People v Bayabos

Facts:
- Balidoy was admitted as a probationary midshipman at PMMA (Philippine Merchant Marine
Academy)
- All new entrants were required to undergo mandatory Indoctrination and Orientation Period
- Balidoy died as a result
- NBI filed a complaint to provincial prosecutor for purposes of preliminary investigation of those
involved in the Indoctrination
- APP (assistant provincial prosecutor) found probable cause to charge those involved for
hazing
o Principals
Alvarez et al, case was filed to RTC
o Accomplices
School authorities, Bayabos et al, APP endorsed to Ombudsman
Office of SP (Special Prosecutor) files a case to Sandiganbayan
- RTC dismissed principals
- Bayabos and others filed a motion to quash since:
o Information filed against them did not contain all essential elements of accomplice
to crime of hazing
o No allegation that hazing was made a requirement for admission to PMMA
o No allegation that PMMA is considered as fraternity, sorority, or organization
under Anti Hazing Law
o No allegation that hazing was not part of the approved physical, mental, and
psychological testing and training procedure and practices to determine and
enhance the physical, mental and psychological fitness of prospective regular
members
o No allegation that the school authorities were given prior notice of the hazing
activity and that they permitted such activity
- (minor point not really impt to Crim Pro):
o Principals were acquitted therefore they as accomplices must also be acquitted
o Sandiganbayan dismissed case against Bayabos et al since case against
principals were also dismissed
- Sandiganbayan also dismissed case since information did not charge an offense and that the
allegations made were merely conclusions of law
- SP moved for reconsideration
Issue: Whether or not information filed against Bayabos et al contained all essential elements
for prosecution under crime of accomplices to hazing
Held: No,
- Rules of Court require that key components of sufficient information are:
o Statement of act or omissions constituting offense charged
o Language of informations is crafted in a ordinary and concise manner to enable
persons of common understanding to know the offense they are being charged
with
RATIONALE: to enable the accused to prepare for their defense
- Essential Elements of Anti Hazing Law
o A person is placed in embarrassing situation or subjected to physical or
psychological suffering or injury
o Acts were prerequisites for persons admission to organization
- Essential Elements of Accomplice to crime of Hazing
o Accused are school authorities or faculty members
 o They consented or failed to prevent such actions despite knowledge of such
- PMMA is considered as organization under Anti Hazing Law
- Allegations on actions done as part of training is considered as an affirmative defense for
accused
o Accused has burden to prove that the Indoctrination was part of training and not
hazing
- Case should be dismissed for lack of allegation that the acts done were a prerequisite of entry
to the organization which is an essential element of hazing
o What was merely mentioned was that the purported acts done caused
psychological and physical pain to Balidoy resulting to death
- Rule 110 section 6 of rules of court states that
o Information must include designation of the offense by the statute and acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense
o Without these Bayabos et al cannot be tried for accomplice for crime of hazing
- Even if SP mentioned such allegations during trial it cannot cure the defect
- SP is not stopped from filing another information
o Motion to quash does not bar another prosecution

