CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL AND

CIVIL ASPECTS OF OFFENSE AND
APPLICATION
FOR
PROVISIONAL
REMEDIES
I.

Actions
arising
criminal act
A. Dual nature
a. Criminal

from

A: If it includes forfeiture or possible

forfeiture of property, deprivation of life or
liberty, even if it is civil in form.
SEC. OF JUSTICE VS. LANTION

ACTS: Mark Jimenez was charged

of multiple crimes ranging from tax
evasion
to
wire-tapping
to
conspiracy to defraud the USA.
Jimenez was then wanted in the US. The
US government, pursuant to the RP-US
extradition treaty requested to have
Jimenez be extradited there. Jimenez
requested for a copy of the complaint
against him as well as the extradition
request by the USA. The DOJ sec refused
to provide him copy thereof advising that
it is still premature to give him so and that
it is not a preliminary investigation hence
he is not entitled to receive such copies.
Jimenez sued the DOJ Sec and the lower
court ruled in favor of Jimenez.

Jimenez

and enjoys precedence over property, for

while forfeited property can be returned or
replaced, the time spent in incarceration is
irretrievable and beyond recompense.
b. Civil
Art. 100 RPC
Every person criminally liable for a felony
is also civilly liable.

Q: When is it considered as a criminal

case?

SSUE: Whether or not

deprived of due process.

Page

PART ONE

is

ELD: The SC affirmed the ruling

of the lower court. The case
against Jimenez refer to an
impending
threat
of
deprivation of ones property or
property right. No less is this true, but
even more so in the case before us,
involving as it does the possible
deprivation of liberty, which, based on the
hierarchy of constitutionally protected
rights, is placed second only to life itself

B. Essential Rights
1. Presumption of innocence
a. Constitution Sec 14 (2) xxx
in all criminal prosecutions
the
accused
shall
be
presumed innocent until
contrary is proved.
b. Requisite:
Quantum
of
sufficient evidence.
2. Procedural Due Process
a. That the court or tribunal
trying the case is properly
clothed with judicial power
to hear and determine the
matter before it;
b. That jurisdiction is lawfully
acquired by it over the
person of the accused;
c. That the accused is given
opportunity to be heard;
and
d. That judgment is rendered
only upon lawful hearing
(Alonte v. Savellano, Jr., 287
SCRA 245)
II.

Institution of actions arising

from crimes

COMPLAINT: written allegation attested or

subscribe by the offended party
INFORMATION: the formal accusation of a
criminal offense made by a public official;
the sworn, written accusation of a crime.
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION: cases where
offense is at least punishable by 4 yrs. 2
mos. 1 day.
A. Criminal Aspect
1. RGenerally

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

Section 1. Institution of criminal actions.

Criminal actions shall be instituted as
follows:
(a) For offenses where
investigation is required
section 1 of Rule 112,
complaint with the proper
purpose of conducting
preliminary investigation.

preliminary
pursuant to
by filing the
officer for the
the requisite

(b) For all other offenses, by filing the

complaint or information directly with the
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts, or the complaint with the
office of the prosecutor. In Manila and
other chartered cities, the complaint shall
be filed with the office of the prosecutor
unless otherwise provided in their
charters.
The institution of the criminal action shall
interrupt the running period of prescription
of the offense charged unless otherwise
provided in special laws. (1a)

RJCL, Sec. 11.

Filing of Criminal Action. A criminal
action may be instituted against a juvenile
in conflict with the law by filing a
complaint with the prosecutor or the
municipal trial court in cases where a
preliminary investigation is required. In
Manila and other chartered cities, if their
charters so provide, the complaint shall be
filed with the Office of the Prosecutor. It
may also be filed directly with the Family
Court if no preliminary investigation is
required under Section 1of Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure .All
criminal actions commenced by complaint
or information shall be prosecuted under
the direction and control of the public
prosecutor assigned to the Family Court
2. Venue and Jurisdiction
A. VENUE: where the elements of the
crime was committed
B. JURISDICTION: JURISDICTION:

Page

ule 110 ROC

1) Over the case B.P. 129.

2) Over the subject matter
sufficiency of the allegations

3) Over the person information,

warrants, arraignment
B.P. 129
Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal
cases. Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction
in all criminal cases not within the
exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body, except those now
falling under the exclusive and
concurrent
jurisdiction
of
the
Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter
be exclusively taken cognizance of by
the latter.
Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
criminal cases. Except in cases falling
within
the
exclusive
original
jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and
of
the
Sandiganbayan,
the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction
over all violations of city or
municipal ordinances committed
within their respective territorial
jurisdiction; and
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction
over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
years irrespective of the amount of
fine, and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other
penalties, including the civil liability
arising from such offenses or
predicated thereon, irrespective of
kind, nature, value, or amount
thereof: Provided, however, That in
offenses involving damage to
property
through
criminal
negligence
they
shall
have

original

jurisdiction

RULE 110 SEC. 15

Section 15. Place where action is to be
instituted.
(a) Subject to existing laws, the
criminal action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of the municipality or
territory where the offense was
committed or where any of its
essential ingredients occurred.
(b) Where an offense is committed in a
train, aircraft, or other public or private
vehicle while in the course of its trip,
the criminal action shall be instituted
and tried in the court of any
municipality or territory where such
train, aircraft or other vehicle passed
during such its trip, including the place
of its departure and arrival.
(c) Where an offense is committed on
board a vessel in the course of its
voyage, the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court of the
first port of entry or of any municipality
or territory where the vessel passed
during such voyage, subject to the
generally
accepted
principles
of
international law.
(d) Crimes committed outside the
Philippines but punishable under
Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code
shall be cognizable by the court where
the criminal action is first filed.
RJCL, Sec. 14.
Venue. Subject to the provisions of
Section 15, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, any
criminal or civil action involving a
juvenile in conflict with the law shall be
instituted and tried in the Family Court
of or nearest the place where the
offense was committed or where any
of its essential elements occurred.

Page

exclusive
thereof.

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PEOPLE VS LAGON

ACTS: On July 7 1976 a criminal

action was filed with the City Court
of Roxas charging Lagon with
estafa for allegedly issuing a
P4,232 check as payment for goods
knowing she had insufficient funds.
However on Dec. 2, as the trial
commenced, the City Court dismissed the
information on the ground that the penalty
prescribed by law for estafa was beyond
the courts authority to impose. Hence this
petition for review.

SSUE: WON the City

jurisdiction over the case

Court

had

ELD: NO. It is settled doctrine

that jurisdiction of a court in
criminal
law
matters
is
determined by the law in effect
at the time of the commencement of the
criminal action and not the law in effect at
the time of the commission of the offense
charged. Under Sec 87 of the Judiciary Act
of 1948, municipal judges in the capitals
of provinces and sub-provinces and judges
of city courts shall have like jurisdiction as
the CFI to try parties charged with an
offense
within
their
respective
jurisdictions, in which penalties provided
do not exceed prision correccional or fines
no exceeding P6,000 or both. At the time
of the commission of the crime, the
imposable penalty under Art 315 of the
RPC was arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional it is
minimum period, falling well within the
jurisdiction of the City Court. But when the
information was filed, PD 818 had
increased the imposable penalty to prision
mayor in its medium period.
The real question raised by petitioner is
whether the said doctrine disregards the
rule against retroactivity of penal laws. It
has been repeatedly held that in criminal
prosecutions,
jurisdiction
is
not
determined by what may be meted out to
the offender in after trial but by the extent

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

In the instant case, should the information

be refiled with the RTC, the court may not
impose a more onerous penalty upon
Lagon. Although the RTC retains subjectmatter jurisdiction to try and decide the
refiled case under PD 818, given the date
of the commission of the crime (before
effectivity of PD 818), the lower penalty
provided in Art 315 (otherwise within the
jurisdiction of the City Court) should be
imposed.

ispositive WHEREFORE, the

resolved to DENY the petition

Court

3. Complaint/information
RULE 110 SECS. 2,3,4
Section 2. The Complaint or information.
The complaint or information shall be in
writing, in the name of the People of the
Philippines and against all persons who
appear to be responsible for the offense
involved. (2a)
Section 3. Complaint defined. A
complaint is a sworn written statement
charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the offended party, any
peace officer, or other public officer
charged with the enforcement of the law
violated. (3)
Section 4. Information defined. An
information is an accusation in writing
charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the prosecutor and filed
with the court. (4a)
DOJ-NPS MANUAL PART III, SEC. 8
SEC. 8. Additional contents of a complaint
- In addition to the matters listed above, a
complaint or information shall contain a

Page

of the penalty which the law imposes.

