Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

People v.

Garcia
Facts: On Jan 2, 1996, an internal spot-audit team inventoried the cash accountabilities of
Prudential Bank b manuall countin! the mone in each of the tellers" cash bo#es$ %hile the
books of the branch sho&ed that respondent Olivia 'arcia (a bank teller) had a cash
accountabilit of *1+,,-,, the mone in her cash bo# &as onl *+,,-,$ .sked about the shorta!e
of *1,,,,,, 'arcia e#plained that there &as a &ithdra&al of *1,k on /ec, 29$ 0o&ever, the
&ithdra&al memo did not contain the re1uired si!natures of 2 bank o2cers$ 3unanan, the bank
cashier, instructed 'arcia to brin! said memo back to him so he and the branch mana!er could
a2# their si!natures$ 4rias, the Prudential Bank"s senior audit e#aminer &ho headed the spot-
audit team, found that there"s a bi! di5erence in the si!natures$ 'arcia later on admitted that
she !ave the *1,k to a person on /ec$ 29 because her famil &as bein! threatened$ .ccordin! to
'arcia, a man approached her &hile she &as at the bank counter and demanded mone from her
and threatened her that if she &ill not compl, somethin! bad &ould happen to her famil$ 6hen
on /ec$ 29, that same man sa& the bundle of *1,k &hich &as on 'arcia"s desk, pointed a !un at
her and demanded that she !ive him the mone$
763 convicted 'arcia of 1uali8ed theft, 1,rs 9 1da of prision maor to 2,rs of rec$ 6emporal
as ma#imum$ 3. a2rmed and held that 'arcia !ave inconsistent e#planations for her shorta!e
of *1,k$ :he also mentioned + instances &hen the unidenti8ed man supposedl threatened her
and demanded mone from her et she never reported an of these incidents to an of the bank
o2cers or police authorities$
Issue: %hether the information 8led a!ainst 'arcia &as fatall defective since the information
char!ed her &ith 1uali8ed theft on Januar 2, 1996 &hen the evidence on record reveal that
'arcia did not and cannot take a&a *1,,,,, on Januar 2, 1996$
Ruling: ;nformation &as su2cient and valid$
:ec$ 6 of 7ule 11, provides the su2cienc of complaint or information, &hile sec$ 11 provides the
time of the commission of the o5ense$ Both rules con8rmed that the ;nformation &as su2cient
bec$ it stated the .PP7O<;=.6> time of the commission of the o5ense throu!h the &ords ?on or
about the 2
nd
of Jan 1996@$ 6he information did not have to state the precise date &hen o5ense
&as committed, considerin! that the date &as immaterial in!redient of the o5ense$ Aeril, /ec$
29, 199+ and Jan$ 2, 1996 &ere onl - das apart$ 'B;C6D$ Penalt: 7ec$ Perpetua for -,rs$
Chua v. Padillo
Facts: 7espondents 7odri!o and =arietta Padillo are the o&ners of Padillo Cendin! ;nvestor
en!a!ed in the mone lendin! business$ 6heir niece, =arissa Padillo-3hua, served as the 8rm"s
mana!er$ =arissa is married to petitioner %ilson 3hua, brother of 7enita 3hua$ On :ept 1999, it
&as found out that =arissa &as en!a!ed in ille!al activities$ :ome of the borro&ers &hose loan
applications she recommended for approval to the respondents &ere 8ctitious and their
si!natures on the check &ere spurious$ 6he cash amounts received throu!h the fake loans &ere
turned over to =arissa or husband %ilson for deposit in their personal accounts$ 6he total
amount embeEEled reached PF=$
7espondents 8led complaints a!ainst =arissa, %ilson and 7enita 3hua & GB;$ GB; for&arded it to
the Ofc of the 3it Prosecutor for preliminar investi!ation$ Cucena 3it Prosec$ found su2cient
evidence to &arrant a 8ndin! of prima facie case of >stafa 6hru 4alsi8cation of 3ommercial
/ocuments$ :aid prosecutor 8led and ;nformation for estafa a!ainst petitioners & the 763 of
Cucena 3it$ 0o&ever, :ecretar of Justice directed the cit prosecutor to cause the &ithdra&al of
;nformation of estafa a!ainst %ilson and 7enita 3hua, since there &as no sho&in! that there &as
conspirac bet&een them and =arissa 3hua$ 3. ordered /OJ and cit prosecutor to include
%ilson and 7enita 3hua as accused in the said case$
Issue: %OG 3. erred in compellin! :ec$ Of Justice to include %ilson and 7enita in the
;nformation
Ruling: GO$ :ec$ +, 7ule 11, of 7ules of 3rim Pro partl provides that ?all criminal actions either
commenced b a complaint or information shall be prosecuted BG/>7 60> /;7>36;OG .G/
3OG67OC O4 . PBBC;3 P7O:>3B6O7$@ 6he rationale for this rule is that since a criminal o5ense