Lasoy v. Zenaros

MAIN ISSUE: After an information has been filed and the accused had been arraigned, pleaded
guilty and were convicted and after they had applied for probation, may the information be
amended and the accused arraigned anew on the ground that the information was allegedly
altered/tampered with? NO
In this case, it bears repeating that the accused had been arraigned and convicted. In fact, they
were already in the stage where they were applying for probation. It is too late in the day for the
prosecution to ask for the amendment of the information and seek to try again accused for the
same offense without violating their rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The alleged
tampering/alteration allegedly participated in by the accused may well be the subject of another
inquiry.
FACTS:
The accused Marcelo Lasoy and Felix Banisa were charged with willfully and unlawfully
selling or offering for sale a total of 42.410 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops, a
prohibited drug.
The criminal case was raffled to the RTC of QC presided by Judge Salazar. Upon
arraignment both accused pleaded guilty to Republic Act 6425 (The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and sentenced to suffer a jail term of SIX (6) MONTHS
and ONE (1) DAY
On 28 August 1996, plaintiff People of the Philippines, thru Assistant City Prosecutor
Ma. Aurora Escasa-Ramos, filed two separate motions,
o first, to admit amended Information
o second, to set aside the arraignment of the accused, as well as the decision of
the trial court.
In plaintiffs motion to admit amended information, it alleged:
o For some reason what was entered was 42.410 GRAMS
o When in truth and in fact the said accused should be charged for transportation
and delivery, with intent to sell and to gain, of Forty-Five (45) pieces of dried
marijuana fruiting tops weighing 42.410 KILOS from La Trinidad to Metro Manila.
This was confirmed by the affidavits of the arresting officers.
Resolving the motions, the trial court DENIED the amended information on the basis that
the case has already been decided it is too late at this stage to amend the information. In
 another order the Motion to set aside the arraignment filed by the Public Prosecutor was
GRANTED, stating that the jurisdiction over drug of small quantity as in the case at bar
should be tried by the Metropolitan Trial Court.
This second information was assigned to Branch 76 of the RTC of Quezon City presided
by Judge Monina A. Zenarosa
The trial court denied accused motion to quash, and scheduled the arraignment of the
accused under the amended information. Accuseds MR was denied by the trial court.
Hence, the instant Petition for Certiorari with prayer for injunction and temporary
restraining order based on the following grounds:
o Respondent court erred in holding that there is no valid information and,
therefore, the accused cannot claim the right against double jeopardy.
o The court erred in failing to recognize that the RTC, branch 103, had jurisdiction
over the case
To invoke the defense of double jeopardy, the following requisites must be present:
o (1) a valid complaint or information;
o (2) the court has jurisdiction to try the case;
o (3) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and
o (4) he has been convicted or acquitted or the case against him dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent.

ISSUE:
WON the first information is valid? YES
WON the RTC, where the first information was filed and under and tried, had jurisdiction to try
the case. YES

Held:
Validity of information
On the issue of validity of the information, accused and respondents submitted opposing
views -- accused insisting on its validity, whereas respondents asserted that the accused
were arraigned under an invalid information. Alleging that there being an alteration on
the first information, hence it failed to reflect the true quantity of drugs caught in
possession of the accused, the prosecution insisted that the first information under which
accused were arraigned is invalid.
Rule 110 defines an information as nothing more than an accusation in writing charging
a person with an offense subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the court.
o Section 4. Information defined. An information is an accusation in writing
charging a person with an offense subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the
court.
If the offense is stated in such a way that a person of ordinary intelligence may
immediately know what is meant, and the court can decide the matter according to law,
the inevitable conclusion is that the information is valid. The information will be sufficient
if it describes the crime defined by law.
The conclusion is that the first information is valid inasmuch as it sufficiently alleges the
manner by which the crime was committed. Verily the purpose of the law, that is, to
apprise the accused of the nature of the charge against them, is reasonably complied
with.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
With respect specifically to the trial courts point of view that the accused cannot claim
their right against double jeopardy because they participated/acquiesced to the
tampering, we hold that while this may not be far-fetched, there is actually no hard
evidence thereof.
 Worse, it cannot be overlooked that the fact that accused were arraigned, entered a plea
of guilty and convicted under the first information. Granting that alteration/tampering took
place and the accused had a hand in it, this does not justify the setting aside of the
decision dated 16 July 1996. The alleged tampering/alteration allegedly participated in
by the accused may well be the subject of another inquiry.

AMMENDMENT
Sec. 14. Amendment. The information or complaint may be amended, in substance or
form, without leave of court, at any time before the accused pleads; and thereafter and
during the trial as to all matters of form, by leave and at the discretion of the court, when
the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the accused.
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the
proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the
filing of a new one charging the proper offense in accordance with Rule 119, Section 11,
provided the accused would not be placed thereby in double jeopardy, and may also
require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the trial.
In Sanvicente v. People, this Court held that given the far-reaching scope of an
accuseds right against double jeopardy, even an appeal based on an alleged
misappreciation of evidence will not lie. The only instance when double jeopardy will not
attach is when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to
present its case or where the trial was a sham.
The Constitution is very explicit. Article III, Section 21, mandates that no person shall be
twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. In this case, it bears repeating
that the accused had been arraigned and convicted. In fact, they were already in the
stage where they were applying for probation. It is too late in the day for the prosecution
to ask for the amendment of the information and seek to try again accused for the same
offense without violating their rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
There is, therefore, no question that the amendment of an information by motion of the
prosecution and at the time when the accused had already been convicted is contrary to
procedural rules and violative of the rights of the accused.

