin the original Information was the alleged reinvestigation. Later, the trial court issued the
willful and confederated refusal of the accused to other order that admitted the Amended
pay the backwages of the complaining witnesses. Information for murder and directed the issuance
The corpus delicti in the Amended Information is of a warrant of arrest. Petitioner questioned
now altered into the alleged illegal dismissal of these two orders before the appellate court.The
the complainants from their service by accused trial court went on to try the petitioner under the
Matalam. Certainly, the two causes of action Amended Information. Then, the trial court found
differ differently from each other. the petitioner guilty of homicide. From the trial
court's decision, the petitioner filed an appeal to
ISSUE: the CA. The appellate court confirmed the
Whether or not Matalam is entitled to a decision of the trial court. The petitioner's motion
preliminary investigation since he was not for reconsideration was denied.
informed that he is being charged for the alleged ISSUE:
dismissal of the complaining witnesses.
Whether or not the amendment of the
RULING: Information from homicide to murder is
Yes. According to the SC, if the petitioner is not to considered a substantial amendment.
be given a new preliminary investigation for the RULING:
amended charge, his right will definitely be
prejudiced because he will be denied his right to Yes. A substantial amendment consists of the
present evidence to show or rebut evidence recital of facts constituting the offense charged
regarding the element of evident bad faith and and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court.
manifest partiality on the alleged dismissal. He All other matters are merely of form. The test as
will be denied due process. Although the charge to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the
remained the same, which is violation of Sec. 3 amendment is whether a defense under the
(e) of RA 3019 as amended, the prohibited act information as it originally stood would be
allegedly committed changed, that is, failure to available after the amendment is made, and
whether any evidence defendant might have told her that he would kill her if she will not
would be equally applicable to the information in accede to his demands. Roy then told her to put
the one form as in the other. off the light, strip off her clothes and not make
any noise. Thereafter, Roy had a sexual
An amendment to an information which does not intercourse with her. Due to her traumatic
change the nature of the crime alleged therein experience, complainant suffered from Psychosis,
does not affect the essence of the offense or which is a form of mental disorder, technical term
cause surprise or deprive the accused of an for insanity, induced by an overwhelming trauma
opportunity to meet the new averment had each secondary to rape.
been held to be one of form and not of
substance. here is no substantial distinction The version of Roy is based on his lone testimony.
between a preliminary investigation and a He admits that he and complainant were
reinvestigation since both are conducted in the neighbors but claims that they were lovers, and
same manner and for the same objective of they had sexual intercourse without him having
determining whether there exists sufficient to use force. Therefore, the trial court rendered a
ground to engender a well-founded belief that a decision finding Roy guilty of rape. Hence, this
crime has been committed and the respondent is petition.
probably guilty thereof and should be held for
trial. ISSUE:

What is essential is that petitioner was placed on Whether or not respondent can be held liable for
guard to defend himself from the charge of the crime of rape in the absence of an
murder after the claimed circumstances were amendment after the plea of the accused
made known to him as early as the first motion. RULING:
Petitioner did not, however, make much of the
opportunity to present countervailing evidence Yes. The insertion of the phrase that the victim
on the proposed amended charge. Despite has become insane by reason or on occasion of
notice of hearing, petitioner opted to merely the rape in the Information merely raised the
observe the proceedings and declined to actively penalty that may be imposed in case of
participate, even with extreme caution, in the conviction and does not charge another offense
reinvestigation. directed from that charged in the original
Information. Whatever defense Roy may have
(12) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RONETO raised under the original information for rape
DEGAMO committed with a deadly weapon where the
FACTS: victim has become insane by reason or on
occasion of the rape. The amendment did not
A complaint was filed before the trial court adversely affect any substantial right of Roy.
charging Roneto “Roy’’ Degamo with a crime of Therefore, the trial court correctly allowed the
rape to which, upon arraignment, pleaded not amendment. The basis for the amendment was
guilty. Before the start of the trial proper the the psychosis of complainant which was
court allowed the complaint to be amended to determined after the filing of the information.
include the allegation that by reason of the
incident of rape, the victim has become insane. The trial proper started only after Roy had been
Upon arraignment, Roy pleaded not guilty to the re-arraigned and he never objected to the
charge. Trial ensued. amendment at any stage of the proceedings. It is
basic that objection to the amendment of an
The prosecution’s version of evidence alleged information or complaint must be raised at the
that Roy raped Ellen Vertudazo on October 1, time the amendment is made, otherwise, silence
1994, at around 1:00 in the morning inside her would be deemed a consent to said amendment.
house by forcing his way inside the house and It is a time-honored doctrine that objection to the
poked a knife at the complainant’s neck. She tried amendment must be seasonably made, for when
to move away from Roy but he grabbed her and the trial was had upon an information substituted
for the complaint or information without any provided leave of court is obtained and such
objection by the defense, the defect is deemed amendment is not prejudicial to the rights of the
waived. It cannot be raised for the first time on accused. A substantial amendment is not
appeal. permitted after the accused had already been
arraigned.
(13) PEOPLE VS. TUBONGBANUA