Once jurisdiction is acquired by the Court
in which the information is filed, it is
retained regardless of whether the
evidence proves a lesser offense which
carries a penalty that would otherwise fall
within the jurisdiction of an inferior court.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

certification that the recitals therein are

true and correct and not in the nature of a
counter charge to avoid conflict in the
appreciation of the facts and evidence.
4. PERSON
PROSECUTING
CRIMINAL
ACTION;
INTERVENTION
OF
OFFENDED PARTY
PUBLIC PROSECTOR PRIVATE
PROSECUTOR under public
prosecutor RULE 110 SEC. 5 & 16
Sec. 5. Who must prosecute criminal
actions. All criminal actions commenced
by a complaint or information shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control
of the prosecutor. However, in Municipal
Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
when the prosecutor assigned thereto or
to the case is not available, the offended
party, any peace officer, or public officer
charged with the enforcement of the law
violated may prosecute the case. This
authority
shall
cease
upon
actual
intervention of the prosecutor or upon
elevation of the case to the Regional Trial
Court.
(Read
A.M.
NO.
02-2-07-SC
[Effective May 01, 2002]
Latest Amendments to Section 5, Rule 110
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
which provides: " Section 5. Who must
prosecute criminal action. - All criminal
actions either commenced by complaint or
by information shall be prosecuted under
the direction and control of a public
prosecutor. In case of heavy work
schedule of the public prosecutor or in the
event of lack of public prosecutors, the
private prosecutor may be authorized in
writing by the Chief of the Prosecution
Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to
prosecute the case subject to the approval
of the court. Once so authorized to
prosecute the criminal action, the private
prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the
case up to end of the trial even in the
absence of a public prosecutor, unless the
authority
is
revoked
or
otherwise
withdrawn. x x x"

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

PEOPLE VS BERIALES

D
F

OCTRINE: criminal prosecution

commenced by the fiscal.

ACTS: clarification
prosecution in the CFI.

involved

is

ULING: the fiscal's duty to direct

and control the prosecution of
criminal cases requires that he
must be present during the
proceedings; and that evidence presented
by the private prosecutor at a hearing, at
which neither the fiscal nor his assistant or
duly authorized special counsel was
officially present, cannot be considered as
evidence for the People of the Philippines.
- Applies to the trial and prosecution of
criminal cases before the Courts of First
Instance, Criminal Circuit Courts, and City
Courts (which are provided by law with
their own City Fiscals) only, and not to the
municipal courts.
Under Sec. 2, Rule 110 1 of the
Revised Rules of Court, and in the
light of the ruling in the cases of P.P.I.
vs. Alvarez and P.P.I. vs. Perez, et al.,
2 police, constabulary, and other
peace or law enforcement officers
and
private
prosecutors
may
prosecute criminal cases in the said
courts, but this authority ceases
upon actual intervention of the
provincial or City Fiscal or their
assistants, or upon the elevation of
the case to the Court of First
Instance
PEOPLE VS SUNGA

Page

Section 16. Intervention of the offended

party in criminal action. Where the civil
action for recovery of civil liability is
instituted in the criminal action pursuant
to Rule 111, the offended party may
intervene by counsel in the prosecution of
the offense. (16a)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

ACTS: On 10 August 1964, an

information
for
Attempted
Homicide
was
filed
by
the
Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur
against
accused-private
respondents
Rafael Anadilla, Ariston Anadilla and Jose
Anadilla. Trial of the case was set on 11
and 12 March 1974. The hearing set on 11
March 1974 was, however, postponed in
view of the absence of one of the accused,
respondent Rafael Anadilla who had not
yet been
arrested
by the
police
authorities. On the same date, the court a
quo issued an order for the arrest of said
accused, and at the same time set the
trial of the case for 29 and 30 July 1974.
On 20 March 1974, the court a quo issued
the now assailed order which reads:
"Considering that the offended
party, Jose Dadis is no longer
interested
in
the
further
prosecution of this case and there
being no objection on the part of
the accused Ariston Anadilla,
Rafael Anadilla and Jose Anadilla,
this case is hereby DISMISSED with
costs de oficio.
"Consequently, the order of arrest
issued by this Court against the
accused Rafael Anadilla dated
March 11, 1974, is hereby ordered
lifted and has no force and effect.
The affidavit of desistance, relied upon by
the aforequoted order, was executed by
the offended party on 20 March 1974 and
subscribed and sworn to before the branch
clerk of court Atty. R.B. Torrecampo. It
alleged, among others, that:
"That he was the complainant in
Criminal Case No. L- 244, entitled,
People vs. Ariston Anadilla, et al.,
for Attempted Homicide, which
case is pending before the first
branch of this Court; that he is no
longer interested in the further
prosecution of this case and that
he has already forgiven the
accused for their acts; that his

SSUE: WON the court a quo may

dismiss a criminal case on the basis of
an affidavit of desistance executed by
the offended party, but without a
motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting
fiscal.

RATIO
CRESPO VS. MOGUL: WON the
trial court, acting on a motion
to dismiss a criminal case filed
by the Provincial Fiscal upon
instructions of the secretary of
Justice to whom the case was
elevated
for
review,
may
refuse to grant the motion and
insist on the arraignment and
trial of the case on the merits.
- HELD: "The filing of a
complaint or information in
Court
initiates
a
criminal
action. The Court thereby
acquires jurisdiction over the
case, which is the authority to
hear and determine the case.
When after the filing of the
complaint or information a
warrant for the arrest of the
accused is issued by the trial
court and the accused either
voluntarily submitted himself
to the Court or was duly
arrested, the Court thereby
acquired jurisdiction over the
person of the accused. - The
filing of said information sets
in motion the criminal action
against the accused in Court.
In the case at bar, the Court has taken
note that before the case was set for trial,

Page

material witnesses could no longer

be contacted and that without their
testimonies the guilt of the accused
cannot
be
proven
beyond
reasonable doubt, and that in view
of
these
circumstances,
he
requests the Prosecuting Fiscal for
the dismissal of the said case."

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

almost ten (10) years had elapsed from

the date of filing of the information.
- It was not, therefore, unusual that the
complainant- offended party, in his
affidavit of desistance, manifested that his
material witnesses could no longer be
contacted, but, without their testimony,
the guilt of the accused could not be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. - The
prosecuting fiscal in his motion for
reconsideration of the order dismissing the
case, obviously believed that despite such
manifestation of the complainant, he
(fiscal) could prove the prosecution's case.
IMPORTANT: while the Crespo doctrine has
settled that the trial court is the sole judge
on whether a criminal case should be
dismissed
(after
the
complaint
or
information has been filed in court), still,
any move on the part of the complainant
or offended party to dismiss the criminal
case, even if without objection of the
accused, should first be referred to the
prosecuting fiscal for his own view on the
matter. He is, after all, in control of the
prosecution of the case and he may have
his own reasons why the case should not
be dismissed. It is only after hearing the
prosecuting fiscal's view that the Court
should exercise its exclusive authority to
continue or dismiss the case.

