1

People of the Phil. v. Cagadas, G.R. No. 88044, erred in convicting Roberto Cultura for he was information. 9 On the other hand, in an order
January 23, 1991 not one of those indicted in the information but dated August 27, 1985, 10 accused Padica was
"Jose" Cultura (his father's name), has no merit. discharged from the information to be utilized
FACTS: On June 6, 1973, at around 6:30 in the The erroneous designation of his name in the as a state witness. "After three (3) years in
morning, Rex Ballena and his sister, Lucia information will not vitiate it, as it was clearly hiding out of fear for his life, Romeo Padica
Ballena- Tabo, left their residences at proven that the accused, Roberto Cultura, was finally revealed to Lt. Cruz (sic) of Regional
Longganapan, San Vicente, Davao, bound for part of the group that arrested, hogtied and Security Unit Intelligence Division, Lucena City
the capital town of Tagum, to withdraw some killed the victim. Besides, Cultura did not raise that he (Padica) witnessed the killing of Francis
money with which to pay their farm laborers. this question of his identity during the Banaga. Padica had met Lt. Cruz (sic) near the
While waiting inside the jeep at the Sitio Rizal arraignment. His acquiescence to be tried under Lucena City Market and after making the
Terminal, some members of the Integrated Civil the name "Jose" at that stage of the case is disclosure, surrendered to the authorities (TSN,
Home Defense Force (ICHDF), including the deemed to be a waiver on his part to raise the December 12, 1988, p. 6)." 11 After more than
accused, approached them and asked where question of his identity as one of the accused for eight years of trial, which for one reason or
they were bound for and why. Rex Ballena the first time on appeal. All the appellants are another was punctuated by numerous and
naively informed them that they were on their guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of needless postponements, the trial court
way to Tagum to withdraw money from the murder qualified by treachery and aggravated rendered its assailed decision pronouncing the
bank with which to pay his farmhands. The by the circumstance of taking advantage of their guilt of appellant for the crime of kidnapping for
following day, Lucia returned to Longganapan public positions. ransom with murder and sentencing him to
and discovered that her brother never arrived suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
home and was missing. On June 9, 1983, at People of the Phil. v. Padica, G.R. No. 102645, pay Tomas Banaga, father of Francis Banaga, the
around 8:30 in the morning, Lucia informed April 7, 1993 sum of P30,000.00 as indemnity for the death of
their barangay councilman, Jose Magunot, who the child, without pronouncement a to costs. 17
was also the deacon of the Iglesia ni Kristo FACTS: The records show that Leon Marajas, Jr.,
Church, that she was looking for her brother Romeo Padica, Leslie Gans, Florentino Fabrigas, ISSUE: WON the failure of the prosecution to
Rex. In the evening of June 10, 1983, due to the Romeo Pradez, Leonardo Marajas and Leopoldo charge the respondent as an accused in the
very strong stench emitting therefrom, the Marajas were originally charged in the latter original information is a fatal defect.
decomposed body of Rex Ballena was found part of 1978 with kidnapping for ransom with
lying face down in a deep ravine below the murder and illegal possession of firearms before RULING: The rule is that the complaint or
mouth of the Macjum River about one-half Military Commission No. 27 in Criminal Case No information should sufficiently allege the name
kilometer away from the Bontiqui Creek. On 27-163 thereof. However, on January 11, 1979, of the accused, failing which the complaint or
November 8, 1984, or more than a year later, an counsel for accused Leon Marajas, Jr. prayed for information would be rendered invalid. The test
Information for murder was filed against the the transfer of the case to the civil courts. 2 On of sufficiency is laid down in Section 7, Rule 110
armed ICHDF members, who had been seen by August 17, 1981, the Office of the Provincial of the Rules of Court. In the case at bar, there is
eyewitnesses leading Rex, with hands hogtied Fiscal of Rizal filed an information for no dispute that appellant was arraigned under
behind his back and his mouth gagged by a red kidnapping for ransom with murder, docketed the original information and that he entered
handkerchief, towards the deep gully where his as Criminal Case No. Pq-81-1596-P, before thereto a plea of not guilty under the name of
decomposing body was found. The ICHDF was a Branch III of the then Court of First Instance of "Leonardo Marajas." At that juncture, appellant
para-military group organized by local units of Pasay City against the aforementioned accused, should have raised the error as to his identity by
the Armed Forces of the Philippines and but with the exception of herein appellant filing a motion to quash on the ground of lack of
composed of selected civilians in the locality to whose name was inadvertently not included jurisdiction over his person. But, as aforestated,
assist the Army in its peace-keeping duties. The therein. 3 A separate charge for illegal appellant did not do so but instead voluntarily
amended information filed on December 3, possession of firearms was lodged before appeared at the arraignment and pleaded not
1984 was the crime of Murder under Art. 248 of Branch 146 of the Makati Regional Trial Court guilty thereat, albeit under a different name.
