Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

G.R. No. 119063 January 27, 1997 unmeritorious. Even People v.

Alaga, which he
JOSE G. GARCIA, petitioner, cites, mentions the exceptions to the rule as
vs. provided in paragraphs (f) and (h) of Section 2,
COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE and Sections 4 and 5 of the old Rule 117, viz.,
PHILIPPINES and ADELA TEODORA P. (a) extinction of criminal liability, and (b) double
SANTOS, respondents. jeopardy. His additional claim that the
exception of extinction can no longer be raised
FACTS: due to the implied repeal of the former Section
Petitioner Jose G. Garcia filed an Affidavit of 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court occasioned by
Complaint with the Q.C. Prosecutor’s Office, its non-reproduction after its revision, is equally
charging his wife, private respondent Adela without merit. No repeal, express or implied, of
Teodora P. Santos with Bigamy. the said Section 4 ever took place. While there
In the RTC trial, it was mentioned that the is no provision in the new Rule 117 that
accused was previously married with Reynaldo prescribes the contents of a motion to quash
Quiroca, and without the said marriage having based on extinction of criminal liability, Section
been dissolved, subsequently contracted the 2 thereof encapsulizes the former Sections 3, 4,
second marriage with the petitioner. and 5 of the old Rule 117. The said Section 2
Private respondent filed a Motion to Quash reads as follows:
alleging prescription of the offense as ground.
She contended that by the petitioner’s Sec. 2. Foms and contents. — The motion to
admissions in his testimony in a Civil Case and in quash shall be in writing signed by the accused
his complaint filed with the Civil Service or his counsel. It shall specify distinctly the
Commission, the petitioner discovered the factual and legal grounds therefor and the court
offense as early as 1974. Pursuant then to Art shall consider no grounds other than those
91 of the RPC, the period of prescription of the stated therein, except lack of jurisdiction over
offense started to run therefrom. Thus, the the offense charged. (3a, 4a, 5a).
offense charged prescribed in 1989, or 15 years It is clear from this Section that a motion to
after its discovery by the petitioner. quash may be based on factual and legal
The CA, although gave credence to the grounds, and since extinction of criminal liability
respondent’s evidence and recognized that the and double jeopardy are retained as among the
15 year prescriptive period had certainly lapsed. grounds for a motion to quash in Section 3 of
However, the quashal of an information based the new Rule 117, it necessarily follows that
on prescription could only be invoked before or facts outside the information itself may be
after arraignment and even on appeal. introduced to grove such grounds. As a matter
Hence, this appeal to remand the case in the of fact, inquiry into such facts may be allowed
RTC for further proceedings. where the ground invoked is that the
allegations in the information do not constitute
ISSUE: the offense charged. Thus, in People v. De la
Whether or not the CA committed a reversible Rosa, SC stated:
error in affirming the Trial Court’s order
granting the motion to quash the information As a general proposition, a motion to quash on
for bigamy based on prescription. the ground that the allegations of the
information do not constitute the offense
HELD: charged, or any offense for that matter, should
The petitioner’s contention that a motion to be resolved on the basis alone of said
quash cannot go beyond the information in allegations whose truth and veracity are
Criminal Case No. Q-92-27272 which states that hypothetically admitted. However, as held in
the crime was discovered in 1989, is palpably the case of People vs. Navarro, 75 Phil. 516,
additional facts not alleged in the information, Hence, it reconsidered its earlier Resolution and
but admitted or not denied by the prosecution ordered the dismissal of their criminal case.