PEOPLE VS. OCAPAN

ACTS:
Accused-appellant
Dick
Ocapan and Joselyn Ocapan, the
woman who lived with him in an
ostensible
marital
relationship,
were charged on March 11, 1985 before
the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte
at Iligan City with the complex crime of
rape with serious illegal detention.
The case against Joselyn Ocapan was
dismissed
while
Dick
Ocapan
was
convicted and sentenced accordingly for
the crime of serious illegal detention. The
decision of the trial court was appealed to
the Court of Appeals which elevated its

INFORMATION: 'That on or about January

17, 1985, in the City of Iligan, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, accused Dick Ocapan
conspiring and confederating with his
common-law wife, Joselyn O. Ocapan, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously and by means of force and
intimidation have carnal knowledge with
one Arlene Yupo, a minor and who was
working as househelper, of the said
accused; that thereafter, in order to
prevent the said Arlene Yupo from
reporting to the proper authorities,
detained and deprived her of her liberty
for more than five (5) days.'
"On October 7, 1985 the trial court
rendered judgment dismissing the rape
charge on the ground that the offended
party had not filed a complaint, but finding
the accused- appellant guilty of serious
illegal detention.
- Prosecution failed to present a signed
complaint of the offended party.

I
R

SSUE: WON the TC did not acquire

jurisdiction as the offended party did
not file a complaint (of rape) for this
crime. NO JURISDICTION, correctly
dismissed by the TC.
ATIO: VALDEPENAS VS. PEOPLE:
the filing of a complaint for rape
or
for
any
other
offense
enumerated in Art. 344 of the
Revised Penal Code by the person or
persons
mentioned
therein
is
jurisdictional.

PEOPLE VS. ILARDE

ACTS: INFORMATION: "That on or

about the 3rd day of November,
1980, in the City of Iloilo,
Philippines,
and
within
the

Page

decision
to
this
Court
for
final
determination in accordance with Section
13 of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court.

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

jurisdiction of this Court, said accused

Cecile Santibaez being lawfully married
to Efraim Santibaez, which marriage at
that time has not been legally dissolved,
with deliberate intent, did then and there
wilfully, maliciously and criminally have
sexual intercourse with her co-accused
Avelino T. Javellana, a man not her
husband and who in turn knowing fully
well that his co-accused was then lawfully
married to Efraim Santibaez, did then
and there wilfully, maliciously and
criminally have sexual intercourse with
her.
Sometime in January 1981, i.e., before the
conclusion of the preliminary investigation
then being conducted by the Fiscal's
Office, Efraim Santibaez learned that he
was sick of cancer and decided to leave
for the United States for medical
treatment. Before his departure, he
executed a holographic will, dated January
10, 1981, a portion of which provided:
"I do hereby disinherit my second wife
Cecilia Sorianosos of any and all
inheritance she is entitled under the law
as my wife on the ground that she had
given cause for legal separation by
committing acts of adultery with Atty. Bob
Javellana in the evening of November 3,
1980 in my conjugal abode at Candido
Subdivision and as a result of which I
charged her and Atty. Bob Javellana for
adultery with the Fiscal's Office and I filed
a case of legal separation against her in
Civil Case No. SP-11-309 of the Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court in Iloilo City
for which act of infidelity, I can never
forgive her."
On January 15, 1981, after several
requests
for
postponement,
private
respondents
submitted
their
memorandum to the Fiscal's Office; and on
February 19, 1981, Fiscal Galvez issued a
resolution finding the existence of a prima
facie case for adultery against private
respondents.
On February 26, 1981, Fiscal Galvez was
informed by relatives of Efraim Santibaez

Private respondents filed a MOTION TO

QUASH the information on the ground that
the court did not acquire jurisdiction over
the offense charged, as the offended party
had not filed the required complaint
pursuant to the provisions of Article 344 of
the Revised Penal Code and Section 4,
Rule 110 of the Rules of Court to the effect
that "the crimes of adultery and
concubinage shall not be prosecuted
except upon a complaint filed by the
offended spouse."
Respondent judge: GRANTED the motion
and DISMISSED the case.
ISSUE: WON there has been compliance
with the requirement of ART. 344 of the
RPC, reiterated in Sec. 4, Rule 110 of the
ROC, that the crimes of adultery and
concubinage shall not be prosecuted
except upon a complaint by the offended
party. THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE.
RATIO: the law leaves it to the option of
the aggrieved spouse to seek judicial
redress for the affront committed by the
erring spouse.
In the case at bar, the desire of the
offended party, Efraim Santibaez, to
bring his wife and his alleged paramour to
justice is only too evident.
1) Such determination of purpose
on his part is amply demonstrated
in the dispatch by which he filed
his complaint with the police
[annex 'A', supra];
2) The strong and equivocal
statement
contained
in
the
affidavit filed with the Fiscal's
Office that "I am formally charging
my wife Cecile Sorianosos and Atty.
Bob Javellana of the crime of
adultery and would request that

Page

that the latter had died in the United

States on February 16, 1981. This
notwithstanding,
he
prepared
the
information in question on March 3, 1981,
and on the following day, filed the same
with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

this affidavit be considered as a

formal complaint against them"
[Annex 'B' supra];
3) His filing of a complaint for legal
separation
against
Cecile
Santibaez with the local Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court; and
finally,
4) In disinheriting his wife in his Last Will
and Testament dated January 10, 1981.

PEOPLE
VS.
SANTOS
The
salaysay
was
a
mere
narration of how
the
crime
of
rape
was
committed
against her.

CASE AT BAR

The information
filed
by
Rizal
Provincial Fiscal
commenced with
the
statement
;the undersigned
fiscal
accuses
Santos with the
crime of rape,
the
offended
party
NOT
having
been
mentioned at all
as one of the
accusers.

"The undersigned
city fiscal upon
sworn
statement
originally filed by
the offended party
Efraim Santibaez,
xerox copies of
which are hereto
attach as Annexes
'A' and 'B' . . ."

The latter not only

narrated the facts
and circumstances
constituting
the
crime of adultery,
but
he
also
explicitly
and
categorically
charged
private
respondents with
the said offense.

REASONS THE COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT IS A

VALID COMPLAINT: it contains all the
allegations
required
of
a
criminal
complaint.
1) States the names of the
defendants, the designation of the

2) The name of the offended party,

the approximate time of the
commission of the offense, and the
place where the offense was
committed.
3) Said complaint-affidavit was
attached to the information as an
integral part thereof, and duly filed
with the court.

PEOPLE VS. MADALI

ACTS: On February 4, 1992, at

around 11 p.m., Reynaldo Abrenica
and his wife Helen came home at
the house of Harry Mindo in
Romblon, Romblon where Reynaldo had
some drinks. Helen went to bed ahead of
her husband in their bedroom on the
second floor of their house. When Helen
woke up at around 1 a.m., she found that
her husband was not beside her. She
looked for him and on the landing of the
stairs, Helen found her husband lying with
his head towards the wall, his left hand
placed on his back and his right arm
pinned under his body. He was wearing a
white sleeveless undershirt with a towel
over his bare buttocks. There were feces
hanging from his anus. Helen did not find
any trace of blood on the body of her
husband nor in the place where it lay.
When she touched her husband she found
he was dead. She went out for help crying
that her husband had accidentally fallen
from the stairs.
Three years after the death of Reynaldo
Abrenica, an Information for murder was
filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Romblon, Romblon, charging accusedappellants, all members of the Philippine
National Police, of killing Reynaldo. An
alleged
eyewitness,
Mercy
Villamor,
surfaced
and
implicated
accusedappellants in the death of Reynaldo

Page

offense by the statute, the acts or

omission
complained
of
as
constituting the offense.