the RPC. On August 24, 1988, the Regional Trial but the case was later placed in the archives Consequently, the trial court acquired
Court of Tagum, Davao (Branch 1) rendered a some time in 1985. 4 Accused Romeo Padica jurisdiction over his person and it could have
decision finding all of the accused, excluding and herein appellant were both arraigned on rendered a valid judgment of conviction based
Miguel Daub (who died during the trial) "guilty January 15, 1982 and, with the assistance of on the original information even without need
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of their respective counsel, both pleaded not of an amendatory information to correct
murder as charged, sentencing them to suffer guilty. 5 It appears, however, that appellant appellant's name. The subsequent amendment
the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the entered his plea during the arraignment under to insert in the information Leon Marajas, Jr.'s
accessory penalties provided by law. the name of "Leonardo Marajas.". Earlier real name involved merely a matter of form as
thereto, however, upon discovery of the it did not, in any way, deprive appellant of a fair
ISSUE: WON the RTC erred in convicting omission of herein appellant's name in the opportunity to present his defense. 48
Roberto Cultura for he was not one of those original information, the prosecution filed a Moreover, the amendment neither affected nor
indicted in the information but “Jose” Cultura motion on November 16, 1984 for the altered the nature of the offense charged since
(his father’s name) admission of an amended information including the basic theory of the prosecution was not
appellant's name as one of the accused. 7 On changed nor did it introduce new and material
RULING: NO. Their individual participation need May 30, 1985, the trial court issued an order facts. 49 Such an amendment is explicitly
not be specified for they were all co- admitting the amended information. 8 allowed under the second paragraph of Section
conspirators in the commission of the crime, Thereafter, or on July 17, 1985, appellant, duly 7, in relation to Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules
hence, the guilt of one or some was the guilt of assisted by counsel, entered a plea of guilty of Court the pertinent portion of which
all. Appellants' contention that the trial court upon being arraigned on the amended provides that "(t)he information or complaint
 2

may be amended, in substance or form, without uncertainty on the name by which the accused appellant himself. Direct evidence is not the
leave of court, at any time before the accused is or should be known is an extraneous matter only means to prove commission of the crime.
pleads; and thereafter and during the trial as to that in no way renders his identi􀀵cation as a
all matters of form, by leave and at the participant in the stabbing uncertain. People of the Phil. v. Vidana, G.R. No. 199210,
discretion of the court, when the same can be October 23, 2013
done without prejudice to the rights of the People of the Phil. v. Pondivida, G.R. No. 188969,
accused." At any rate, whatever irregularity may February 27, 2013 FACTS: The trial court convicted appellant
have attended then inclusion of appellant's Ricardo M. Vidaña of one (1) count of rape in
name as an accused in the amended FACTS: On 6 October 2005, the assistant relation to Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise
information has been waived by his subsequent provincial prosecutor of Malolos, Bulacan, known as the "Special Protection of Children
appearance and entry of plea at his arraignment charged accused-appellant Pondivida under the Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
under said amendatory information. following Information: the above-named Act." After more than a year of being at large
accused conspiring, confederating and mutually since the issuance on September 1, 2004 of the
People of the Phil. v. Amodia, G.R. No. 173791, helping one another, armed with firearm, and warrant for his arrest, 5 appellant was 􀀵nally
April 7, 2009 with intent to kill one Gener Bondoc y Cudia, arrested and subsequently arraigned on January
with evident premeditation, abuse of superior 30, 2006 wherein he pleaded "NOT GUILTY" to
FACTS: Pablo was indicted, together with three strength and treachery, did then and there, the charge of rape. 6 Trial on the merits ensued
other accused. The Information, dated wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, attack, and at the conclusion of which the trial court
February 21, 1997, was 􀀵led with the court on assault and shoot with their firearm the said rendered judgment against appellant by 􀀵nding
February 28, 1997. Pablo was arrested on June Gener Bondoc y Cudia, hitting the latter on his him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation
5, 1998 and was thereafter prosecuted. The body and head, thereby inflicting upon him of Section 5 in relation to Section 31 of Republic
other accused remained at large. 4 Pablo moved mortal wounds which directly caused his death. Act No. 7610. Insisting on his innocence,
to quash the Information on the ground of Pondivida fled to Olongapo City for five months, appellant appealed the guilty verdict to the
mistaken identity and the staleness of the but was apprehended upon returning to Court of Appeals but was foiled when the
warrant of arrest issued on March 4, 1997. The Obando, Bulacan. Co-accused Alvarico and appellate court af􀀵rmed the lower court ruling
RTC denied his motion. 5 Pablo entered a plea Reyes were never located and are currently at in the now assailed March 18, 2011 Decision.
of "not guilty" to the charge when arraigned on large. The RTC found accused-appellant Furthermore, appellant insists that the
August 3, 1998. 6 The RTC convicted Pablo of Pondivida guilty beyond reasonable doubt of credibility of AAA is suspect since her narration
murder after 􀀵nding suf􀀵cient evidence of his murder. On intermediate appellate review, the of the alleged rape incident does not indicate
identity, role in the crime as principal by direct CA affirmed the findings of the trial court, but that she resisted appellant's carnal desires.