may be invoked in support of the motion to Upon denial of its Motion for Reconsideration,
quash. the prosecution filed the present special civil
action for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
In Criminal Case No. 92-27272, the trial court,
without objection on the part of the Issue: WHETHER OR NOT AGFOI AS
prosecution, allowed the private respondent to REPRESENTED BY ALBANO & ASSOCIATES ARE
offer evidence in support of her claim that the PRIVATE INJURED PARTIES ENTITLED TO
crime had prescribed. Consequently, the trial INTERVENE AS THE PRIVATE PROSECUTOR IN
court, upon indubitable proof of prescription, THE SUBJECT CASES
correctly granted the motion to quash. It would
have been, to quote De la Rosa, “pure Held: Under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Revised
technicality for the court to close its eyes to Rules of Criminal Procedure, the offended party
[the fact of prescription) and still give due may also be a private individual whose person,
course to the prosecution of the case” — a right, house, liberty or property
technicality which would have meant loss of was actually or directly injured by the same
valuable time of the court and the parties. punishable act or omission of the accused,or
that corporate entity which is damaged or
G.R. Nos. 140576-99. December 13, 2004 injured by the delictual acts complained of.
JOSE S. RAMISCAL, JR., petitioner, Such party must be one who has a legal right; a
vs. substantial interest in the subject matter of the
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (Fourth action as will entitle him to recourse under the
Division), ALBANO & ASSOCIATES and the substantive law, to recourse if the evidence is
ASSOCIATION OF GENERALS & FLAG OFFICERS, sufficient or that he has the legal right to the
INC., respondents. demand and the accused will be protected by
the satisfaction of his civil liabilities. Such
Facts: interest must not be a mere expectancy,
Jose S. Ramiscal Jr., Julian Alzaga, Manuel subordinate or inconsequential. The interest of
Satuito, Elizabeth Liang and Jesus Garcia were the party must be personal; and not one based
charged with Malversation through Falsification on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right
of Public Documents before the Sandiganbayan. of some third and unrelated party.
The Information alleged that Ramiscal, et. al. Hence, even if the members of AGFOI may also
misappropriated and converted the amount of be members or beneficiaries of the AFP-RSBS,
P250,318,200.00 for their personal use from the the respondent AGFOI does not have a legal
funds of AFP-RSBS. right to intervene in the criminal cases merely
Ramiscal filed with the Sandiganbayan an and solely to enforce and/or protect the
“Urgent Motion to Declare Nullity of constitutional right of such members to have
Information and to Defer Issuance of Warrant access to the records of AFP-RSBS. Neither are
of Arrest.” He argued, that the Sandiganbayan such members entitled to intervene therein
had no jurisdiction over the case because the simply because the funds of the AFP-RSBS are
AFP-RSBS is a private entity. The said Urgent public or government funds. It must be stressed
Motion was later adopted by Alzaga and that any interest of the members of the AFP-
Satuito. The Urgent Motion was denied by the RSBS over its funds or property is merely
Sandiganbayan. Ramiscal, et. al. filed a Motion inchoate and incidental. Such funds belong to
for Reconsideration. In a Resolution issued, the the AFP-RSBS which has a juridical personality
Sandiganbayan sustained Ramiscal, et. al.’s separate and independent of its
contention that the AFP-RSBS is a private entity. members/beneficiaries.
As gleaned from the Informations in Criminal In Uba, the appellant was charged with oral
Cases Nos. 25122 to 25133 for violation of defamation, a crime against honor, wherein the
Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, the offended identity of the person against whom the
party is the government, which was allegedly defamatory words were directed is a material
deprived by the petitioner and the other element. Thus, an erroneous designation of the
accused of the capital gains and documentary person injured is material.
stamp taxes, based on the actual and correct
purchase price of the property stated therein in On the contrary, in the instant case, Senador
favor of the AFP-RSBS. The AGFOI was not was charged with estafa, a crime against
involved whatsoever in the sales subject of the property that does not absolutely require as
crimes charged; neither was it prejudiced by the indispensable the proper designation of the
said transactions, nor is it entitled to the civil name of the offended party. Rather, what is
liability of the petitioner for said cases. Thus, it absolutely necessary is the correct identification
is not the offended party in the said cases. of the criminal act charged in the information.
