PEOPLE VS NUNEZ Facts On January 17, 1996, at around 10:00 p.m.

, complainant, Janeth, was roused from her sleep and discovered that her shorts and panties had been taken off. Her father, whom she found beside her, touched her nipple and inserted his finger into her vagina. He also sucked her nipple. Complainant pushed her father away, whereupon he returned to bed and complainant put on her shorts and panties and went back to sleep. She woke up again later and saw her father on top of her. He inserted his penis into her vagina. The incident made complainant very angry at her father, she voluntarily instituted a case which led to the filing of an information with the Regional Trial Court of Davao City. However, said information merely charged accused with rape under art. 335 of RPC and alleged that the accused had carnal knowledge of his daughter, without any allegations as to her minority. When arraigned on January 30, 1996, the accused entered a plea of not guilty.1 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. At the hearing for the presentation of evidence for the defense, the accused, through his counsel, manifested that he would no longer present any evidence, not even his own testimony, but would merely submit the case for decision based on the evidence submitted by the prosecution.8 On January 23, 1997, the trial court rendered its decision that Demetrio Nuez y Dubduban of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding his plea of guilty of the offense charged pursuant to Rep. Act 7659, Section 11, sub-par. 7 thereof, accused, Demetrio Nuez y Dubduban, is sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death by lethal injection pursuant to Rep. Act 8176, amending Sec. 24 of Rep. Act 7659 as to the manner therein provided, subject to such method of carrying out his sentence as may be provided for under said Rep.

Issue Whether or not the imposition of death penalty is proper notwithstanding the failure to allege the complainants minority in the information. Held In light of the foregoing as well as the clear, convincing and competent physical and testimonial evidence, this Court is convinced that accused has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. Although the matter of the proper imposition of the

penalty is not assigned as an error by the accused, nevertheless, it is a well-established rule in criminal procedure that an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct an error as may be found in the appealed judgment, whether it is made the subject of assignment of errors or not.2 The penalty of death cannot be automatically imposed on the accused merely because of the trial courts appreciation of both the fact of minority and relationship, no matter how clearly established. Jurisprudence dictates that these twin facts be alleged in the Information or Complaint before the death penalty can properly be imposed. Thus, there being no allegation of minority in the Information under which accused was arraigned and tried in the case at bench, he cannot be convicted of qualified rape.

PEOPLE VS. NAVA Facts Private complainant Maribeth A. Nava is the second of the nine children of accused-appellant Marcelo Nava, Jr. and his wife Leonarda A. Nava. One Thursday morning in January 1996, while Maribeths mother and eldest sibling were in Manila, accused-appellant forced himself on Maribeth. While Maribeths other siblings were then playing outside their house in Naguelguel, Lingayen, Pangasinan, accused-appellant asked Maribeth to give him a massage. Soon thereafter, he grabbed her left arm causing her to fall on the bed where accused-appellant lay. Armed with a knife, accused-appellant forced her to undress and to part her legs. Then, he went on top of her and inserted his penis in her vagina by making push and pull movements. She felt pain and became weak. A whitish substance came out from accusedappellants private part. He threatened to kill her if she revealed the incident to anyone. This happened several times until she finally told her mother. However, after Maribeth narrated her ordeal at the hands of her father, her mother callously replied, kaunting tiis lang. Disheartened by her mothers indifference, she answered, I could no longer bear it, so I better go away. On August 25, 1996, Maribeth left their house and went to the Lingayen Police Station on her own. She was subsequently placed under the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development.7 Consequently, accused-appellant Marcelo Marlon Nava, Jr. was

charged with four (4) counts of Rape under four (4) separate informations.