participation, and conspiracy between him and clarified that the aggravating circumstance of
the other accused who used their superior abuse of superior strength was absorbed in the
strength to weaken the victim. On appeal, the element of treachery in murder. 7 ISSUE:
CA agreed with the RTC's 􀀵ndings and af􀀵rmed Accused-appellant comes before this Court
Pablo'sconviction arguing that the prosecution's case was not RULING: In view of the foregoing, we therefore
ISSUE: proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that af􀀵rm the conviction of appellant. However, the
RULING: The records glaringly show the defense there was insufficient evidence to establish trial court erred in impliedly characterizing the
counsel's vain efforts to prove that these conspiracy among the accused. After a offense charged as sexual abuse under Sections
eyewitnesses committed a mistake in judicious review of the records, this Court finds 5 and 31 of Republic Act No. 7610. Under Rule
identifying Pablo as one of the assailants since no cogent reason to disturb the findings of 110, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, it is
his name was allegedly Pablito Amadio, and not either the RTC or the CA. Thus, his argument — required that "[t]he complaint or information
Pablo. that Rodelyn Buenavista's failure to witness the shall state the designation of the offense given
We state in this regard that positive actual shooting constituted reasonable doubt of by the statute, aver the acts or omissions
identi􀀵cation pertains essentially to proof of his guilt — is unconvincing. constituting the offense, and specify its
identity and not necessarily to the name of the ISSUE: qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If
assailant. A mistake in the name of the accused RULING: Thus, the Court has distinguished two there is no designation of the offense, reference
is not equivalent, and does not necessarily types of positive identification in People v. shall be made to the section or subsection of the
amount to, a mistake in the identity of the Gallarde, to wit: (a) that by direct evidence, statute punishing it." The information clearly
accused especially when suf􀀵cient evidence is through an eyewitness to the very commission charged appellant with rape, a crime punishable
adduced to show that the accused is pointed to of the act; and (b) that by circumstantial under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
as one of the perpetrators of the crime. Two evidence, such as where the accused is last seen In the case at bar, appellant was accused in the
reasons settle the argument about Pablo's with the victim immediately before or after the information with feloniously having carnal
name against his favor. It strikes us that this crime. Thus, while witness Rodelyn admittedly knowledge of his own minor daughter against
argument is a line of defense that came only as failed to see the actual shooting, her account her will by using his in􀀵uence as a father.
the defense's turn to present evidence neared. properly falls under the second type of positive Considering further that the minority of AAA
We have on record that prior to the defense's identification described above. To require her and her relationship to appellant were both
presentation of evidence, Pablo referred to positive identification of accused-appellant as alleged in the information and proven in court,
himself as Pablo Amodia when the court asked the actual shooter is absurd. She last witnessed the proper designation of appellant's felony
him his name. 83 We likewise 􀀵nd no competent her common-law husband held at gunpoint in should have been quali􀀵ed rape. As such, the
evidence, other than his assertion and those of their own house by the accused and his penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility
his siblings, showing that his true name is really companions, a fact admitted by accused- of parole, in lieu of the death penalty, pursuant
Pablito Amodia. We therefore conclude that any to Republic Act No. 9346 23 must be imposed.
 3

appreciated in determining the proper penalty. were sweethearts and their sexual intercourse
However, it need not be alleged that the was consensual.
People of the Phil. v. Soriano, G.R. No. 135027, aggravating circumstance is qualifying. Both
July 3, 2002 relationship and minority must be alleged in the
information to qualify the crime as punishable ISSUE:
FACTS: The information against accused- by death. To hold otherwise would lead to a
appellant Artemio Soriano alleged, with lewd denial of the accused's constitutional right to be RULING: The complaint or information shall
design and by means of force and intimidation, informed of the nature and the cause of the state the designation of the offense given by the
did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and accusation against him. To the contrary, in the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting
feloniously ha[d] sexual intercourse with one case at bar, the information alleged that May the offense and specify its qualifying and
MAY ANN FONTILLAS, 6 years old,. Upon being Ann was six years old at the time she was raped aggravating circumstances. 17 If there is no
arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not by accused-appellant. This qualifying designation of the offense, reference shall be
guilty, whereupon he was tried. The following circumstance was clearly established during the made to the section or subsection of the statute
day, August 24, 1995, Antonio narrated the trial. Under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, punishing it. 18 The acts or omissions
matter to Richard Mitre, a barangay kagawad, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the constituting the offense and the qualifying and
whereupon Mitre accompanied May Ann and penalty of death shall be imposed upon the aggravating circumstances must be stated in
Antonio to the Bauang Police Station where accused if the victim is a child below seven (7) ordinary and concise language and not