is an outra!e to the soverei!nt of the :tate, it necessaril follo&s that a representative of the
:tate shall direct and control the prosecution thereof$
0avin! been vested b the la& &H the control of the prosecution of criminal cases, the public
prosec, in the e#ercise of his functions, has the po&er and discretion to: a) determine &hether a
prima facie case e#istsI b) decide &Hc of the conJictin! testimonies shld be believed free from
the interference or control of the o5ended partI c) subKect onl to the ri!ht a!ainst self-
incrimination, determine &Hc &itnesses to present in court$ 'iven his discretionar po&ers, a
public prosec cannot be compelled to 8le an ;nformation &here he is not convinced that the
evidence before him &ould &arrant the 8lin! of an action in court$ 0e is bound to prosecute
persons &ho, accd! to complainant"s evidence, are sho&n to be !uilt of a crime$ 0o&ever,
public prosec"s discretionar po&er is not absolute$ ;t is subKect to appeal to the :ec$ Of Justice$
:3 held that :ec$ Of Justice committed !rave abuse of discretion in resolvin! that onl =arissa
shld be char!e$ =arissa"s practice of depositin! checks, &ith altered names of paees, in the
respective accounts of %ilson and 7enita, and the fact that %ilson and =arissa are husband and
&ife makes it di2cult to believe that one has no idea of the transactions of the other$ 3."s
decision a2rmed$
Benga-Oras v. Judge Evangelista
Facts: Gorma Ballos, 1-r old !irl, &as alle!edl abducted a!ainst her &ill b Ceode!ario Ben!a-
Oras on 4eb 2F, 19+- and so her father :ilvestre 8led a complaint for abduction a!ainst him
before the Justice of Peace of 3apiE$ %hen the case &as elevated to the 34;, the 8scal on =a 1L,
19+-, 8led an ;nformation for the same crime$
Petitioner 8led a motion to dismiss on the !round that that complaint &Hc served as basis for the
;nformation &as not si!ned b the o5ended Part, Gorma, &ho &as alread of the a!e of
discernment, but merel b her father, and as such it did not confer the Kurisdiction upon the
court$
Issue: %OG Gorma"s father can 8le the complaint a!ainst Ben!a-Oras
Ruling: D>:$ :ec$ + 7ule 11, provides that in the o5enses of seduction, abduction and acts of
lasciviousness, &hen the o5ended part, &ho is a minor, fails to 8le a complaint, her parents,
!randparents, or !uardian ma 8le the same$ ;n the case at bar, since Gorma &as a minor, her
father &as therefore &Hin his ri!ht to 8le the complaint$ Of course, if she is alread of a!e and is
in complete possession of her mental and phsical faculties, no one dispute her paramount ri!ht
to aven!e the &ron! done to the e#clusion of her parents and other relatives mentioned in the
la&$ Gorma"s parents ma do so ?bein! under obli!ation to render protection to those under their
po&er and la&ful !uardianship and to represent them in the e#ercise of all the actions &hich ma
redound to their bene8t$@
Licao v. People
Facts: On 4eb 16, 1992, victim 7u8no 'ua, alon! &H his friends, Je5re and Joel /uman!en!,
attended a &eddin! at =abbalat, ;fu!ao$ Petitioner 7oberto Cicao, to!ether &H his friends, Paul
and Oliver, &ere also present at the same &eddin!$ .fter the &eddin!, 7u8no, Je5re and Joel
&ent to Gatama"s :tore and ordered 2 bottles of !in$ %hile the M &ere drinkin!, petitioner
Cicao, Paul and Oliver arrived and like&ise ordered bottles of !in$ Cater, Cicao and his friends
left the store$ :uddenl 7u8no, Je5re and Joel like&ise left the store$ 7u8no and friends dropped
b at 4amorca"s store &here Cicao, his friends Paul and Oliver, and also .ron (petitioner"s
brother) &ere also present$ %hile Je5re &as talkin! to Carr 4amorca, the store o&ner, a bra&l
suddenl occurred bet&een victim 7u8no and .ron$ 7u8no fell to the !round and .ron placed
himself on top of 7u8no and punched the latter several times$ Je5re tried to pacif them but
Paul punched Je5re on the head$
O2cers /an!la, Buao and Ba!uilat rushed to the scene$ Petitioner approached victim 7u8no,
&ho &as then &restlin! &ith Paul, and stabbed 7u8no in di5 parts of the bod$ O2cer Ba!uilat
8red a &arnin! shot &hile O2cer /an!la immediatel pounced on petitioner and disarmed the
latter$ Petitioner &as brou!ht to the police station &hile 7u8no died due to stab &ounds$
.n ;nformation &as 8led before the 763: That on or about the 16th day of February, 1992, in the