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

claiming that she saw accused-appellants

kill the victim. After due trial, the court
imposed upon the accused-appellants the
penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crime
of murder on the basis of the testimony of
an alleged eyewitness to the crime, Mercy
Villamor.

ATIO: Rule 122, 1 of the Revised

Rules on Criminal Procedure
provides that "(a)ny party may
appeal from a judgment or final
order, unless the accused will be placed in
double jeopardy."
- It has been held that the word "PARTY" in
the provision in question includes not only
the government and the accused but
other persons as well, such as the
complainant who may be affected by the
judgment rendered in the criminal
proceedings. - The complainant has an
interest in the civil liability arising from the
crime, unless of course he has reserved to
bring a separate civil action to recover the
civil liability. - Hence, in the prosecution of
the offense, the complainant's role is that
of a WITNESS for the prosecution.
- Ordinarily, the appeal of criminal cases
involves as parties only the accused, as
appellants, and the State, represented by
the Office of the Solicitor General, as the
appellee.
o The participation of the
private offended party would be a mere
surplusage, if the State were simply to
seek the affirmation of a judgment of
conviction. o However, where the Office
of the Solicitor General takes a contrary
position and recommends, as in this case,
the acquittal of the accused, the
complainant's right to be heard on the
question of award of indemnity and
damages arises.
o In the interest of
justice and equity and to provide
perspective for this appeal, therefore, the
Court hereby allows in this case the
memorandum filed by complainant which
is hereby admitted as part of the records
of this appeal.

CRESPO VS. MOGUL

REMEMBER: once the case is filed, even if
prosecution wants to dismiss, judge will
decide and trial goes on.

ACTS: 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. 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. In an order of August 1, 1977,
the presiding judge, His Honor, Leodegario
L. Mogul, denied the motion. On March 22,
1978 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.

SSUE: WON the trial court acting on a

motion to dismiss a criminal case filed
by
the
Provincial
Fiscal
upon
instructions of the Secretary of Justice
to whom the case was elevated for review,
may refuse to grant the motion and insist
on the arraignment and trial on the merits.
YES.

Page

ELD:
nevertheless,
after
considering the records of this
case, we agree with the Solicitor
General that the evidence is
insufficient to sustain accused-appellants'
conviction and, therefore, the decision of
the trial court should be reversed and
accused-appellants should be ACQUITTED.

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

10

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

ATIO: all criminal actions either

commenced by complaint or by
information shall be prosecuted
under the direction and control of
the fiscal.
- The institution of a criminal action
depends upon the sound discretion of the
fiscal.
- He may or may not file the
complaint or information, follow or not
follow that presented by the offended
party, according to whether the evidence
in his opinion,
is sufficient or not to establish the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The reason for placing the criminal
prosecution under the direction and
control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious
or unfounded prosecution by private
persons. - It CANNOT be controlled by the
complainant. - Prosecuting officers under
the power vested in them by law, not only
have the authority but also the duty of
prosecuting persons who, according to the
evidence received from the complainant,
are shown to be guilty of a crime
committed within the jurisdiction of their
office. - They have equally the legal duty
not
to
prosecute
when
after
an
investigation they become convinced that
the evidence adduced is not sufficient to
establish a prima facie case. It is through
the
conduct
of
a
PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION that the fiscal determines
the existence of a prima facie case that
would warrant the prosecution of a case.
- The Courts cannot interfere with the
fiscal's discretion and control of the
criminal prosecution. - It is not prudent or
even permissible for a Court to compel the
fiscal to prosecute a proceeding originally
initiated by him on an information, if he
finds that the evidence relied upon by him
is insufficient for conviction. - Neither has
the Court any power to order the fiscal to
prosecute or file an information within a
certain period of time, since this would
interfere with the fiscal's discretion and
control of criminal prosecutions. - Thus, a
fiscal who asks for the dismissal of the

LIMITATION OF THE ACTION OF THE

FISCAL OR PROSECUTOR: the same is
subject to the approval of the
provincial or city fiscal or the chief
state prosecutor as the case maybe
and it maybe elevated for review to
the Secretary of Justice who has the
power to affirm, modify or reverse
the action or opinion of the fiscal.
- Consequently the Secretary of Justice
may direct that a motion to dismiss the
case be filed in Court or otherwise, that an
information be filed in Court. - The filing of
a complaint or information in Court
initiates a criminal action. - The Court
thereby acquires jurisdiction over the
case, which is the authority to hear and
determine the case.
- When after the filing of the complaint or
information a warrant for the arrest of the
accused is issued by the trial court and
the accused either voluntarily submitted
himself to the Court or was duly arrested,
the Court thereby acquired jurisdiction
over the person of the accused.

Page

case for insufficiency of evidence has

authority to do so, and Courts that grant
the same commit no error. - The fiscal
may
re-investigate
a
case
and
subsequently move for the dismissal
should the re-investigation show either
that the defendant is innocent or that his
guilt may not be established beyond
reasonable doubt. - In a clash of views
between the judge who did not investigate
and the fiscal who did, or between the
fiscal and the offended party or the
defendant, those of the Fiscal's should
normally prevail. - On the other hand,
neither an injunction, preliminary or final
nor a writ of prohibition may be issued by
the courts to restrain a criminal
prosecution except in the extreme case
where it is necessary for the Courts to do
so for the orderly administration of justice
or to prevent the use of the strong arm of
the law in an oppressive and vindictive
manner.

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

11

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

WHEN TERMINATED: 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.
IMPORTANT: The role of the fiscal or
prosecutor as We all know is to see that
justice is done and not necessarily to
secure the conviction of the person
accused before the Courts. Thus, in spite
of his opinion to the contrary, it is the duty
of the fiscal to proceed with the
presentation
of
evidence
of
the
prosecution to the Court to enable the
Court to arrive at its own independent
judgment as to whether the accused
should be convicted or acquitted. The
fiscal
should
not
shirk
from
the
responsibility of appearing for the People
of the Philippines even under such
circumstances much less should he
abandon the prosecution of the case
leaving it to the hands of a private
prosecutor for then the entire proceedings
will be null and void. The least that the
fiscal should do is to continue to appear

The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is

that once a complaint or information is
filed in Court any disposition of the case
as its dismissal or the conviction or
acquittal of the accused rests in the sound
discretion of the Court. 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. The
Court is the best and sole judge on what
to do with the case before it. The
determination of the case is within its
exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A
motion to dismiss the case filed by the
fiscal should be addressed to the Court
who has the option to grant or deny the
same. It does not matter if this is done
before or after the arraignment of the
accused or that the motion was filed after
a reinvestigation or upon instructions of
the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the
records of the investigation.

NON RETROACTIVITY OF REMOVAL OF

COMPLAINT REQUIREMENT IN RAPE
PEOPLE VS GALIGAO

ACTS: Galigao was charged with

rape in three information. He was
accused
of
raping
her
threedaughters. Daisy (13), Dorivie
(10) and Deborrah (8)
Upon arraignment, Galigao pleaded not
guilty to the charges. Thereafter, the three
cases were jointly tried.
RTC of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro found
him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
rape and was sentenced as follows:
qualifying
circumstance
appreciated
(under 18 + accused was the parent of the
victims);
3
death
penalties
+
accessory penalties (Php75K as civil
indemnity, Php50K as moral damages and

Page

for the prosecution although he may turn

over the presentation of the evidence to
the private prosecutor but still under his
direction and control.