they gave their sworn statements. On August years old Hence, the trial court correctly necessarily in the language used in the statute
25, 1995, Antonio C. Fontillas filed, in behalf of imposed the death penalty on accused- but in terms sufficient to enable a person of
his daughter, a complaint 7 for rape against appellant. 5 common understanding to know what offense
accused-appellant before the Regional Trial is being charged as well as its qualifying and
Court of Bauang, La Union. Accused-appellant aggravating circumstances and for the court to
Artemio Soriano, 26 years old, single, and a Malto v. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 164733, pronounce judgment. 19 The designation of the
resident of Buy-otan in Bauang, La Union, September 21, 2007 offense in the information against petitioner
anchored his defense on denial and alibi. FACTS: Petitioner was originally charged in an was changed from "violation of Section 5 (b),
Mirasol Fontillas was presented to rebut the information which read: Michael John Z. Malto, Article III" of RA 7610 to "violation of Section 5
testimony of accused-appellant. 15 On July 23, a professor, did then and there willfully, (a), Article III" thereof. The information against
1998, the trial court rendered a decision finding unlawfully and feloniously induce and/or petitioner did not allege anything pertaining to
accused-appellant guilty of the crime of seduce his student at Assumption College, or connected with child prostitution. It did not
statutory rape. However, as the trial court ruled, complainant, AAA, a minor of 17 years old. This aver that AAA was abused for profit. What it
accused-appellant can only be held liable for the was subsequently amended as follows: did then charged was that petitioner had carnal
rape committed near the creek and not also for and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously knowledge or committed sexual intercourse
those which he allegedly committed in his take advantage and exert influence, and lascivious conduct with AAA; AAA was
house, even if the same were proven during the relationship and moral ascendancy and induce induced and/or seduced by petitioner who was
trial because no informations were filed against and/or seduce his student at Assumption her professor to indulge in sexual intercourse
him for the latter crimes. Accusedappellant College, complainant, AAA, a minor of 17 years and lascivious conduct and AAA was a 17-year
contends, however, that the trial court erred in old. Petitioner did not make a plea when old minor. These allegations support a charge
imposing the death penalty because, while the arraigned; hence, the trial court entered for him for violation of paragraph (b), not paragraph (a),
information alleged that May Ann was six years a plea of "not guilty." After the mandatory pre- of Section 5, Article III, RA 7610. Cc However,
old at the time of the rape, the prosecution trial, trial on the merits proceeded. On learning the failure to designate the offense by statute,
failed to prove her age during trial with certainty what her daughter underwent in the hands of 21 or to mention the specific provision
and clearness. Citing the cases of People vs. petitioner, BBB filed an administrative penalizing the act, 22 or an erroneous
Javier 35 and People vs. Liban, 36 accused- complaint in Assumption College against him. specification of the law violated 23 does not
appellant insists. Finally, accused-appellant She also lodged a complaint in the Office of the vitiate the information if the facts alleged
argues that, in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 City Prosecutor of Pasay City which led to the clearly recite the facts constituting the crime
of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal filing of Criminal Case No. 00-0691. In his charged. 24 What controls is not the title of the
Procedures, he should not be meted the death defense, petitioner proffered denial and alibi. information or the designation of the offense
penalty. He argues that the minority of May Ann The trial court found the evidence for the but the actual facts recited in the information.
must be specifically alleged in the information prosecution sufficient to sustain petitioner's 25 In other words, it is the recital of facts of the
as a qualifying circumstance in order that it may conviction. On March 7, 2001, it rendered a commission of the offense, not the
be appreciated against him. Otherwise, the decision finding petitioner guilty. Petitioner nomenclature of the offense, that determines
death penalty cannot be imposed upon him as questioned the trial court's decision in the CA. the crime being charged in the information. 26
he was not fully apprised of the charges against In a decision dated July 30, 2004, 12 the The facts stated in the amended information
him. appellate court affirmed his conviction even if it against petitioner correctly made out a charge
found that his acts were notcovered by for violation of Section 5 (b), Article III, RA 7610.
ISSUE: paragraph (a) but by paragraph (b) of Section 5, Thus, even if the trial and appellate courts
Article III of RA 7610. Petitioner contends that followed the wrong designation of the offense,
RULING: This is error. The rules state that the the CA erred in sustaining his conviction petitioner could be convicted of the offense on
specific qualifying or aggravating circumstances although it found that he did not rape AAA. For the basis of the facts recited in the information
must be alleged in the information and duly him, he should have been acquitted since there and duly proven during trial.
proven during the trial. Otherwise, even if these was no rape. He also claims that he and AAA
were subsequently proven, the same cannot be
 4

Licyayo v. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 169425, HENCE, PETITIONER COULD NOT BE VALIDLY attendant circumstance that will qualify it as
March 4, 2008 CONVICTED FOR SAID CRIME. murder, parricide or infanticide.