Municipality of Kiangan, Ifugao, and within the jurisdiction of this onorable !ourt, the abo"e#na$ed accused
conspiring, confederating and $utually helping one another and with intent to %ill, &I& then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attac%, assault one 'ufino (uay, stabbing hi$ with the use of a double bladed
weapon, thereby inflicting upon the "icti$ se"eral stab wounds which directly caused his death)
763: petitioner !uilt of homicide$ ;t ac1uitted .ron and Paul because the prosecution failed to
prove e#istence of conspirac$ 3. a2rmed$
Issue: %OG the ;nformation is insu2cient since it did not cate!oricall state that petitioner is
bein! char!ed &ith homicide, as de8ned and penaliEed under .rt$ 2-9 of 7P3$
Ruling: Go, the ;nformation is su2cient$ :ec$ 6, 7ule 11, provides that an information is
su2cient if it states the name of the accused, the desi!nation of the o5ense !iven b the
statute, the acts or omissions complained of as constitutin! the o5ense, the name of the
o5ended part, the appro# date of the commission of the o5ense, and the place &here the
o5ense &as committed$
%ith particular reference to the desi!nation of the o5ense, :ec$ L, 7ule 11, merel directs that
the information must state the desi!nation of the o5ense !iven b the statute, aver the acts or
omissions constitutin! the o5ense, and specif its 1ualifin! and a!!ravatin! circumstances$
6he ;nformation in this case contains the fore!oin! re1uired statements$ ;t also alle!es that act
of petitioner constitutin! homicide &hich is the unla&ful stabbin! of 7u8no &ith the use of
bladed &eapon$ 6he fact that the information does not speci8call mention .trt$ 2-9 of 7P3 as
the la& &hich de8nes and penaliEes homicide does GO6 make it defective$
!" v. #ichao
Facts: 6he ;nformation in this case is as follo&s:
The undersigned accuses one Antonio Javier Dichao of the crime of rape, committed as follows:
On or about and during the interval between October, 11!, to August, 11", in the municipalit#
of Davao, District of Davao, $oro %rovince, %&'&, the aforesaid accused did then and there,
willfull#, maliciousl#, and feloniousl# have se(ual intercourse with, and did lie with, and carnall#
)now a woman, 'sabel de la *ru+, under 1" #ears of age, in the following manner, to wit: the
aforesaid accused is the stepfather of the aforesaid 'sabel de la *ru+ and during the aforesaid
period was the legal guardian of the said 'sabel de la *ru+, that b# threats and corporal
punishment upon said 'sabel de la *ru+, the aforesaid accused, Antonio Javier Dichao, had se(ual
intercourse with and did lie with and carnall# )now said 'sabel de la *ru+, as a result whereof the
said 'sabel de la *ru+ gave birth on August -, 11", to a child& All contrar# to law&
.n appeal &as 8led alle!in! that the said criminal complaint does not conform substantiall to
the prescribed form as to the time of the commission of the o5ense$
Issue: %OG the ;nformation is insu2cient since it did not provide an e#plicit and certain time as
to &hen the o5ense &as committed$
Ruling: Des, the statement of the time &hen the crime is alle!ed to have been committed is so
;G/>4;G;6> and BG3>76.;G that it does not !ive the accused the ;nformation re1uired b la&$ 6o
alle!e in an information that the accused committed rape on a certain !irl bet&een October 191,
and .u!ust 1912 is too inde8nite to !ive the accused an opportunit to prepare his defense, and
that inde8niteness is not cured b settin! out the date &hen the child &as born as a result of
such crime$
:ec$ F, 7ule 11, (no$ "ec. %%& does not &arrant such pleadin!$ ;ts purpose is to permit the
alle!ation of a date of the commission of the crime as near to the actual date as the information
of the prosecutin! o2cer &ill permit, and &hen that has been done an date ma be proved
&hich does not surprise and substantiall preKudice the defense$ ;t does not authoriEe the total
omission of a date or such an inde8nite alle!ation$
;f such variance occurs and it is sho&n to the trial court that the defendant is surprised and
unable to defend himself properl, the court ma, in the e#ercise of sound discretion based on all
the circumstances, order the information amended so as to set forth the correct date and ma
!rant an adKournment for such len!th of time as &ill enable the defendant to prepare himself$