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

12

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Php50K as exemplary damages for EACH

daughter
Hence this automatic review
Detailed narrative of the offense:
Dorivie: was being raped since she was
9 yrs old. Saw her father did the same to
her other 2 sisters
Deborrah: claimed as well that she was
raped, corroborated Dorivies testimony
that they were all raped.
Galigao: admitted of having raped Daisy
(eldest) but only to get back at her mother
who cheated on him. He denied having
raped the younger 2. Claimed that he
didnt file a case for the alleged infidelity
of his wife since no one was willing to help
him because his brother-in-law is a
policeman. But upon cross examination,
he admitted having raped the 3 girls.
Daisy: was presented as defense witness
and intended to forgive her father, she
turned hostile after learning that she was
raped out of revenge. Defense tried to ask
for the total withdrawal of the testimony of
daisy but the court didnt allow it. No cross
examination conducted.

ISSUE + Reasoning1.
WON death penalty is warranted. (Court
compared the testimony of the 2 parties,
said that the clear and categorical
declarations of the 3 girls greatly
contrasted the testimony of the father
who claimed that he is insane, which
naturally failed. Decided not to disturb the
findings of the trial court, that the
testimonies of the 3 girls were more
credible than that of the fathers)
NO. Though his guilt was proved beyond
reasonable doubt, the penalty of three
death penalties against him was excessive
and unwarranted.
In imposing the death penalty, TC
erroneously cited Art. 266-A and 266-B of
the RPC as amended by RA 8353. The law
applicable at the time the offense was

But this rule is not automatically applied.

The SC has the guided discretion in the
imposition of capital punishment of Art. 47
of the RPC recognizes that the justices are
not only voting on the issue of guilt but
also on the question of the imposition of
the death penalty itself. There may be
existing circumstances that warrant the
imposition of RP instead of death, like the
limited schooling of the accused, or his
failure to recognize the gravity of the
offense.
Lesson time: conviction re: rape of
daisy
should
be
struck down.
Although the information of her case
speaks of a criminal complaint, none
was ever presented. SPO4 Calderon
(daisys uncle) even testified that
Daisy didnt want to pursue the case
since
she
didnt
want
to
be
the subject of gossip in the school
The trial court convicted Galigao
under the provisions of RA 8353 but
the crimes were committed in 1996
(8353 took effect 1997). It cannot be
applied retroactively. Art. 355 should
then be applied which required
a criminal complaint for rape.

Page

committed was RA 7659 (amending Art.

355 (after RA 8353 this provision became
266-a)) which states that death penalty
should be imposed if the victim is under
18 and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative
by consanguinity or affinity within the 3 rd
civil degree or the common law spouse of
the parent of the victim.

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

13

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

5. FORM AND CONTENT

A. PROCEDURAL
I. NAME OF ACCUSED AND OFFENDED
PARTY
RULE 110 SEC. 7&12
SECTION 7. Name of the accused. The
complaint or information must state the
name and surname of the accused or any
appellation or nickname by which he has
been or is known. If his name cannot be
ascertained, he must be described under a
fictitious name with a statement that his
true name is unknown. If the true name of
the accused is thereafter disclosed by him
or appears in some other manner to the
court, such true name shall be inserted in
the complaint or information and record.
(7a)
SECTION 12. Name of the offended party.
The complaint or information must state
the name and surname of the person
against whom or against whose property
the offense was committed, or any
appellation or nickname by which such
person has been or is known. If there is no
better way of identifying him, he must be
described under a fictitious name.
(a) In offenses against property, if the
name of the offended party is unknown,
the property must be described with such
particularity as to properly identify the
offense charged.

There was none in Daisys case. Trial

court erred in convicting Galigao of
rape re: Daisys case.

(b) If the true name of the person against

whom or against whose properly the
offense was committed is thereafter
disclosed or ascertained, the court must
cause the true name to be inserted in the
complaint or information and the record.

eld: Dorivie and Deborrahs

case affirmed but modified.
Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
(instead
of death
penalty),
Php50K as indemnity ex-delicto, Php50k
moral damage and Php25k as exemplary
damages. As for Daisys case Acquitted

(c) If the offended party is a juridical

person, it is sufficient to state its name, or
any name or designation by which it is
known or by which it may be identified,
without need of averring that it is a
juridical person or that it is organized in
accordance with law. (12a)

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

PEOPLE VS. GUEVARRA

- Since the defendant-appellant failed to

do so, he is deemed to have waived his
objection to the information. - It is well to
note that before the case was tried in the
court a quo, Atty. Romano, counsel for the
defendant- appellant, told the court that
he was filing a motion to quash the
information for kidnapping.
- But, he
FAILED to file such motion.

After a separate trial for Poncing Abergas

and Vergel Bustamante alias "Dan
Saksak," inasmuch as Dan Tolentino, who
had previously entered of plea of "not
guilty" could not be served with
subpoenas, and the other accused were
reported to have died, judgment was
rendered * finding the accused Vergel
Bustamante alias "Dan Saksak" guilty of
the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention and sentenced to suffer the
death penalty, and to indemnify the
offended party, Mrs. Priscilla Cruz, in the
amount of P5,000.00. The accused
Poncing Abergas, upon the other hand,
was acquitted of the charge.
Counsel for the defendant-appellant, in
this appeal, contends that the trial court
erred in ordering the amendment of the
information to include, as party defendant,
Vergel Bustamante alias "Dan Saksak"
despite lack of proof that Vergel
Bustamante and "Dan Saksak" are one
and the same person.

SSUE: WON the oder of the TC to

amend the information to include the
correct name of one of the accused,
Dan Salaksak, which is Vergel
Bustamante, is not without basis. WITH
BASIS.
- This issue was being raised for the FIRST
TIME on appeal.

ATIO: The issue is one affecting

jurisdiction over the person and
should have been raised before
the trial court in a motion to
quash the information.

Page

ACTS: In an Amended Information,

Jaime Guevarra y Arcega, Poncing
Abergas, Dan Tolentino, Baldo de
Jesus, Roming Longhair, Boy Tae,
Boy Pogi, Vergel Bustamante alias "Dan
Saksak", and Chotse Doe alias Bernabe
Sulaybar y Hernandez were accused of the
crime of Kidnapping of Priscilla P. Cruz.

14

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

- Obviously, he was satisfied with the

legality of the information filed.
II. DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE to allow
accused prepare his defense.
RULE 110 SEC. 8
Section 8. Designation of the offense.
The complaint or information shall state
the designation of the offense given by
the statute, aver the acts or omissions
constituting the offense, and specify its
qualifying and aggravating circumstances.
If there is no designation of the offense,
reference shall be made to the section or
subsection of the statute punishing it. (8a)
DOJ-NPS MANUAL, PART 3 SEC, 40
SEC. 40. Designation of offense charged. For offenses that are punishable under the
Revised Penal Code, the caption shall set
forth the denomination of the offense and
the specific article and paragraph of the
statute violated.
Where there is another charge or
countercharge in the same case having
one case number or in case of a
consolidated resolution involving two or
more criminal cases with two or more
docket numbers, the caption shall also
contain said information.

PEOPLE VS PURISIMA
NATURE
Petitions
for
review
(26
petitions
consolidated) of the decision of the Courts
of First of Manila and Samar.

Information were filed with respondent

judges in their respective courts (2
Branches of CFI, then CFI Samar) but upon
motion to quash filed by the several
accused, the said judges dismissed the
Information on the common ground that
the said Information did not allege facts
which constitute the offense penalized by
PD 90 failed to state 1 of the 2 essential
elements of the crime punished (the
carrying
outside
of
the
accused's
residence of a bladed, pointed or blunt
weapon is in furtherance or on the
occasion of, connected with or related to
subversion, insurrection, or rebellion,
organized lawlessness or public disorder).
In the 2 cases filed before the different
branches of CFI Manila, the orders of
dismissal were given before arraignment
of the accused. In the criminal case before
the CFI Samar the accused was arraigned
but at the same time moved to quash the
Information. In all the cases where the
accused were under arrest, the three
Judges ordered their immediate release
unless held on other charges.
ON PD 9: THIS CASE INVOLVES THE
INTERPRETATION AND THE EXPLANATION
OF THE INTENT OF THIS P.D. The pertinent
paragraphs of the said PD is its

Whereas
clause
("WHEREAS,
subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless
violence, criminality, chaos and public
disorder mentioned in the aforesaid
Proclamation No. 1081 are committed and
abetted by the use of firearms, explosives
and other deadly weapons) and par3 (It is

Page

ACTS: The private respondents

were all charged with illegal
possession of deadly weapons (one
(1) carving knife with a blade 1/2
inches and a wooden handle of 5-1/4
inches, or an overall length of 11-3/4
inches in the Information filed with
J.Purisima; ice pick with an overall length
of about 8 1/2 inches in the Information
filed with J. Maceren; socyatan in the
Information filed with J. Polo) in violation of
PD 9, Par.