FACTS: On 1 February 1993, an Information 6 in
Criminal Case No. 819 was 􀀵led before the RTC
RULING: With particular reference to the
charging petitioner, his brother Aron Licyayo
designation of the offense, Section 8, Rule 110 People of the Phil. v. Nocum, G.R. No. 179041,
(Aron), Paul Baguilat (Paul) and Oliver Buyayo
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure April 1, 2013
(Oliver) with Homicide under Article 249 of the
merely directs that the information must state
Revised Penal Code. The undersigned Provincial
the designation of the offense given by the FACTS: On May 25, 2000, an Information3 was
Prosecutor, hereby accuses ROBERTO LICYAYO,
statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting filed charging Mallari and co-accused with
OLIVER BUYAYO, ARON LICYAYO, and PAUL the offense, and specify its qualifying and violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 6539,
BAGUILAT, of the crime of HOMICIDE. On 11
aggravating circumstances. The information in otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of
May 1993, an Amended Information 7 in the instant case contains the foregoing required 1972, as amended by RA 7659. That on or about
Criminal Case No. 820 was 􀀵led before the RTC
statements. September 12, 1998 in Muntinlupa City,
accusing petitioner of Direct Assault under
The information mentions the name of Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code. petitioner as the accused, the name of Ru􀀵no as Honorable Court, the above-named accused
Subsequently, these cases were consolidated
the offended party, the date and place of the conspiring, confederating and mutually helping
for joint trial. In Criminal Case No. 8 19 ,
commission of the crime, and designates the one another, with intent to gain for themselves
petitioner, Aron and Paul pleaded "Not Guilty"
crime committed by petitioner as homicide. It and without the consent of the owner, did then
to the charge of homicide, 8 while the other
also alleges the act of petitioner constituting and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
accused, Oliver, was not arraigned. 9 With
homicide which is the unlawful stabbing of take and carry away one motor vehicle. in the
respect to Criminal Case No. 820, petitioner was
Ru􀀵no with the use of a bladed weapon. 29 The course of the commission thereof, Erico Medel,
not arraigned. 10 Thereafter, trial on the merits
fact that the information does not speci􀀵cally the driver of the said vehicle, was killed. When
ensued. After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision
mention Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code the case was called for arraignment on
dated 20 February 2003, 􀀵nding petitioner
as the law which de􀀵nes and penalizes November 10, 2000, only Mallari appeared as
guilty of homicide in Criminal Case No. 819. It
homicide, does not make it defective. There is his co-accused remain at-large. He pleaded "not
acquitted Aron and Paul because the nothing in the afore-quoted Rules which guilty" to the charge.6 Thereafter, trial ensued.
prosecution failed to prove the existence of
speci􀀵cally requires that the information must
conspiracy. It did not rule on the liability of
state the particular law under which the
On December 15, 2003, the RTC rendered its
Oliver because he was not arraigned in the said
accused is charged in order for it to be
Decision44 finding Mallari guilty beyond
case. Further, it dismissed Criminal Case No. 820
considered su􀀵cient and valid. What the Rules
reasonable doubt of carnapping with homicide.
for direct assault because petitioner was not
merely require, among other things, is that the
It also found that the commission of the crime
arraigned therein. 24 Petitioner appealed to
information must designate the offense
was a result of a planned operation with Mallari
the Court of Appeals. On 6 May 2005, the
charged and aver the acts constituting it, which
and all the accused doing their assigned tasks to
appellate court promulgated its Decision
in this case, were obviously done. that there is
ensure the consummation of their common
a􀀵rming with modi􀀵cations the RTC decision.
no law which requires that in order that an
criminal objective.45. Accused Reynaldo Mallari
Petitioner 􀀵led a Motion for Reconsideration
accused may be convicted, the speci􀀵c provision
is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the
which the appellate court denied. Anent the
which penalizes the act charged be mentioned
crime of CARNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE and is
􀀵rst issue, petitioner points out that the
in the information. Besides, it should be
hereby sentenced to die by lethal injection. The
Information does not speci􀀵cally mention the
stressed that the character of the crime is
Jail Warden of Muntinlupa City is hereby
law which he allegedly violated and for which he
determined neither by the caption or preamble
directed to bring Reynaldo Mallari to the New
was charged. Although the information accuses
of the information nor by the speci􀀵cation of
Bilibid Prison where he may serve his sentence.
him of the crime of homicide, it does not
the provision of law alleged to have been
On January 31, 2007, the CA rendered its
categorically state that he is being charged with
violated, they being conclusions of law, but by
Decision47 affirming with modification the
homicide, as de􀀵ned and penalized underthe recital of the ultimate facts and
ruling of the trial court. H owever, the CA
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. According
circumstances in the information. 31 The
modified the penalty from death to reclusion
to him, the information should have been more
su􀀵ciency of an information is not negated by an
perpetua pursuant to RA 934650 which
explicit by stating that he is being indicted for
incomplete or defective designation of the
prohibited the imposition of the death
homicide as de􀀵ned and penalized under Article
crime in the caption or other parts of the
penalty.51 Mallari filed a Notice of Appeal.53 On
249 of the Revised Penal Code. He argues that
information but by the narration of facts and
October 15, 2007,54 we accepted the appeal and
the speci􀀵cation in the information of the law
circumstances which adequately depicts a crime
notified the parties to file their supplemental
violated is necessary to enable him to and su􀀵ciently apprises the accused of the
briefs. However, Mallari opted not to file a
adequately prepare for his defense, and that to
nature and cause of the accusation against him.