RTC Jurisdiction
Pursuant to Section 23 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 in the interest of speedy
administration of justice and subject to the guidelines hereinafter set forth, the following
Regional Trial Court branches are hereby designated to exclusively try and decide cases
of xxx VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED,
regardless of the quantity of the drugs involved.
RTC has jurisdiction

GRANTED.

People v. Puig and Porras

The Prosecutor filed before the RTC 112 informations of Qualified Theft against respondents
Puig and Porras, who were the Cashier and Bookkeeper, of private complainant Rural Bank of
Pototan. Respondents were alleged to have stolen and appropriated for their own personal use
the deposits they received from their clients.
The Information was held to be insufficient and were dismissed for lack of probable cause
because:
1. the element of taking without the consent of the owners was missing (it was the bank
who filed the case, but it is the depositors who are the owners of the money)
2. failed to state facts constituting the qualifying circumstance of grave abuse of confidence
(the Informations lack the phrase alleging dependence, guardianship or vigilance
between the respondents and the offended party that would have created a high degree
of confidence between them which the respondents could have abused.)

The RTC dismissed the cases and refused to issue a warrant of arrest. Petitioner filed a Motion
for Reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC.

Petitioner appealed directly to the SC via petition for review on certiorari, praying to annul the
RTC Orders.

The public prosecutor argued that the elements constituting the crime of Qualified Theft were
properly alleged, hence, probable cause should have been established.

Respondents averred that the proper party to institute the case should be the depositors
themselves and not the bank. Respondents also claimed that the DOJ, through the Secretary of
Justice, is the principal party to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE: W/N the allegations in the Information was sufficient?

YES. Sec. 6, Rule 110 of the ROC requires that the information must state the acts or omissions
complained of as constitutive of the offense. However, Sec. 9 states that the Information need
not use the exact language of the statute in alleging the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense. The test is whether it enables a person of common understanding to
know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly.

Elements of Quafied Theft (Art. 310): (1) taking of personal property, (2) property
belongs to another, (3) taking be done with intent to gain, (4) done without the owners
consent, (5) accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons,
nor of force upon things; (6) done with grave abuse of confidence.

The portion of the Information relevant to this discussion reads: conspiring,

confederating, and helping one another, with grave abuse of confidence, being the
Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc., Pototan, Iloilo, without the
knowledge and/or consent of the management of the Bank

The Bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its clients; and the employees of the
Bank, who are entrusted with the possession of money occupy positions of confidence. The
Informations, therefore, sufficiently allege all the essential elements constituting the crime of
Qualified Theft.

In previous cases, the Court has consistently considered the allegations in the Information that
such employees acted with grave abuse of confidence, to the damage and prejudice of the
Bank, without particularly referring to it as owner of the money deposits, as sufficient to make
out a case of Qualified Theft. In other cases, where the Informations merely alleged the
positions of the respondents; that the crime was committed with grave abuse of confidence, with
 intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the Bank, without necessarily stating
the relation by reason of dependence between the respondents and the offended party that has
created a high degree of confidence between them, which respondents abused, and without
using the word owner instead of the Bank were considered to be sufficient allegations.

A closer look at the records of the preliminary investigation conducted will show that probable
cause did exist to reasonably indicate that the respondents may have, indeed, committed the
offense charged.

On the theory of the defense that the DOJ is the principal party who may file the instant petition,
the Court held that: if a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, a
reconsideration of the order of dismissal or acquittal may be undertaken, insofar as the criminal
aspect thereof is concerned and may be made only by the public prosecutor; or in the case of
an appeal, by the State only, through the OSG.

People v Soriano

Facts:
- This is an appeal of the decision of the CA affirming the decision of RTC Nueva Ecija,
finding Soriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape (Art 266 (a) & (c) RPC)
o October 2000, and December 11, 2001
- Soriano was charged for raping his then 12 year old daughter AAA, and eventually
impregnating her
- Soriano raises the ff errors:
o The trial and appellate courts failed to appreciate the inconsistencies of the
statement of AAA
AAA could not remember WON Soriano pulled down her panties
o The trial and appellate courts failed to take into consideration the affidavit of
desistance of AAA, presented by her mother on the witness stand
Issues:
(1) WON there is merit in the errors which Soriano raised
(2) The court observed a violation of Sec 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure (There were 2 charges of rape lodged in the Information against Soriano)
a. Rule 110 Sec. 13. Duplicity of the offense. A complaint or information must
charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for
various offenses.
Held:
- (1) The Court has repeatedly ruled that discrepancies referring only to minor details and
not to the central fact of the crime do not affect the veracity or detract from the credibility of a
witness declaration, as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole it
would be too much to expect a 13-year old girl to remember each and every detail of the fate
she suffered under the hands of her father
- The Court ruled that retractions (of affidavits of desistance) are generally unreliable and
are looked upon with considerable disfavor by Courts. The unreliable character of this
document is shown by the fact that it is quite incredible that after going through the process of
having the accused- appellant arrested by the police, positively identifying him as the person
who raped her, enduring the humiliation of a physical examination of her private parts, and then
repeating her accusations in open court by recounting her anguish