US vs Chan Toco Facts The accused in this case was charged with an infraction of section 4 of Act No. 1461 of the Philippine Commission, in that on the 23d day of October, 1906, he smoked opium in the store of a Chinaman named Liangco, in the municipality of Santo Nio, in the Province of Samar, without being duly registered, and without having secured a certificate to that effect, as provided in section 4 of the Act. The evidence of record fully sustains the findings of the trial court, and establishes the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and we find no error in the proceedings prejudicial to the rights of the appellant. Counsel for the accused demurred to the information on the ground that it failed to allege that the use of opium had not been prescribed as a medicine by a duly licensed and practicing physician. Also, counsel for the appellant insists that the statutory offense defined in section 4 of Act No. 1461, of which the appellant was convicted, was not sufficiently alleged in the information, and a formidable array of authorities have been cited holding that, where the enacting clause in a statute describes an offense with certain exceptions, the exceptions should be negative in the indictment, complaint, or information. Issue Whether or not the information include that the exceptions to the statute were also NOT done by accused in order to be fully admitted. Held: It is not necessary, in an information charging a violation of section 4 of Act No. 1461, to negative the exception in favor of persons using opium under prescription of a duly licensed and practicing physician, the matter contained in the exception being a matter of defense which must be alleged and proven by the accused if he relies upon it. As held in the case of US vs Cookwhere a statute defining an offense contains an exception in the enacting clause of the statute which is so incorporated with the language defining the offense that the ingredients of the offense cannot be accurately and clearly described if the exception is omitted, the rules of good pleading require that an indictment founded upon the statute must allege enough to show that the accused is not within the exception; but if the language of the section defining the offense is so entirely separable

from the exception that the ingredients constituting the offense may be accurately and clearly defined without any reference to the exception, the pleader may safely omit any such reference, as the matter contained in the exception is matter of defense and must be shown by the accused.

PEOPLE vs GIANAN Facts Myra Gianan, then 15 years old, filed a criminal complaint for multiple rape against her father, accused-appellant Jesus Gianan, on the basis of which the public prosecutor filed the following information stating that sometime in November 1995, and some occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Dasmarias, Province of Cavite, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, with lewd designs, taking advantage of his superior strength over the person of his own twelve (12) year old daughter, and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have repeated carnal knowledge of Myra M. Gianan, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice. Accused-appellant contends that the information against him was void because it did not allege with certainty the dates of commission of the rapes, as a result of which he was allegedly deprived of the opportunity to defend himself. In addition, he argues that by charging multiple rape, the information charged more than one crime. Issue Whether or not failure to allege with certainty the dates of the commission of the crime in the information renders such as void. Held Section 11 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rule of Criminal Procedure strates that It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission. In line of the foregoing rule, this Court has held that the allegations that rapes were committed before and until October 15, 1994,22sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter,and on or about and sometime in the year 198824 constitute sufficient compliance with Rule 110, 11. Moreover, in any event, even if the information failed to allege with certainty the time of the commission of the rapes, the defect, if any,

was cured by the evidence presented during the trial and any objection based on this ground must be deemed waived as a result of accused-appellants failure to object before arraignment. Accusedappellants remedy was to move either for a bill of particulars25 or for the quashal of the information on the ground that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form. PEOPLE vs MAGBANUA Facts In an Information filed on 29 May 1996, Charito Magbanua was charged with the crime of rape allegedly committed that sometimes (sic) on (sic) the year 1991 and the days thereafter, in Barangay Pawican, Municipality of San Jose, Province of Occidental Mindoro, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of Poblica Magbanua, against her will and consent. On the witness stand, appellant admitted that Poblica is his daughter, the latter being the eldest among his seven children.26 However, he denied raping Poblica.27 He pinned the commission of the crime on someone else. He claimed that, at one time, Poblica told him that it was a certain Ricky Pacaul who molested her.28 He, likewise, disputed the allegation that he caused Poblicas pregnancy. The decision of the court convicted the accused and hence this appeal. Appellant faults the trial court in convicting him on the basis of an allegedly insufficient information for its failure to specify the exact dates when the rapes were perpetrated because it merely stated that these rapes were committed sometimes (sic) on (sic) the year 1991 and the days thereafter. He asserts that since each sexual act is considered a separate crime, each of these acts should have been established as executed on certain dates or times and set forth in the information as such. He further argues that the indefiniteness of the information with respect to time could not have been cured by evidence presented by the prosecution in derogation of his right to be informed of the nature of the crime charged against him. Issue Whether or not the information is insufficient for its failure to state the precise date of the commission of the offense. Held Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. The reason is obvious. The date or time of the commission of rape is not a