People v. #avid Garcia
4acts: .ccused-appellant /avid 'arcia &as found !uilt beond reasonable doubt of havin! raped
herein complainant Jackieln On!, a minor, 1LM times durin! the period from Govember 199, up
to Jul 21, 199-, and &as correspondin!l sentenced to su5er 1LM penalties of reclusion
perpetua and to indemnif complainant in the amount of P+,,,,,$,, as moral dama!es$
;n an information dated Jul 2+, 199-, appellant 'arcia &as char!ed &ith the crime of multiple
rape alle!edl committed as follo&s:
That from .ovember 1! up to Jul# "1, 1/, in the *it# of Olongapo, %hilippines, and within
the 0urisdiction of this 1onorable *ourt, the above2named accused, did then and there wilfull#,
unlawfull# and feloniousl# have multiple carnal )nowledge of one Jac)iel#n Ong, a minor about
twelve 31"4 #ears old, to the damage and pre0udice of the latter&
'arcia avers that the information for multiple rape 8led a!ainst him is defective for failure to
state the e#act dates and time &hen the alle!ed acts of rape &ere committed since it &as
merel stated therein that the o5ense &as committed ?from Govember 199, up to Jul 21,
199-$@ 0e asserts that each se#ual act is a separate crime and, hence, must be proven to have
been committed on a precise date and time$
Issue: %OG the ;nformation defective and insu2cient
Ruling: GO$ :3 not inclined to appl the rulin! in Dichao to the case no& before us$ ;t ma
readil be inferred from the decision in Dichao that &here there is such an inde5nite alle!ation in
the information as to the time of the commission of the o5ense &hich &ould substantiall
preKudice the defense, a motion to 1uash the information ma be !ranted and the case dismissed
&ithout the bene8t of an amendment$ On the other hand, &here there is a variance bet&een the
date of the commission of the crime alle!ed in the information and that proved at the trial, and it
is sho&n to the trial court that the accused is surprised thereb, and that b reason thereof, he is
unable to properl defend himself, the court ma, in the e#ercise of sound discretion based on all
the circumstances, order the information amended so as to set forth the correct date$ ;t ma
further !rant an adKournment for such a len!th of time as &ill enable the accused to prepare
himself to meet the variance in date &hich &as the cause of his surprise$
.pparentl, that distinction &as premised on the theor that the 1uestion on &hether the
alle!ations of the information are su2cientl de8nite as to time, and the 1uestion &hich arises
from a variance bet&een the particulars of the indictment and the proof, are di5erent in nature
and le!al e5ect, and are decided on di5erent principles$
;t &ould then result that, on the basis of the fore!oin! dis1uisition in Dichao, an amendment &ill
not be allo&ed, and the motion to 1uash should instead be !ranted, &here the information is, on
its face, defective for failure to state &ith certaint &hen the o5ense &as committed, and such
ambi!uit is so !ross as to deprive the accused of the opportunit to defend himself$ 4or all
intents and purposes, ho&ever, a strict adherence thereto &ould no lon!er be a sound
procedural practice, especiall in criminal proceedin!s &hich bears the mandate on speed trial
and &herein the availabilit of bills of particulars have over time been adopted and reco!niEed$
0o&ever, &here the alle!ation in the information as to the date or time of the commission of the
o5ense is so uncertain, inde8nite or ambi!uous as to constitute a violation of the ri!ht of the
accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation a!ainst him, the proper
disposition &here a motion to 1uash is 8led on that !round, is for the trial court to overrule the
motion and order the prosecution to amend the information b statin! the date or time &ith
particularit, &ithin such period as the trial court ma deem proper under the circumstances$
6his rule 8nds support in :ection - of 7ule 11F &hich provides that ?if the motion to 1uash is
based on an alle!ed defect in the complaint or information &hich can be cured b amendment,
the court shall order the amendment to be made$@ 3orollaril, :ection 1- of 7ule 11, states that
?the information or complaint ma be amended, in substance or form, &ithout leave of court, at
an time before the accused pleadsI and thereafter and durin! the trial as to all matters of form,