FACTS: Tested against these guidelines, the insertion of

Appellant Elberto Tubongbanua was charged with the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and
the crime of murder in an amended Information insult or disregard of the respect due to rank,
that reads: age, or sex of the victim is clearly a formal, not a
substantial, amendment. These amendments do
That on or about the 12th of February, 2001, in not have the effect of charging another offense
the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, different or distinct from the charge of murder as
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this contained in the original information. They relate
Honorable Court, the above named accused, with only to the range of the penalty that the court
intent to kill and with evident premeditation, might impose in the event of conviction. The
treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, amendment did not adversely affect any
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and substantial right of appellant. Besides, appellant
feloniously attack, assault and stab Evelyn Kho y never objected to the presentation of evidence to
Sua on the different parts of her body with the prove the aggravating circumstances of dwelling
use of a deadly weapon, thereby inflicting upon and insult or in disregard of the respect due to
said Evelyn Kho y Sua stab wounds, which directly the offended party on account of rank, age or
caused her death; that the act was committed sex. Without any objection by the defense, the
inside the dwelling of Evelyn Kho y Sua and with defect is deemed waived.
insult or in disregard of the respect due to the
offended party on account of his (sic) rank, age or There is no dispute that Atty. Sua-Kho was killed
sex. in her home. Appellant could have killed her
elsewhere but he decided to commit the crime at
ISSUE: her home; thus we appreciate the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling. However, it was not
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not convincingly shown that appellant deliberately
allowing the amendments in the information intended to offend or disregard the respect due
regarding the aggravating circumstances of to rank, age, or sex of Atty. Sua-Kho. The motive
dwelling and insult or disregard of the respect for the murder was his grudge against the victim
due to rank, age or sex. and not because she was a lawyer and his
employer. Neither did appellant took into
RULING: consideration the age of Atty. Sua-Kho and the
fact that she is a woman
YES. As regards the aggravating circumstances of
dwelling and insult to the rank, sex and age of the (14) FRONDA-BAGGAO V. PEOPLE
victim, the Court of Appeals noted that these
circumstances were included as amendments to FACTS:
the information after the presentation by the
prosecution of its evidence. As such, the same a. Petitioner – Wanted for illegal recruitment b.
should not be allowed because it will prejudice Respondent – 2. Facts a. In 1989, the Provincial
the rights of the appellant. Prosecutor of Abra filed with RTC Branch 1 of
Bangued, four separate Informations for illegal
recruitment against Susan Fronda-Baggao and
Lawrence Lee
Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court,
provides that an amendment after the plea of the b. Arrested only on July of 1999, after a decade
accused is permitted only as to matters of form,
c. Prosecutor prayed that the 4 informations be (15) EDUARDO G. RICARZE VS.
amended so that it would only be one COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
Information for illegal recruitment in large scale
d. RTC first denied but subsequently granted FACTS:
upon MR Two informations for estafa through
e. Since it involved economic sabotage, it was falsification of commercial document was
forwarded to Branch 2, a Special Criminal Court, filed against petitioner, Ricarze, before the
which affirmed Branch 1’s decision Regional TrialCourt of Makati City.Philippine
Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIBank),
f. CA also ruled for the defendants herein when unknown to the Regional Trial Court of
he killed her. Makati, credited the amount being
questioned in the criminal cases of estafa.
ISSUES: On pre-trial, the petitioner questioned the
appearance of PCI Bank.
 W/N multiple information can be amended
The petitioner averred that unless the Inform
into a singular one
ations were amended to change the private
 W/N such amendment violates the
complainant to PCIB, his right as accused
substantial right of the accused
would be prejudiced.
RULING:

 YES, it can be amended accordingly a. ISSUE:

Although indeed the Rule uses the singular
Whether or not the substitution of Caltex by
word complaint or information, it does not
PCI Bank as private complainant is
mean that two or more complaints or
tantamount to substantial amendment.
Informations cannot be amended into only
one Information b. Surely not the intention
of the Court. Will create an absurd situation RULING:
where multiple information cannot be
amended into a singular one c. The Rules No, there is no substantial amendment. The test
shall be liberally construed in order to as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the
promote their objective of securing a just, amendment is whether a defense under the
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every information as it originally stood would
action and proceeding beavailable after the amendment is made, and
 NO, it does not violate her substantial rights whether any evidence defendant might have
a. anchors her contention on the fact that would be equally applicable to the information in
“after the plea and during the trial, a formal the one form as in the other. An amendment to
amendment may only be made with leave of an information which does not change the nature
court and when it can be done without of the crime alleged therein does not affect the
causing prejudice to the rights of the essence of the offense or cause surprise or
accused” b. Under the Rules of Court, before deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet
the accused enters his plea, a formal or the new averment had each been held to be one
substantial amendment of the complaint or of form and not of substance. In the case at bar,
information may be made without leave of the substitution of Caltex by PCIB as private
court. After the entry of a plea, only a formal complaint is not a substantial amendment. The
amendment may be made but with leave of substitution did not alter
court c. After arraignment, a substantial the basis of the charge in both Informations, nor
amendment is proscribed except if the same did it result in any prejudice to petitioner. The do
is beneficial to the accused d. In this case, cumentary evidence in the form of the forged
petitioner has not yet been arraigned checks remained the same, and all such evidence
petitionerwell before the trial. Thus, he cannot
claim any surprise by virtue of the substitution.
(16) IMELDA PILAPIL, VS.HON. CORONA IBAY- petitioner by private respondent who did not
SOMERA, IN HER CAPACITY AS RTC JUDGE OF qualify under the requisite phrase “cannot be
MANILA, AND ERICH EKKEHARD GEILING prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint
filed by the offended spouse” (Rule 110, Sec 5,
FACTS: paragraph 2)
(1)On September 7, 1979, petitioner Imelda RULING:
Pilapiland respondent Erich Geiling, German
national, were married at Federal Republic of The Court found the petition meritorious. Under
Germany. Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of
adultery, as well as four other crimes against
(2)More than three years after,private respondent chastity, cannot be prosecuted except upon a
initiated a divorce proceeding against petitioner in sworn written complaint filed by the offended
Germany in January, 1983. spouse.
(3)Petitioner, on the other hand, filed an action for The same provision is stressed under Rule 110,
legal separation, support and separation of Section 5 of the Rules of Court,
property before the RTC of Manila, on January 23,
1983. Now, the law specifically provides that in
prosecutions for adultery and concubinage the
(4)On January 15, 1986, the local court of Germany, person who can legally file the complaint should be
promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of the offended spouse, and nobody else.Unlike the
failure of marriage of the spouses.(5)More than offenses of seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
five months after the issuance of the divorce lasciviousness, no provision is made for the
decree, private respondent filed two complaints for prosecution of the crimes of adultery and
adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging concubinage by the parents, grandparents or
that, while still married to said respondent, guardian of the offended party. The so-called
petitioner "had an affair with a certain William Chia exclusive and successive rule in the prosecution of
as early as 1982 and with yet another man named the first four offenses above mentioned do not
Jesus Chua sometime in 1983".(6) The respondent apply to adultery and concubinage.
city fiscal approved a resolution, directing the filing
of two complaints for adultery against the Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to the
petitioner. (7)On October 27, 1987, petitioner filed offended spouse to institute the action, it
a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition necessarily follows that such initiator must have
before the Supreme Court, with a prayer for a TRO the status, capacity or legal representation to do so
seeking the annulment of the order of the lower at the time of the filing of the criminal action.
court denying her motion to quash. The petition is
anchored on the main ground that the court is In the present case, the fact that private
without jurisdiction "to try and decide the charge respondent obtained a valid divorce in his country,
of adultery, which is a private offense that cannot the Federal Republic of Germany, is admitted. Said
be prosecuted de officio (sic), since the purported divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in
complainant, a foreigner, does not qualify as an the Philippines insofar as private respondent is
offended spouse having obtained a final divorce concerned 23 in view of the nationality principle in
decree under his national law prior to his filing the our civil law on the matter of status of persons.
criminal complaint." Under the same considerations and rationale,
ISSUE: private respondent, being no longer the husband of
petitioner, had no legal standing to commence the