material ingredient of the said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. In fact, the precise time when the rape takes place has no substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy. It is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission. The purpose of the requirement is to give the accused an opportunity to defend himself. Although the information did not state with particularity the dates when the sexual attacks took place, we believe that the allegations therein that the acts were committed on (sic) the year 1991 and the days thereafter substantially apprised appellant of the crime he was charged with since all the essential elements of the crime of rape were stated in the information. As such, appellant cannot complain that he was deprived of the right to be informed of the nature of the case filed against him. An information can withstand the test of judicial scrutiny as long as it distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof.

PEOPLE vs LADRILLO Facts Jane Vasquez, the eight (8) year old complaining witness, could not state the month and year she was supposedly abused by her cousin Edwin Ladrillo. She could narrate however that one afternoon she went to the house of accused-appellant in Abanico, Puerto Princesa City, which was only five (5) meters away from where she lived. There he asked her to pick lice off his head; she complied. But later, he told her to lie down in bed as he stripped himself naked. He removed her panty and placed himself on top of her. Then he inserted his penis into her vagina. He covered her mouth with his hand to prevent her from shouting as he started gyrating his buttocks. He succeeded in raping her four (4) times on the same day as every time his penis softened up after each intercourse he would make it hard again and insert it back into her vagina. After successively satisfying his lust accused-appellant Edwin Ladrillo would threaten to send her to the police if she would report the incident to anyone.2 The trial court found accused-appellant Edwin Ladrillo guilty as charged, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to indemnify Jane Vasquez the amount of P100,000.00, and to pay the costs.

appealed on the ground that not finding that the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish with particularity the date of commission of the offense.
Accused-appellant

Issue Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused prosecution failed to establish with particularity the date of the commission of the offense. Held The crime was alleged in the Information to have been committed on or about the year 1992 thusThat on or about the year 1992 at Abanico Road, Brgy. San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City x x x x the said accused, with the use of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the undersigned five (5) years of age, minor, against her will and without her consent. The peculiar designation of time in the Information clearly violates Sec. 11, Rule 110, of the Rules of Court which requires that the time of the commission of the offense must be alleged as near to the actual date as the information or complaint will permit. More importantly, it runs afoul of the constitutionally protected right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The Information is not sufficiently explicit and certain as to time to inform accused-appellant of the date on which the criminal act is alleged to have been committed. The phrase on or about the year 1992 encompasses not only the twelve (12) months of 1992 but includes the years prior and subsequent to 1992, e.g., 1991 and 1993, for which accusedappellant has to virtually account for his whereabouts. Hence, the failure of the prosecution to allege with particularity the date of the commission of the offense and, worse, its failure to prove during the trial the date of the commission of the offense as alleged in the Information, deprived accused-appellant of his right to intelligently prepare for his defense and convincingly refute the charges against him. At most, accused-appellant could only establish his place of residence in the year indicated in the Information and not for the particular time he supposedly committed the rape.