supplemental brief in the absence of new issues
convict him under such defective information
32 Although the information herein does not
to be raised. For its part, the Office of the
would violate his constitutional and statutory
speci􀀵cally mention Article 249 of the Revised
Solicitor General manifested that it is likewise
right to be informed of the nature and cause of
Penal Code as the law which de􀀵nes and
adopting the Appellee’s Brief it filed with the CA
the accusation against him. 28 penalizes homicide, it, nonetheless, narrates
as its Supplemental Brief.55 Mallari also argues
that petitioner stabbed Ru􀀵no with a bladed
that the evidence of the prosecution is not
ISSUE: THE INFORMATION FILED IS NOT weapon during the incident which caused the
sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
SUFFICIENT AS IT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY latter's death. The foregoing allegation
doubt.58 On the other hand, the prosecution
CHARGED PETITIONER FOR THE CRIME OF unmistakably refers to homicide under Article
maintains that the circumstantial evidence was
"HOMICIDE" DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER 249 of the Revised Penal Code which is the
sufficient to convict Mallari.59Finally, the
ARTICLE 249 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE; unlawful killing of any person without any
 5

prosecution sought civil indemnity and moral Appeals (CA) upheld the RTC on July 18, 2006, alone, was nothing but a conclusion of law, not
damages of ₱50,000.00 each.60 subject to the modi􀀵cation. The two accused an averment of a fact. In short, the particular
then came to the Court on 􀀵nal appeal, but on acts and circumstances constituting treachery
ISSUE: May 9, 2007, Edwin Valdez 􀀵led a motion to as an attendant circumstance in murder were
withdraw appeal, which the Court granted on missing from the informations.The
October 10, 2007, thereby deeming Edwin's downgrading of the crimes committed would
RULING: Section 2 of RA 6539 defines
appeal closed and terminated. 1 On January 18, de􀀵nitely be favorable to him.
carnapping; The crime of carnapping with
2012, the Court promulgated its judgment on
homicide is punishable under Section 1461 of
the appeal of PO2 Eduardo Valdez, 􀀵nding him
the said law, as amended by Section 20 of RA
guilty of three counts of homicide, instead of People of the Phil. v. Feliciano, G.R. No. 196735,
7659. The culpability of Mallari for the complex
three counts of murder. Subsequently, Edwin May 5, 2014 (supra)
crime of carnapping with homicide is duly
sent to the Court Administrator a self- FACTS:
established by the confluence of circumstantial
explanatory letter 3 dated March 12, 2012,
evidence. In fine, all the elements of the special
where he pleaded for the application to him of ISSUE:
complex crime of carnapping with homicide, as
the judgment promulgated on January 18, 2012 RULING: Accused-appellants were correctly
well as the identity of Mallari as one of the
on the ground that the judgment would be charged with murder, and there was treachery
perpetrators of the crime, were all proved
bene􀀵cial to him as an accused. in the commission of the crime As correctly
beyond reasonable doubt. The foregoing
And now I come to your Honorable Of􀀵ce found by the trial court and the appellate court,
circumstances inevitably lead to the lone, fair
through this letter to seek help and assistance the offense committed against Dennis
and reasonable conclusion that Mallari
that the Decision of the Supreme Court to my Venturina was committed by a group that took
participated in stealing the FX taxi driven by
Brother Eduardo V. Valdez may also bene􀀵tted advantage of its superior strength and with the
Medel and in killing him. Mallari’s defense of
(sic) the undersigned through Section 11 (a) , aid of armed men. The appellate court,
alibi deserves no credence. Under the last
Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.Through a however, incorrectly ruled out the presence of
clause of Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act
comment 􀀵led on September 25, 2012, 4 the treachery in the commission of the offense The
of 1972 as amended by Section 20 of RA 7659,
Solicitor General interposed no opposition to appellate court, in af􀀵rming the conviction of
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall
the plea for the reduction of Edwin's sentences the accused-appellants, ruled that contrary to
be imposed when the owner or driver of the
for being in full accord with the Rules of Court the 􀀵ndings of the trial court, there was no
vehicle is killed in the course of the commission
and pertinent jurisprudence. treachery involved. In particular, they ruled that
of the carnapping or on the occasion
although the attack was sudden and
thereof.67 In this case, the trial court considered
ISSUE: unexpected, "[i]t was done in broad daylight
as aggravating circumstance the commission of
RULING: We grant the plea for reduction of with a lot of people who could see them" 155
the offense by a member of an organized or
Edwin's sentences. and that "there was a possibility for the victims
syndicated crime group under Article 62 of the
The 􀀵nal judgment promulgated on January 18, to have fought back or that the people in the
RPC as amended by RA 765968 and, hence,
2012 downgraded the crimes committed by canteen could have helped the victims." 156
imposed upon Mallari the death penalty.