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

15

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

unlawful to carry outside of residence any

bladed, pointed or blunt weapon such as
'fan knife,' 'spear,' 'dagger,' 'bolo,'
'balisong,' 'barong,' 'kris,' or club, except
where such articles are being used as
necessary tools or implements to earn a
livelihood and while being used in
connection therewith; and any person
found guilty thereof shall suffer the
penalty of imprisonment ranging from five
to
ten
years
as
a
Military
Court/Tribunal/Commission may direct.)
Petitioners Contention: (1) Par 3, PD 9
shows that the prohibited acts need not be
related to the subversive activities; that
the act proscribed is essentially malum
prohibitum penalized for reasons of public
policy; (3) that since it is malum
prohibitum, the intention of the accused
who commits it is immaterial; (4) that PD
was enacted to eradicate lawless violence
which characterized pre-martial law days;
and (5) that the real nature of the criminal
charge is determined not from the caption
or preamble of the information nor from
the specification of the provision of law
alleged to have been violated but by the
actual recital of facts in the complaint or
information.

I
H

SSUE WON the Information filed by the

People
sufficient
in
form
and
substance to constitute the offense of
Illegal Possession of Deadly Weapon
penalized under PD 9
ELD: NO. The two elements of
the offense covered by P.D. 9(3)
must
be
alleged
in
the
information in order that the
latter may constitute a sufficiently valid
charged.
Ratio. The sufficiency of an Information is
determined solely by the facts alleged
therein. Where the facts are incomplete
and do not convey the elements of the
crime, the quashing of the accusation is in
order.
It is a constitutional right of any person
who stands charged in a criminal

prosecution to be informed of the nature

and cause of the accusation against him.

16

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

easoning. The offense carries two

elements: first, the carrying
outside one's residence of any
bladed, blunt, or pointed weapon,
etc. not used as a necessary tool or
implement for a livelihood; and second
that the act of carrying the weapon was
either in furtherance of, or to abet, or in
connection with subversion, rebellion,
insurrection, lawless violence, criminality,
chaos, or public disorder. There are other
statutes ( SECTION 26 OF ACT NO. 1780,
ORDINANCE NO. 3820 OF THE CITY OF
MANILA ) which may be charged against
the accused for their acts to constitute a
crime. It is the second element which
removes the act of carrying a deadly
weapon, if concealed, outside of the scope
of the statute or the city ordinance
mentioned above. In other words, a simple
act of carrying any of the weapons
described in the presidential decree is not
a criminal offense in itself. What makes
the act criminal or punishable under the
decree is the motivation behind it. Without
that motivation, the act fans within the
purview of the city ordinance or some
statute when the circumstances so
warrant.

Page

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

ON SUFFICIENCY OF THE INFORMATION:

for a complaint or information to be
sufficient it must, inter alia, state the
designation of the offense by the statute,
and the acts or omissions complained of
as constituting the offense. This is
essential to avoid surprise on the accused
and to afford him the opportunity to
prepare his defense accordingly. It is
necessary that the particular law violated
be specified as there exists a substantial
difference between the statute and city
ordinance on the one hand and P.D. 9 (3)
on the other regarding the circumstances
of the commission of the crime and the
penalty imposed for the offense.(PD 9
punishes the offender with 5-10 yrs
imprisonment; Sec26, Act 1780 with a fine
of P500 or by imprisonment not exceeding

6 months or both; Ordinance 3820 with a

fine of not more than P200 or
imprisonment for not more than 1 month
or both). But since it was specified in the
Information that the accused were
charged with violation of Par3, PD 9, it was
necessary for the Court to elucidate the
elements of the said PD to differentiate it
from other statutes (see above) the rest
of the discussion was on the intent of the
PD: to justify their decision that Par3
should be interpreted with the Whereas
clause.
There exists a valid presumption that
undesirable consequences were never
intended by a legislative measure, and
that a construction of which the statute is
fairly susceptible is favored, which will
avoid all objectionable, mischievous,
indefensible, wrongful, evil, and injurious
consequences. It is to be presumed that
when P.D. 9 was promulgated by the
President of the Republic there was no
intent to work a hardship or an oppressive
result, a possible abuse of authority or act
of oppression, arming one person with a
weapon to impose hardship on another,
and so on. Penal statutes are to be
construed strictly against the state and
liberally in favor of a accused.
ON OTHER REMEDIES OF THE PEOPLE:
Under Rule 117, Sec 7 and Rule 110, Sec
13, Information may be amended or
ordered by the court to be amended. Or,
the People could have filed a complaint
either under Sec 26 of Act 1780 or under
Manila City Ordinance 3820 since most of
the cases were dismissed prior to
arraignment of the accused and on a
motion to quash.

ispositive.
WHEREFORE,
We
DENY these 26 Petitions for
Review and We AFFIRM the
Orders of respondent Judges
dismissing or quashing the Information
concerned, subject however to Our
observations made in the preceding pages
23 to 25 of this Decision regarding the
right of the State or Petitioner herein to

PEOPLE VS. BUAYABAN

No such offense as robbery in band with
homicide.

ACTS: At about 7:00 p.m. on

January 2, 1990, at Barangay
Maihao,
Cawayan,
Masbate,
accused Paulino Buayaban, Larry
Betache,
Marciano
Toacao,
Yoyong
Buayaban and Pedro Tumulak, all armed,
entered the house of Dioscoro Abonales.
Pedro Tumulak and Paulino Buayaban
immediately poked their guns at Rolando
Verdida who was sitting near the balcony
with his fiancee Elizabeth Abonales, the
daughter of Dioscoro. They were ordered
to lie flat on the floor. Marciano Toacao
and Yoyong Buayaban then proceeded to
the room where Dioscoro was sleeping.
Yoyong kicked Dioscoro in the face and
when the latter stood up, Marciano shot
him in the neck. Dioscoro died instantly.
Meanwhile, Larry Betache went outside
the house and stood guard at the door
holding a knife. Pedro then went to the
kitchen, grabbed the right arm of Josefa
Abonales, wife of Dioscoro, and asked her
where the money was. Frightened, Josefa
quickly went to the room, followed by
Marciano while Pedro returned to where
Elizabeth and Rolando were lying down in
order to watch over them. Marciano
threatened Josefa with death if she
refused to surrender the money. Josefa
took the money amounting to P30,000
from the wooden chest, placed it inside a
pillow case and she handed it to Marciano.
The money was the family's capital in the
business of buying and selling pigs.
In the meantime, somebody forcibly took
the wallet of Rolando while he was lying
face down on the floor. The wallet

Page

file either an amended Information under

Presidential Decree No. 9 paragraph 3, or
a new one under other existing statute or
city ordinance as the facts may warrant.
Without costs. SO ORDERED.