- (2) Sec. 3, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
Judgment for two or more offenses. When two or more offenses are charged in a single
complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict
him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each
offense, setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each offense.
*Soriano is therefore found guilty of two counts of qualified rape

Ricarze v CA
Ricarze was employed by City Service Corporation as messenger assigned to Caltex in
Makati City. He is tasked to collect checks payable to Caltex and issue invoices in
return.
Nov 1997, Caltexs Banking and Insurance Dept. Manager Romano, through an
electronic report they get from their bank PCIB, found out that a check worth 5.7M
entered payable to Dante Gutierrez, and two other checks worth 1.7M were missing.
The checks were deposited and endorsed under the name of Guttierez (who was a
customer of Caltex) and appears to be signed by Romano and Goquingco.
Bank Teller said that Ricarze opened an account under the name Gutierrez and
deposited the said checks.
After the preliminary investigation, the CP of Makati filed two information on estafa
through falsification of commercial documents in the RTC of Makati

First Information Second Information

Sept 14, 1997, in Makati, Ricarze with intent
to defraud and intent to gain, without the
knowledge of Caltex Ph, and by means of
falsification of commercial document wilfully
and unlawfully defraud Caltex by:
Obtained a check payable to Gutierrez
in 1.7M
Affixed signatures purporting to be of
Romano and Goquingco, who are
authorized signatories, and of
Gutierrez
Causing it to appear that Romano and
Goquingco participated
Purporting himself to be Gutierrez and
deposited the said check
Oct 15, 1997, in Makati, Ricarze with intent to
defraud and intent to gain, without the
knowledge of Caltex Ph, and by means of
falsification of commercial document
wilfully and unlawfully defraud Caltex by:
Obtained a check payable to
Gutierrez in 5.7M
Affixed signatures purporting to be of
Romano and Goquingco, who are
authorized signatories, and of
Gutierrez
Causing it to appear that Romano and
Goquingco participated
Purporting himself to be Gutierrez and
deposited the said check

Ricarze pleaded not guilty to both charges. PCIBs private prosecutor changed from
ACCRA and Balgos Law Offices to SRMO Law Office after prosecutions presentation of
witness
Ricarze opposed this saying that SRMO should have no personality to appear since it is
Caltex, not PCIB that should be the private complainant. Hence Formal Offer of SROM
to present evidence should be stricken down. Further, he alleges a change of
information since private complainant became PCIB-- this prejudiced him, and would
place him in double jeopardy.
PCIB opposed saying that since PCIB re-credited Caltex of the extent of the indemnity,
PCIB has been subrogated to the rights and interests of Caltex. PCIB has right to
receive civil indemnity, and PCIBs recredit was brought up during cross-examination.
 RTC upheld the substitution of offended party and denied the motion to expunge SRMO
formal offer to present evidence; CA upheld RTC decision

Issue:
W/N the change of the name of the offended party is a formal defect and not a substantial
amendment?

Held: YES
1. The change in name is not a substantial amendment, and merely a formal one. Under
the Rules of Court, the information may be substantially amended before the
arraignment. Only formal amendments can be made after arraignment, and it can be
only upon the motion of the prosecutor, without prejudice to the accused. The formal
amendments are: ... (4) Does not adversely affect any substantial right of the accused...
In the case at bar, the substitution of Caltex by PCIB as private complaint is not a
substantial amendment. The substitution did not alter the basis of the charge in both
Informations, nor did it result in any prejudice to petitioner. The documentary evidence in
the form of the forged checks remained the same, and all such evidence was available
to petitioner well before the trial.
2. The Petitioner avers that:
Estafas element which was to the prejudice of another, was presented in the
information as: to the damage and prejudice of Caltex
Since PCIB claims that it is them who was prejudiced due to the subrogation of
Caltexs rights even before the filing of the information, the information is then
defective and void due to the false allegations therein
According to Rules of Court, when the crime is against the property, the designation of
the name of the offended party is not absolutely indispensable, as long as the criminal
act charged in the complaint/information is clearly identified. What was only necessary,
which was done in this case, was that the offense has been described with sufficient
certainty as to identify the act.