Eduardo from three counts of murder to three This reasoning is clearly erroneous. The victims
However, under Rule 110, Section 8 of the Rules
counts of homicide, and consequently in this case were eating lunch on campus. They
of Court, all aggravating and qualifying
prescribed lighter penalties in the form of were not at a place where they would be
circumstances must be alleged in the
indeterminate sentences. It cannot be reasonably expected to be on guard for any
Information. Here, there is no allegation in the
otherwise, for, indeed, the real nature of the sudden attack by rival fraternity men. The
Information that Mallari was a member of a
criminal charge is determined not from the victims, who were unarmed, were also attacked
syndicate or that he and his companions "had
caption or preamble of the information, or from with lead pipes and baseball bats. The only way
formed part of a group organized for the
the speci􀀵cation of the provision of law alleged they could parry the blows was with their arms.
general purpose of committing crimes for gain,
to have been violated, which are mere In a situation where they were unarmed and
which is the essence of a syndicated or
conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of outnumbered, it would be impossible for them
organized crime group."70 Hence, the same
facts in the complaint or information. Every to 􀀵ght back against the attackers. The attack
cannot be appreciated as an aggravating
element of the offense must be stated in the also happened in less than a minute, which
circumstance against Mallari. Thus, in
information. What facts and circumstances are would preclude any possibility of the bystanders
consonance with Article 63(2) of the RPC, which
necessary to be included therein must be being able to help them until after the incident.
provides that in the absence of any aggravating
determined by reference to the de􀀵nitions and The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack
circumstance in the commission of the offense,
essentials of the speci􀀵ed crimes. The gave no opportunity for the victims to retaliate
the lesser penalty shall be applied. Mallari must,
requirement of alleging the elements of a crime or even to defend themselves. Treachery,
therefore, suffer the lesser penalty of reclusion
in the information is to inform the accused of therefore, was present in this case. DAEcIS
perpetua.71 Mallari is also not eligible for parole
the nature of the accusation against him so as
pursuant to Section 372 of RA 9346.
to enable him to suitably prepare his defense.
The presumption is that the accused has no
independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense. Indeed, the use of the People of the Phil. v. Ubiña, G.R. No. 176349,
gun as an instrument to kill was not per se July 10, 2007
People of the Phil. v. Valdez, G.R. No. 175602, treachery, for there are other instruments that FACTS: On December 18, 2000, appellant was
February 13, 2013 could serve the same lethal purpose. Nor did charged with rape in an Information, uncle of
FACTS: The two accused were tried for three the use of the term treachery constitute a the offended party AAA, thus, have moral
counts of murder by the Regional Trial Court suf􀀵cient averment, for that term, standing ascendancy over the aforesaid complainant,
(RTC),Branch 86, in Quezon City. The Court of
 6

with lewd design and by the use of force and pleaded in the information and proved by the information with absolute accuracy, for it is
intimidation, did, then and there willfully, evidence may be considered as an aggravating sufficient that the complaint or information
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual circumstance. As such, complainant's minority states that the crime was committed at any time
intercourse with the offended party, AAA, a may be considered as an aggravating as near as possible to the date of its actual
minor 15 years of age against her will. TS circumstance. However, it may not serve to commission. 20 Secondly, the Prosecution
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense raise the penalty in the instant case because in successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt
charged. 5 After trial on the merits, the trial simple rape, the imposable penalty is reclusion the charges of rape against the accused. Thus,
court rendered judgment. On appeal, the Court perpetua which is single and indivisible. an accused like him can be declared guilty of
of Appeals af􀀵rmed with modi􀀵cation the rape even if the sole witness against him was
Decision of the trial court, The appellate court the victim who had been rendered unconscious
disregarded the aggravating circumstance of People of the Phil. v. Nuyok, G.R. No. 195424, at the time of the consummation of carnal
craft and the special qualifying circumstances of June 15, 2015 knowledge provided sufficient circumstantial
minority and relationship of the parties in the FACTS: Nonetheless, AAA moved to Maasin, evidence existed showing that the victim was
imposition of penalty because it noted that they where Ann Sari, an official of Barangay violated, and that it was the accused and no
were not alleged in the information. It however Lumatin, aided her in bringing rape charges other who had committed the violation. 2 To
modi􀀵ed the penalty of 30 years' imprisonment against the accused. AAA related her ordeal to reiterate, both the RTC and the
imposed by the trial court and instead imposed the police authorities of Malalag, 9 and met CA unanimously found AAA's testimony as
the single and indivisible penalty of reclusion with the personnel of the Department of Social credible. Thus, the Court must not depart from
perpetua. It also awarded the amount of Welfare and Development (DSWD). 10 She their unanimous findings. Although the
P50,000.00 as moral damages. executed a sworn statement against her uncle. minority under 18 years of AAA at the time of
11 At the trial, the Prosecution presented AAA, the rapes, and the fact that the accused was her
ISSUE: ABC, and Dr. Millar. In its decision rendered on paternal uncle were established during the trial,
RULING: The twin circumstances of minority and October 31, 2008, 15 the Regional Trial Court the RTC nonetheless correctly convicted him
relationship under Article 335 of the (RTC), Branch 18, in Digos City, Davao del Sur, only of four counts of simple rape instead of
Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. found and pronounced the accused guilty of qualified rape because the special qualifying
7659, are in the nature of qualifying four counts of rape. On October 5, 2010, 17 the circumstance of minority was not alleged in the
circumstances because they alter the nature of Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated its judgment informations. The circumstances of minority of
the crime of rape and increase the penalty. As affirming the convictions subject to the victim and her relationship to the offender
special qualifying circumstances they must be modifications. To start with, the accused claims must concur to qualify the crime of rape, 35 but
speci􀀵cally pleaded or alleged with certainty in that the RTC erred in finding him guilty of rape only her relationship to the accused was alleged
the information; . . . If the offender is merely a despite the fatal defects of the informations, and proved. The trial court was precluded from
relation — not a parent, ascendant, step- arguing that three of the informations (Criminal considering the attendance of such qualifying or
parent, guardian, or common law spouse of the Case No. FC-32-06, Criminal Case No. FC-33-06, aggravating circumstances in the judgment
mother of the victim — the speci􀀵c relationship and Criminal Case No. FC-34-06) having only because of the failure to properly allege them.