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

17

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

contained P10,000 to be used for

Rolando's wedding to Elizabeth and which
Rolando brought to Elizabeth's house that
night because they were preparing for the
wedding.
Appellant, Pedro Tumulak, was found guilty
by the trial court of the complex crime of
robbery with homicide. He was sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
In this appeal, appellant argued that Judge
Basilla, the judge who wrote the decision,
was not the judge who observed firsthand
the testimonies of the witnesses. Thus,
Judge Basilla, not having had the
opportunity to observe the witnesses'
demeanor and deportment on the witness
stand, could not have discerned and
gauged if said witnesses were telling the
truth.

I
R

SSUE: WON the TC gravely erred in

giving full faith and credit to the
testimonies
of
the
prosecution
witnesses and totally disregarding that
of the defense. NO.
ATIO: The fact that the judge who
penned the decision was not the
judge who heard the testimonies
of the witnesses was not enough
reason to overturn the findings of fact of
the trial court on the credibility of the
witnesses.
WHY GUILTY: the positive identification of
the appellant and his companions was
made not only by Artemio Abonales but
also by Rolando Verdida and Josefa
Abonales
whose
testimonies
were
straightforward and categorical.
RE: DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE: In the
information,
the
People
erroneously
charged the accused with "robbery in
band with homicide."
- There is NO such crime in the Revised
Penal Code. - The felony is properly called
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.
- In the
landmark case of People vs. Apduhan, Jr.,
we ruled that if robbery with homicide is
committed by a band, the indictable

In this case, we CANNOT properly

appreciate the ordinary aggravating
circumstance of band in the commission of
the crime since there was no allegation in
the information that "more than three
armed malefactors acted together in the
commission of the crime."

PEOPLE VS DELIM

ACTS: Accused-appellants were

found guilty by the trial court of
the crime of murder for the killing
of
Modesto
Delim.
It
was
established
during
trial
that
the
malefactors abducted the victim from his
house. After several days, the victim was
found dead by his relatives under the thick
bushes in a grassy area in the housing
project in Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan. In
convicting appellants of the crime of
murder, the trial court relied on
circumstantial evidence. Consequently,
appellants were sentenced to suffer the
supreme penalty of death. Hence, this
automatic review of the case.

NFORMATION: "That on or about

January 23, 1999, in the evening at
Brgy. Bila, Sison, Pangasinan, and
within
the
jurisdiction
of
this
Honorable
Court,
the
above-named
accused, armed with short firearms
barged-in and entered the house of
Modesto Delim and once inside WITH

Page

offense would still be denominated as

"robbery with homicide" under Article
294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, but the
circumstance that it was committed by a
band would be appreciated as an ordinary
aggravating circumstance. - However, in
the present case, we cannot treat the
ordinary aggravating circumstance of
band because it was not alleged in the
body of the information. - Though it is an
ordinary aggravating circumstance, the
2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure require
that
even
generic
aggravating
circumstances must be alleged in the
Information.

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

18

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

INTENT TO KILL, treachery, evident

premedidation (sic), conspiring with one
another, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously grab, hold,
hogtie, gag with a piece of cloth, brought
out and abduct Modesto Delim, accused
Leon Delim and Manuel Delim stayed in
the house guarded and prevented the wife
and son of Modesto Delim from helping
the latter, thereafter with abuse of
superior strength stabbed and killed said
Modesto Delim, to the damage and
prejudice of his heirs.
The trial court rendered judgment finding
accused-appellants guilty of murder.

SSUE: whether the crime charged in the

Information is MURDER or KIDNAPPING.
MURDER.

ATIO: where the specific intent of

the malefactor is determinative of
the crime charged such specific
intent must be alleged in the
information
and
proved
by
the
prosecution.
PEOPLE V. ISABELO PUNO: for
kidnapping to exist, there must be
indubitable proof that the actual
specific intent of the malefactor is
to deprive the offended party of his
liberty and not where such
restraint of his freedom of action is
merely
an
incident
in
the
commission of another offense
primarily
intended
by
the
malefactor.
IMPORTANT: If the primary and ultimate
purpose of the accused is to kill the victim,
the incidental deprivation of the victim's
liberty does not constitute the felony of
kidnapping but is merely a preparatory act
to the killing, and hence, is merged into,
or absorbed by, the killing of the victim.
What is primordial then is the specific
intent of the malefactors as disclosed in
the information or criminal complaint that
is determinative of what crime the

accused is charged with that of murder

or kidnapping.

19

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

Philippine and American penal laws have a

common thread on the concept of specific
intent as an essential element of specific
intent crimes.

Page

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

- Specific intent is used to describe a state

of mind which exists where circumstances
indicate that an offender actively desired
certain
criminal
consequences
or
objectively desired a specific result to
follow his act or failure to act. - Specific
intent involves a state of the mind. - It is
the particular purpose or specific intention
in doing the prohibited act.
- Specific intent must be alleged in the
Information and proved by the state in a
prosecution for a crime requiring specific
intent.
- Kidnapping and murder are
specific intent crimes. - Specific intent is
not synonymous with motive:
SPECIFIC INTENT

MOTIVE

In kidnapping, the
specific intent is to
deprive the victim
of his/her liberty.

If
NO
motive,
accused cannot be
convicted.

Kidnapping
ransom.

Ransom.

for

Accused kills the

victim to avenge
the death of a
loved one.

Revenge.

In this case, it is evident on the face of the

Information that the specific intent of the
malefactors in barging into the house of
Modesto was to kill him and that he was
seized precisely to kill him with the
attendant modifying circumstances.
- The act of the malefactors of abducting
Modesto was merely incidental to their
primary purpose of killing him.
Moreover, there is no specific allegation in
the information that the primary intent of
the malefactors was to deprive Modesto of

his freedom or liberty and that killing him

was merely incidental to kidnapping.
Irrefragably then, the crime charged in the
Information is Murder under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code and not
Kidnapping under Article 268 thereof.

PEOPLE VS. FERNANDEZ

ACTS: INFORMATION: that on or

about the 21st day of April 1996, in
the City of Baguio, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable
Court,
the
above-named
accused, with intent of gain and without
the consent of the owner thereof,
conspiring, confederating and mutually
aiding one another, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take,
steal and drive away a motor vehicle
described as follows:
MAKE TOYOTA SERIES TAMARAW FX TYPE
OF BODY WAGON PLATE NO. AVF-723
MOTOR NO. 2C 3020507 SERIAL/CHASSIS
NO. CF50 0016027
belonging to SPOUSES JEFFRED ACOP &
JOSEPHINE ACOP and driven by CLIFFORD
GUINGUINO y GORIO and on the occasion
and by reason of said carnapping, with
intent to kill and with treachery and
evident
premeditation,
the
accused
attacked, assaulted and shot the said
Clifford Guinguino y Gorio, thereby
inflicting
upon
the
latter:
Cardio
Respiratory failure, Hypovolemic shock,
Cardiac tamponade, Hemothorax Intra
Abdominal Hemorrhage Secondary to
Gunshot Wound, Multiple, which caused
his death.
To prove that appellant's group is a
syndicate
organized
for
carnapping
activities, the prosecution adduced in
evidence the information filed against
appellant, Kiwas, and four other men,
before the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet for
carnapping with violence of another
Toyota Tamaraw FX belonging to a certain
James Advincula.

ATIO: In this case, the allegation

of being part of a syndicate or
that appellant and companions
had formed part of a group
organized for the general purpose of
committing crimes for gain, which is the
essence of a syndicated or organized
crime group, was neither alleged nor
proved by the prosecution.
- Hence, we agree that it was error for the
trial court to sentence appellant under
Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by R.A. 7659.
No aggravating circumstance having been
alleged or proved properly in this case, the
provisions of Article 63 (2) of the Revised
Penal Code should be applied.
- Without mitigating nor aggravating
circumstance found in the commission of
the offense, the lesser penalty for the
offense, which is reclusion perpetua,
should be imposed on appellant.