CRESPO vs MOGUL Facts On April 18, 1977 Assistant Fiscal Proceso K. de Gala with the approval of the Provincial Fiscal filed an information for estafa against Mario Fl. Crespo in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City which was docketed as Criminal Case No. CCCIX-52 (Quezon) 77.1 When the

case was set for arraignment the accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground that there was a pending petition for review filed with the Secretary of Justice of the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal for the filing of the information. A petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a preliminary writ of injunction was filed by the accused in the Court of Appeals. The Court of 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 recommended that the petition be given due course. On May 15, 1978 a decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals granting the writ and perpetually restraining the judge from enforcing his threat to compel the arraignment of the accused in the case until the Department of Justice shall have finally resolved the petition for review,7 Then Undersecretary of Justice, Hon. Catalino Macaraig, Jr.. resolving the petition for review reversed the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal and directed the fiscal to move for immediate dismissal of the information filed against the accused. Issue Whether or not the trial court acting on a motion to dismiss a c r i m i n a l c a s e f i l e d b y t h e P r o v i n c i a l F i s c a l u p o n instructio ns of the Secretary of Justice to whom thecase was elevated for review, may refuse to grant the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial on the merits. Held Once an information is filed in court, the courts prior permission must be secured if fiscal wants to reinvestigate the case. The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. In turn, as above stated, the filing of said information sets in motion the criminal action against the accused in Court. Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the case, at such stage, the permission of the Court must be secured. After such reinvestigation the finding and recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted to the Court for appropriate action. While it is true that the fiscal has the quasi judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court or not, once the case had already been brought to Court whatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the Court, The only qualification is that the action of the Court must not impair the substantial rights of the accused, or the right of the People to due process of law.

DIMATULAC vs VILLON Facts On 3 November 1995, SPO3 Virgilio Dimatulac was shot dead at his residence in Barangay San Nicolas, Masantol, Pampanga. A complaint for Murder was filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Macabebe-Masantol in Macabebe, Pampanga, by SPO1 Renato Layug of the Masantol Police Station against private respondents Mayor Santiago Yabut, Martin Yabut, Servillano Yabut, Evelino David, Justino Mandap, Casti David, Francisco Yambao, Juan Magat, Arturo Naguit, Fortunato Mallari, Jesus de la Cruz, Joselito Miranda, SPO3 Gilberto Malabanan, Aniano Magnaye, Vladimir Yumul, a certain Danny, and a certain Koyang/Arding. On or about November 2, 2005 all the accused under the leadership of Mayor Santiago Yabut went tothe house of PO3 Virgilio Dimatulac. Some of the accused positioned themselves around the housewhile the others stood by the truck and the mayor stayed in the truck with the body guard. Accused BillyYAbut, Kati YAbut & Franncisco Yambao went inside the house strongly suggested to go down to see themayor outside and ask for sorry. As Dimatulac went down to the house and he was shot to kill as aconsequence he died. The assistantprosecutor Alfonso Flores found that the Yabuts were in company with one another that the offense committed was only homicide not murder and hereby subject to bail P 20,000.00 for each of the accused. The herein petitioner appealed the resolution of Alfonso Flores to the Secretary of Justice. Pending appeal to the DOJ, Judge Roura hastily set the case for arraignment. Issue Whether or not the Secretary of Justice has the power to review resolutions in criminal cases despite an information already having been filed in court. So we held in Marcelo v. Court of Appeals that nothing in the ruling in Crespo v. Mogul, reiterated in Roberts v. Court of Appeals, forecloses the power or authority of the Secretary of Justice to review resolutions of his subordinates in criminal cases despite an information already having been filed in court. The Secretary of Justice is only enjoined to refrain, as far as practicable, from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action of the prosecutor once a complaint or information is filed in court. In any case, the grant of a motion to dismiss, which the prosecution may file after the Secretary of Justice reverses an appealed resolution, is subject to the discretion of the court. In Roberts we went further by saying that Crespo could not have foreclosed said power or authority of the Secretary of Justice without doing violence to, or repealing,