Thus, in case of an error in the designation of
Senador vs. People and Jaime the offended party in crimes against property,
GR No. 201620, March 6, 2013 Rule 110, Sec. 12 of the Rules of Court
mandates the correction of the information, not
FACTS: Petitioner Ramoncita Senador entered its dismissal.
into a consignment agreement of various kinds
of jewelry worth over P700k with Rita and Citing Sayson vs People (GR No. L-51745,
Cynthia Jaime. Senador was given fifteen (15) October 28, 1988, 166 SCRA 680):
days to sell the jewelry and remit the money In the instant suit for estafa which is a crime
less her commission. Unsold jewelries shall also against property under the Revised Penal Code,
be returned by petitioner to respondent since the check, which was the subject-matter
Cynthia. The fifteen-day period lapsed and of the offense, was described with such
petitioner failed to sell them or remit the particularity as to properly identify the offense
money. Several demands were not enough for charged, it becomes immaterial, for purposes of
Ramoncita to comply with her obligations. convicting the accused, that it was established
Cynthia filed a criminal case against petitioner during the trial that the offended party was
for estafa. In the information, the private actually Mever Films and not Ernesto Rufino, Sr.
complainant was Cynthia. However, it was nor Bank of America as alleged in the
proved during trial that Rita was the actual information.
private complainant. Petitioner contends that
her constitutional right to be informed of the We conclude that in offenses against property,
nature and cause of the accusation against her if the subject matter of the offense is generic
was violated, thus, entitling her to an acquittal. and not identifiable, such as the money
RTC found petitioner guilty. CA affirmed. unlawfully taken as in Lahoylahoy, an error in
the designation of the offended party is fatal
ISSUE: Whether or not the erroneous and would result in the acquittal of the accused.
designation of the offended party violates the However, if the subject matter of the offense is
constitutional right to be informed of the specific and identifiable, such as a warrant, as in
nature and cause of the accusation against her Kepner, or a check, such as in Sayson and
Ricarze, an error in the designation of the
HELD: No, the erroneous designation of the offended party is immaterial. The error in the
offended party does not violate such designation of the offended party in the
constitutional right when the crime involved is information is immaterial and did not violate
estafa. Senador’s reliance on Uba is misplaced. Senador’s constitutional right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against in one form as in the other. In this case, the
her. amendment made which does not change the
nature of the crime alleged does not affect the
Eduardo G. Ricarze vs. CA, Caltex Phils. Inc., essence of the offense or cause surprise or
PCIBank deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet
G.R. No. 160451, February 9, 2007 the new averment had each been held to be
one of form and not of substance. As provided
Facts: by the Rules of Court, after the entry of the
Eduardo Ricarze (employed as a collector- plea, only a formal amendment may be made
messenger of City Service Corporation) is but with leave of court and if it does not
assigned to collect checks payable to Caltex. He prejudice the rights of the accused. In the case
opened a bank account in the name of Dante at bar, the amendment is allowed because it is
Gutierrez, a regular customer of Caltex, forged settled that the same does not prejudice the
the signatures on the dorsal portions of the rights of Ricarze. In addition, it was held that in
stolen check and deposited it in that same bank case of offenses against property, the
account. He was charged by the officers of designation of the name of the offended party
Caltex with estafa through falsification of is not absolutely indispensable for as long as the
commercial documents. In the original criminal act charged in the complaint or
information filed by the prosecutor, Caltex information can be properly identified.
appeared to be the offended party because the
prosecutor was not informed that PCIBank
credited certain amount to Caltex. After
arraignment and plea, PCIBank appeared as the
complainant. Ricarze averred that the
information can no longer be amended because
he had already been arraigned under the
original information, and that doing so would
place him in double jeopardy. On one hand,
PCIBank contended that PCIBank had re-
credited the amount to Caltex to the extent of
the indemnity, hence, the PCIBank had been
subrogated to the rights and interests of Caltex
as private complainant.

Whether or not an information can be amended
even after the accused had been arraigned and
entered his plea.

The Supreme Court held that the amendment in
the name of the complainant is of form. The
test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by
the amendment is whether a defense under the
information as it originally stood would be
available after the amendment is made, and
whether any evidence defendant might have
would be equally applicable to the information