PEOPLE VS. MASAPOL

ACTS: Beatriz, a married woman,

claimed that the appellant herein
raped her one night while she was
on her way home after buying
kerosene from the store. The appellant, for
his defense, admitted having consensual
sexual
congress
with
Beatriz
for
sometime, even before the alleged rape,
and denied having carnal knowledge of
her on the alleged date of the rape. After
the parties adduced their testimonial and
documentary evidence, the trial court
rendered its decision finding the appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape and sentenced him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In his
appeal, the appellant contended that the
testimony of Beatriz was inconsistent with

Page

I
R

SSUE: WON the TC erred in holding

that Fernandez is a member of an
organized group or syndicate engaged
in an illegal carnapping scheme. YES,
erred.

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

20

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

her statement to the barangay captain

and the prosecution failed to adduce any
medical certificate to corroborate her
testimony.
INFORMATION: That on or about 7:00
o'clock in the evening of July 17, 1992, at
Barangay Marangi, Municipality of San
Fernando, Province of Camarines Sur,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused,
with lewd designs, and by means of force
and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have
carnal knowledge with one Beatriz O.
Pascuin, against her will.

I
R

SSUE: WON the special aggravating

circumstance of use of a deadly
weapon such as a knife to commit a
crime was alleged in the Information,
as required by Sec. 8, Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. NO.
ATIO: The prosecutor proved that
the appellant used a knife, a
deadly weapon, in forcing Beatriz
to submit to his lustful desires.

- Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal

Code, the use of a deadly weapon such as
a knife to commit a crime is a special
aggravating circumstance which requires
the imposition of reclusion perpetua to
death. - However, such circumstance was
not alleged in the Information as required
by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure. - Although
the said rules took effect only on
December 1, 2000, long after the
commission of the crime on July 17, 1992,
the same should be applied retroactively
because it is favorable to the appellant.

ELD: GUILTY of simple rape under

ART. 335 of the RPC and sentenced
to reclusion perpetua.

III. FORMAL AMENDMENT

2 TYPES OF AMENDMENT:

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

TEST: If it doesnt deprive the accused of

the defense or evidence that he has in
support of his defense.
PRIOR ARRAIGNMENT: any amendment
allowed.
AFTER
ARRAIGNMENT:
allowed.

FORMAL

only

PEOPLE VS. DEGAMO

ACTS: INFORMATION: That on or

about the 1st day of October 1994
at around 1:00 o'clock in the early
morning, in Brgy. Punta, Ormoc
City, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable
Court,
the
above-named
accused RONETO DEGAMO alias Roy,
being then armed with a bladed weapon,
by means of violence and intimidation, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of the
complainant herein ELLEN VERTUDAZO,
against her will and in her own house.
The trial court rendered a decision finding
the accused DEGAMO guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of rape.
NOTE: the complaint for rape with use of a
deadly weapon was amended AFTER
ARRAIGNMENT of appellant to include the
allegation that the victim has become
insane by reason or on the occasion of the
rape. Although the penalty for rape with
the use of a deadly weapon under the
original Information is reclusion perpetua
to death, the mandatory penalty of death
is imposed where the victim has become
Amended Information.

Page

1)
SUBSTANTIVE

a
substantial
amendment consists of recital of facts
constituting the offense charged and
determinative of the jurisdiction of the
court. All other matters are merely of
form.
2) FORMAL a. Amendment that will not
change the complaint. b. Will not change
the theory of the prosecution. c. Doesnt
deprive accused of his rights

21

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

SSUE: WON the subject amendment is

one
of
substance.
NO,
formal
amendment.

ATIO: Under Section 14, Rule 110

of the Rules of Court, an
amendment after the plea of the
accused is permitted only as to
matters of form, provided: (i) leave of
court
is
obtained;
and
(ii)
such
amendment is not prejudicial to the rights
of the accused.
- A substantial amendment is not
permitted after the accused had already
been arraigned. - TEEHANKEE, JR. VS.
MADAYAG:
SUBSTANTIAL
AMENDMENT

FORMAL
AMENDMENT

Whether or not a
defense under the
information as it
originally
stood
would be equally
available after the
amendment
is
made,
and
whether or not any
evidence
which
the accused might
have
would
be
equally applicable
to the information
in one form as in
the other. NO in
both cases.

(1) new allegations

which relate only
to the range of the
penalty that the
court
might
impose
in
the
event
of
conviction; (2) an
amendment which
does not charge
another
offense
different or distinct
from that charged
in the original one;
(3)
additional
allegations which
do not alter the
prosecution's
theory of the case
so as to cause
surprise
to
the
accused and affect
the
form
of
defense he has or
will assume; and
(4)
amendment,
which does not
adversely
affect
any
substantial
right
of
the

IMPORTANT: the insertion of the phrase

that the victim has become insane by
reason or on occasion of the rape in the
Information merely raised the penalty that
may be imposed in case of conviction and
does not charge another offense different
from that charged in the original
Information.
- Whatever defense appellant may have
raised under the original information for
rape committed with a deadly weapon
equally applies to rape committed with a
deadly weapon where the victim has
become insane by reason or on occasion
of the rape. - The amendment did not
adversely affect any substantial right of
appellant.
- Therefore, the trial court
correctly allowed the amendment.
ALSO, that objection to the amendment
must be seasonably made, for when the
trial was had upon an information
substituted
for
the
complaint
or
information without any objection by the
defense, the defect is deemed waived. It
cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal.
VILLAFLOR VS. VIVAR

Page

accused, such as
his right to invoke
prescription.

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

22

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

ACTS: An Information for slight

physical injuries was filed against
Respondent
Dindo
Vivar
on
February 7, 1997. The case
stemmed from the alleged mauling of
Petitioner
Gian
Paulo
Villaflor
by
respondent around 1:00 a.m. on January
27, 1997 outside the Fat Tuesday Bar at
the
Ayala
Alabang
Town
Center,
Muntinlupa City. After the severe beating
he took from respondent, petitioner
decided to leave the premises together
with a friend who was in the restroom
when the mauling incident took place. On
his way out, petitioner again met
respondent who told him, "Sa susunod
gagamitin ko na itong baril ko" ("Next
time, I will use my gun on you").
When the injuries sustained by petitioner
turned out to be more serious than they
had appeared at first, an Information for
serious physical injuries was filed against
respondent. The earlier charge of slight
physical injuries was withdrawn.
At the same time, another Information 7
for grave threats, docketed as Criminal
Case No. 23728, 8 was filed against
respondent on March 17, 1997.

I
R

SSUE: WON the filing of the Amended

Information, without a new preliminary
investigation, violate the rights of the
respondent. NO.

ATIO: The filing of the Amended

Information,
without
a
new
preliminary investigation, did not
violate the right of respondent to
be protected from a hasty, malicious and
oppressive prosecution; an open and
public accusation of a crime; or from the
trouble, the expenses and the anxiety of a
public trial.
- The Amended Information could not have
come as a surprise to him for the simple
and obvious reason that it charged
essentially the same offense as that under
the original Information. - Moreover, if the
original charge was related to the
amended one, such that an inquiry would

NOTE: the absence of a preliminary

investigation does not impair the validity
of the information or otherwise render it
defective.
- Neither does it affect the jurisdiction of
the court or constitute a ground for
quashing the information.
- The trial

Page

elicit substantially the same facts, then a

new preliminary investigation was not
necessary.

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2014

23

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

court,
instead
of
dismissing
the
information, should hold in abeyance the
proceedings
and
order
the
public
prosecutor to conduct a preliminary
investigation. - Hence, the RTC in this
case erred when it dismissed the two
criminal cases for serious physical injuries
(Criminal Case No. 23787) and grave
threats (Criminal Case No. 23728) on the
ground that the public prosecutor had
failed
to
conduct
a
preliminary
investigation.