Whether the trial court has no jurisdiction to try adultery case under the imposture that he was the
and decide the charge of adultery filed against offended spouse at the time he filed suit.
(17) HERALD BLACK DACASIN vs. SHARON DEL During the preliminary investigation, Julian Teves
MUNDO DACASIN filed a new letter-complaint attaching his affidavit.
Before the scheduled arraignment, Milagros Donio-
FACTS: Teves filed a Motion to Quash challenging the
Herald, an American, and Sharon, Filipino, were jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance over the
married in Manila on April of 1994. In June 1999, offense charged,
Sharon was able to obtain a divorce decree from the persons of both accused, and the authority of r
the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois. The Illinois espondent City Fiscal ofDumaguete to file the
Circuit Court also granted sole custody of their information. The motion was denied by the CFI.
child to Sharon. In 2002, both parties instituted a During the pendency of the case, complainant
contract agreeing to a joint custody over their Julian Teves died.
child. In 2004, Herald filed a case against Sharon ISSUE:
alleging that Sharon had exercised sole custody
over their child. Whether or not the death of the complainant in
adultery while the caseis pending a ground to
ISSUE: dismiss the case.
Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has RULING:
jurisdiction over the case.
In adultery and concubinage cases, the death of
RULING: the offended party is not a ground for the
Yes, the Regional Trial Court can take cognizance extinguishment of the criminal liability, whether
of the case .The trial court has jurisdiction to partialor total, of the offending spouse. The
entertain petitioner‘s suit but not to enforce the participation of the offended party is essential not
Agreement which is void. Subject matter for the maintenance of the criminal action but
jurisdiction is conferred by law. At the time solely for the initiation thereof. The moment the
petitioner filed his suit in the trial court, statutory offended party initiates the action, the law
law vests on Regional Trial Courts exclusive original will be applied in full force beyond the control
jurisdiction over civil actions incapable of pecuniary of, and in spite of the complainant, his death
estimation. An action for specific performance, notwithstanding.
such as petitioner‘s suit to enforce the Agreement (19) BUREAU OF CUSTOMSvs.PETER SHERMAN,
on joint child custody, belongs to this species of MICHAEL WHELAN, TEODOR B. LINGAN,
actions. Thus, jurisdiction-wise, petitioner went to ATTY.OFELIA B. CAJIGAL and the COURT OF TAX
the right court. APPEALS
(18) MILAGROS DONIO-TEVES AND MANUEL FACTS:
MORENOVS.HON. CIPRIANO VAMENTA, JR., AS
PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH III, COURT OFFIRST A criminal action for violation of the provisions of
INSTANCE, NEGROS ORIENTAL, PABLO E. the Tariff and Custom Code of the Philippines, as
CABAHUG, AS CITY FISCAL OFDUMAGUETE, AND amended and Republic Act 7916 was filed against
JULIAN L. TEVES private respondents for alleged non-payment of
duties or taxes for the shipment of bet slips and
FACTS: thermal papers. The State Prosecutor found
Milagros Donio-Teves and Manuel Moreno are probable cause and filed an information against the
accused of and charged with adultery. The criminal private respondents before the Court of Tax
action was initiated by a letter-complaint thumb Appeals. The Secretary of Department of Justice
marked and sworn to by complainant Julian Teves, reversed the determination
the husband of petitioner Milagros Donio-Teves. of probable cause and ordered the withdrawal of t
he information. Hence, theState Prosecutor Document under Article 171, par. 4 of the Revised
withdrew the information. The Bureau of Customs Penal Code.
then filed, in its own, a motion for reconsideration
before the Court of Tax Appeals. The Ombudsman filed the corresponding
Informations with the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE:
The Sandiganbayan ordered the Office of the
Whether or not the Bureau of Customs can Special Prosecutor (OSP) to conduct a
commence the action without the participation of reinvestigation. So, the petitioner, through counsel,
the State Prosecutor. followed suit and orally moved for a
reinvestigation, which the Sandiganbayan likewise
RULING: granted. The Sandiganbayan gave the petitioner
No, the public prosecutor has power of direction ten (10) days within which to file his counter-
and control over prosecution of criminal cases. It is affidavit with the OSP.
well-settled that prosecution of crimes pertains to Instead of submitting his counter-affidavit, the
the executive department of the government petitioner asked the Sandiganbayan for a thirty-day
whose principal power and responsibility is to extension to submit his counter-affidavit. Shortly
insure that laws are faithfully executed. Corollary before the expiry of the extension requested, the
to this power is the right petitioner asked the OSP for an additional thirty-
to prosecute violators. Thus, all criminal actions co day period to file his counter-affidavit. Despite the
mmenced by complaint orinformation are two extensions asked and granted, the petitioner
prosecuted under the direction and control of asked the OSP anew for a twenty-day extension
public prosecutors. In the prosecution of special la period. Despite the extension period asked and
ws, however, the exigencies of public service somet given, the petitioner failed to file his counter-
imes require the designation of special prosecutors affidavit, prompting Prosecutor Norberto B. Ruiz to
fromdifferent government agencies to assist the declare that the petitioner had waived his right to
public prosecutor; but this designation does not submit countervailing evidence. Then, Ombudsman
detract from the public prosecutor having control Aniano Desierto approved the resolution.
and supervision over the case.
Prosecutor asked the Sandiganbayan for the
(20) MIGUEL VS. SANDIGANBAYAN arraignment and trial of the petitioner and of the
FACTS: other accused private individuals.