Held: Dismissed

SENADOR VS. PEOPLE

FACTS:
Petitioner Ramoncita O. Senador was charged before the RTC in Dumaguete City with the
crime of Estafa.

The accused obtained and received from Cynthia Jaime, who was engaged in the jewelry
business, various kinds of jewelry valued at 705,685.00 for the purpose of selling the same
on consignment basis, evidenced by a Trust Receipt Agreement.

There was an express obligation to account for and remit the entire proceeds of the sale if
sold or to return the same if unsold within 15 days from the delivery.

Despite repeated demands, the accused failed to remit proceeds of the sale of said items or
to return any of the items that may have been unsold to said Cynthia Jaime but instead
misapplied and converted the same to her own use and benefit.

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded "not guilty.

 During the preliminary investigation, Senador tendered to Rita Keppel Bank Check for the
amount of 705,685,9 as settlement of her obligations. Nonetheless, the check was later
dishonored as it was drawn against a closed account.

Senador refused to testify and so failed to refute any of the foregoing evidence of the
prosecution, and instead, she relied on the defense that the facts alleged in the Information
and the facts proven and established during the trial differ.

In particular, Senador asserted that the person named as the offended party in the Information is
not the same person who made the demand and filed the complaint.

According to Senador, the private complainant in the Information went by the name
"Cynthia Jaime," whereas, during trial, the private complainant turned out to be "Rita
Jaime."

Further, Cynthia Jaime was never presented as witness.

Hence, citing People v. Uba, and United States v. Lahoylahoy, Senador would insist on her
acquittal on the postulate that her constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the
accusation against her has been violated.

Despite her argument, the trial court, by found Senador guilty.

Senador questioned the RTC Decision before the CA. However, the appellate court rendered
a Decision upholding the finding of the RTC

Further, the CA, finding that the Uba ruling is not applicable since Senador is charged with
estafa, a crime against property and not oral defamation.

ISSUE:
W/N an error in the designation in the Information of the offended party violates, as petitioner
argues, the accuseds constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against her, thus, entitling her
HELD: NO.
As correctly held by the appellate court, Senadors reliance on the Uba ruling is misplaced.
In the Uba ruling, the appellant was charged with oral defamation, a crime against honor,
wherein the identity of the person against whom the defamatory words were directed is a
material element.
Thus, an erroneous designation of the person injured is material.
On the contrary, in the instant case, Senador was charged with estafa, a crime against property
that does not absolutely require as indispensable the proper designation of the name of the
offended party.
Rather, what is absolutely necessary is the correct identification of the criminal act
charged in the information. Thus, in case of an error in the designation of the
offended party in crimes against property, Rule 110, Sec. 12 of the Rules of Court
mandates the correction of the information, not its dismissal:
SEC. 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.
 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.
If the true name of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was
committed is thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the court must cause such true name to be
inserted in the complaint or information and the record.
The materiality of the erroneous designation of the offended party would depend on whether
or not the subject matter of the offense was sufficiently described and identified.
In offenses against property, if the subject matter of the offense is generic and not identifiable,
such as the money unlawfully taken as in Lahoylahoy, an error in the designation of the
offended party is fatal and would result in the acquittal of the accused.
However, if the subject matter of the offense is specific and identifiable, such as a warrant, as in
Kepner, or a check, such as in Sayson and Ricarze, an error in the designation of the offended
party is immaterial.
In the present case, the subject matter of the offense does not refer to money or any other
generic property. Instead, the information specified the subject of the offense as "various
kinds of jewelry valued in the total amount of 705,685.00."
The charge was thereafter sufficiently fleshed out and proved by the Trust Receipt
Agreement signed by Senador and presented during trial, which enumerates these "various
kinds of jewelry valued in the total amount of 705,685.
Lest it be overlooked, Senador offered to pay obligations through a Keppel Check, which was
dishonored because it was drawn against an already closed account. The offer indicates her
receipt of the pieces of jewelry thus described and an implied admission that she
misappropriated the jewelries themselves or the proceeds of the sale.