b leave and at the discretion of the court, &hen the same can be done &ithout preKudice to the
ri!hts of the accused$@
;n the event that the public prosecutor still fails to make the necessar amendment &ithin the
time allo&ed therefore b the court, onl then ma the court order the dismissal of the
case$ 0ence, if herein appellant 'arcia had 8led a motion to 1uash, the case &ould not re1uire
an outri!ht dismissal$
4urthermore, it bears stressin! that :ection 11 of 7ule 11, does not re1uire that the precise time
&hen the o5ense &as committed be stated in the information, e#cept &hen time is a material
in!redient of the o5ense$ ;n rape cases, the date or time is not an essential element of the crime
and, therefore, need not be accuratel stated$ 'arcia !uilt of 1, felonies of simple rape$ 7ec$
perpetua for each felon$
People v. Judge 'ontenegro
Facts: On :ept 2,, 19F6, the 3it of 4iscal of N3, thru .sst$ 4iscal Air!inia AaldeE, 8led an
;nformation for ?7obber@ before 34; of 7iEal a!ainst .ntonio 3imarra, Blpiano Aillar, Baani
3atindi! and .velino de Ceon$ :aid accused &ere all members of the police force of N3 and &ere
char!ed as accessories-after-the-fact in the robber committed b the minor, 7icardo 3abaloEa$
3abaloEa alread pleaded !uilt and &as convicted for the robber of items, articles and
Ke&elries belon!in! to /in! Aelao, ;nc &orth PF+k$
Bpon arrai!nment on Oct 2+, 19F6, all of the accused entered a plea of ?not !uilt@$ Before the
trial could proceed, the prosecutin! 8scal 8led a =otion to .dmit .mended ;nformation dated
/ec 2L, 19F6, seekin! to amend the ori!inal information b chan!in! the o5ense from 7obber
to 7obber in an Bninhabited Place, alle!in! conspirac amon! accused, and providin! di5 set of
stolen items valued at PF1k$
Issue: %OG the amended information should be admitted b the 3ourt
Ruling: Des$ .mendment of an information under :ec$ 1-, 7ule 11, ma be made at an time
before the accused enters a plea to the char!e$ 6hereafter and durin! the trial, amendments to
the information ma also be allo&ed, as to matters of form, provided that no preKudice is caused
to the ri!hts of the accused$ 6he test as to &hen the ri!hts of an accused are preKudiced b the
amendment of a complaint or information is &hen a defense under the complaint or information,
as it ori!inall stood, &ould no lon!er be available after the amendment is made, and &hen an
evidence the accused mi!ht have, &ould be inapplicable to the complaint or information as
amended$
On the other hand, an amendment &hich merel states &ith additional precision somethin!
&hich is alread contained in the ori!inal information, and &hich, therefore, adds nothin!
essential for conviction for the crime char!ed is an amendment to form that can be made at
antime$
6he proposed amendments in the amended information, in the instant case, are clearl
substantial and have the e5ect of chan!in! the crime char!ed from O7obberO punishable under
.rticle 2,9 to O7obber in an Bninhabited PlaceO punishable under .rt$ M,2 of the 7P3, thereb
e#posin! the private respondents-accused to a hi!her penalt as compared to the penalt
imposable for the o5ense char!ed in the ori!inal information to &hich the accused had alread
entered a plea of Onot !uiltO durin! their arrai!nment$
=oreover, the chan!e in the items, articles and Ke&elries alle!edl stolen into entirel di5erent
articles from those ori!inall complained of, a5ects the essense of the imputed crime, and &ould
deprive the accused of the opportunit to meet all the alle!ations in the amended information, in
the preparation of their defenses to the char!e 8led a!ainst them$ ;t &ill be observed that private
respondents &ere accused as accessories-after-the-fact of the minor 7icardo 3abaloEa &ho had
alread been convicted of robber of the items listed in the original information$ 6o char!e them
no& as accessories-after-the-fact for a crime di5erent from that committed b the principal,
&ould be manifestl incon!ruous as to be allo&ed b the 3ourt$
6he alle!ation of conspirac amon! all the private respondents-accused, &hich &as not
previousl included in the ori!inal information, is like&ise a substantial amendment saddlin! the
respondents &ith the need of a ne& defense in order to meet a di5erent situation in the trial
court$