Vice Mayor and other local officials of Koronadal After several extensions sought and granted, the
City, South Cotabato filed a letter-complaint with petitioner filed a Motion to Quash and/or
the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao Reinvestigation for the criminal cases against him.
(Ombudsman) charging the petitioner, Fernando The Sandiganbayan denied the petitioners motion
Miguel, with violation of R.A. No. 3019, in because of the pending OSP reinvestigation this,
connection with the consultancy services for the despite the OSPs earlier termination of the
proposed Koronadal City public market. The reinvestigation for the petitioners continuous
Ombudsman directed the petitioner to submit his failure to submit his counter-affidavit. The
counter-affidavit. After moving for an extension, petitioner did not question the denial of his
the petitioner filed his counter-affidavit. Then, the motion.
Ombudsman found probable cause against the The petitioner was arraigned; he pleaded not guilty
petitioner and some private individuals for in both criminal cases.
violation of R.A. No. 3019 and against the
petitioner alone for Falsification of Public
The OSP filed a Motion to Suspend [the petitioner] arguments in court; one may be heard also through
pendente lite. The petitioner filed his Vigorous pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either
Opposition based on the obvious and fatal defect through oral arguments or pleadings, has been
of the information. The Sandiganbayan accorded, no denial of procedural due process
promulgated the assailed resolution suspending exists.
the petitioner pendente lite.

The petitioner moved for reconsideration of his

suspension order and demanded for a pre-
suspension hearing. The Sandiganbayan denied his
motion, prompting him to file this certiorari
petition to challenge the validity of his suspension
order.

ISSUE:

Whether the absence of an actual pre-suspension

hearing renders invalid the suspension order
against the petitioner.

RULING:

Petition dismissed for lack of merit.

In Bedruz v. Sandiganbayan, the Court considered

the opposition of the accused (motion to suspend
pendente lite) as sufficient to dispense with the
need to actually set the prosecutions motion for
hearing. The same conclusion was reached in Juan
v. People, where the Court ruled:

In the case at bar, while there was no pre-

suspension hearing held to determine the validity
of the Informations that had been filed against
petitioners, we believe that the numerous
pleadings filed for and against them have achieved
the goal of this procedure. The right to due process
is satisfied nor just by an oral hearing but by the
filing and the consideration by the court of the
parties' pleadings, memoranda and other position
papers.

Since a pre-suspension hearing is basically a due

process requirement, when an accused public
official is given an adequate opportunity to be
heard on his possible defenses against the
mandatory suspension under R.A. No. 3019, then
an accused would have no reason to complain that
no actual hearing was conducted.It is well settled
that to be heard does not only mean oral