the last paragraph of Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court If upon petition by the proper party the secretary of Justice reverses the resolution of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the fiscal concerned to file the corresponding information without conducting any preliminary investigation to investigate or to dismiss or move for the dismissal of the complaint or information. DUNGOG vs COURT OF APPEALS Facts On October 9, 1985, First Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Bohol Angel S. Ucat, Jr. issued a resolution finding a prima facie case for the filing of an information for estafa against Pantaleon del Rosario;1 that the case stemmed from an alleged misappropriation by the private respondent, with grave abuse of confidence, of the proceeds of the sale of 24 heads of Heifer cattle, under a contract of agency; that the same resolution was approved by the respondent Provincial Fiscal of Bohol, Enrique B. Inting; An information charging the private respondent with estafa was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, entitled, The People of the Philippines versus Capt. Pantaleon V. del Rosario and that, again, the information was approved by the respondent Provincial Fiscal. 4 Moreover, that on the after the information had already been filed in court, the private respondent filed a Motion For Reinvestigation with the public respondent Provincial Fiscal;5 and that the petitioner submitted his Opposition And/Or Comment to private respondents Motion For Reinvestigation On November 9, 1985, acting on the said Motion for Reinvestigation, the respondent Provincial Fiscal, reversing himself and his First Assistant Fiscal, this time found noprima facie case against the same private respondent;7 that on the same date, the respondent Provincial Fiscal filed an Omnibus Motion For Postponement Of Arraignment And To Allow Withdrawal Of Information
Issue

a trial court may deny a motion submitted by the Provincial Fiscal to dismiss an information previously filed by him and insist on trial on the merits of the case.
Whether or not

Held The rule is now well-settled that once a complaint or information is filed in court any disposition of the case as to its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the court.13 Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court.14 For while it is true that the fiscal has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court, once the case had

already been brought to court, whatever disposition the fiscal may deem proper thereafter should be addressed to the court for its consideration and approval. After the complaint has been presented and certainly after the trial has been commenced, the court and not the fiscal has full control of it, and that the complaint can not be withdrawn by the fiscal without the consent of the court.
GABIONZA vs CA Facts

On 9 November 1993 an Information was filed against petitioner accusing him of violating Sec. 22, pars, (a) and (d), in relation to Sec. 28, par. (e), of RA 1161. It alleged that in and about or during the period from January 1991 to May 1993 petitioner, President of the Manila City Bus Corporation, a compulsorily-covered employer under RA 1161, willfully and unlawfully failed, neglected and refused to remit to the Social Security System (SSS) contributions for SSS, Medicare and Employee Compensation (EC) amounting to P1,652,330.10 and the 3% penalty imposed thereon in the amount of P541,417.87 Petitioner was arraigned on 7 December 1993. About four (4) years after he was arraigned, the public prosecutor filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Information, to change the material dates stated in the Information from January 1991 to May 1993 to January 1991 to May 1992. Petitioner opposed the motion contending that the proposed amendment was substantial in nature, hence to allow the same would be a violation of his right to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation against him, and would negate or prejudice defenses that were otherwise available to him. The trial court granted the motion and allowed amendment of the Information, ruling that the amendment pertained only to matters of form. It further ruled that the amendment would not prejudice the rights of the accused as the theory of the prosecution remained the same.4 Issue Whether or not the amendment proposed by public prosecutor was substantial in nature and as such would violate the rights of the accused to be informed of the cause and nature of the defense against him as well as negate or prejudice defenses that were otherwise available to him. Held The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a Complaint or Information is when a defense under

the Complaint or Information, as it originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made, and when any evidence the accused might have, would be inapplicable to the Complaint or the Information as amended.After the accused enters a plea, amendments to the Information may be allowed, as to matters of form, provided that no prejudice is caused to the rights of the accused. The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a Complaint or Information is when a defense under the Complaint or Information, as it originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made, and when any evidence the accused might have, would be inapplicable to the Complaint or the Information as amended. The allegation of time when an offense is committed is a matter of form, unless time is a material ingredient of the offense.In the case at bar, it is clear that the questioned amendment is one of form and not of substance. The allegation of time when an offense is committed is a matter of form, unless time is a material ingredient of the offense. It is not even necessary to state in the Information the precise time the offense was committed unless time is a material factor. It is sufficient that the act is alleged to have been committed at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed as the Complaint or Information will permit.