must be alleged in the information, i.e., that he stated "in July 2005," "in August 2005" and "in
is "a relative by consanguinity or affinity [as the September 2005," respectively, did not specify
case may be] within the third civil degree." 26 the dates of commission of the rapes. He asserts Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468,
The information in the instant case only that such failure to specify the definite dates January 28, 2003
mentioned appellant as AAA's uncle, without affected the veracity of the allegations therein,
speci􀀵cally stating that he is a relative within the as well as the credibility of AAA as the victim. Facts: Atty. Edward Serapio (petitioner) filed
third civil degree, either by af􀀵nity or two petitions in the SC; these are: 1. A petition
consanguinity. Even granting that during trial it ISSUE: for certiorari assailing the resolutions of the
was proved that the relationship was within the RULING: The information must then aver the Third division of the Sandiganbayan denying his
third civil degree either of consanguinity or facts and circumstances bearing on the petition for bail, motion for reinvestigation and
af􀀵nity, still such proof cannot be appreciated culpability and liability of the accused so that he motion to quash; 2. Petition for Habeas Corpus.
because appellant would thereby be denied of can properly prepare for and undertake his Petitioner was charged with the crime of
his right to be informed of the nature and cause defense. However, it is not necessary for the plunder together with Former President Joseph
of the accusation against him. Appellant cannot information to allege the date and time of the Estrada and son Jinggoy Estrada among others.
be charged with committing the crime of rape in commission of the crime with exactitude unless Petitioner was a member of the Board of
its simple form and then be tried and convicted such date and time are essential ingredients of Trustees and legal counsel of Erap Muslim Youth
of rape in its quali􀀵ed form. 27 Thus, the Court the offenses charged. The failure to specify the Foundation. He allegedly received, on behalf of
of Appeals correctly disregarded the qualifying exact date or time when the rapes were the said foundation, millions of pesos coming
circumstance of relationship. CDHSac However, committed did not ipso facto render the from illegal activities.
the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the informations defective. Neither the date nor the
minority of AAA because such was properly time of the commission of rape is a material
The Ombudsman recommended the filing of a
alleged in the Information and was proven ingredient of the crime, for the essence of the
case against him before the Sandiganbayan. A
during trial by the presentation of a certi􀀵cation crime is carnal knowledge of a female against
warrant for his arrest was issued. Upon learning
of AAA's record of birth duly issued by the of􀀵ce her will through force or intimidation. Precision
of the said warrant he voluntarily surrendered
of the municipal civil registrar of Sto. Niño, as to the time when the rape is committed has
to the PNP. Petitioner, thereafter, file an Urgent
Cagayan. 28 when either one of the twin special no bearing on its commission. Consequently,
Motion for Bail but such motion is opposed by
qualifying circumstances of relationship and the date or the time of the commission of the
the prosecution for the reason that petitioner
minority is omitted or lacking, that which is rape need not be stated in the complaint or
should be arraign first before he can avail of

Bail. Later on Petitioner simultaneously filed a
motion to quash.
The bail hearing was reset several times due to
various pleadings filed by petitioner and the
prosecution.
Due to this, petitioner filed a petition for habeas
corpus for the reason that the prosecution have
waived their right to present evidence in
opposition to his petition for bail; the
prosecution launched an endless barrage of
obstructive and dilatory moves to prevent the
conduct of the bail hearings; and, on the failure
of the People to adduce strong evidence of his
guilt. For the said reasons, he is still being
deprived of his liberty.
Petitioner cited also Moncupa vs. Enrile, which
in such case the Court held that habeas corpus
extends to instances where detention, while
valid from its inception, has later become
arbitrary.
Issue: Whether the petition habeas corpus
should be granted?
Decision: No. SC finds no basis for the issuance
of the writ of habeas corpus. General rule
applies.
“Petition for habeas corpus is not the
appropriate remedy for asserting ones right to
bail. It cannot be availed of where accused is
entitled to bail not as a matter of right but on
the discretion of the court and the latter has not
abused such discretion in refusing to grant bail,
or has not even exercised said discretion. The
proper recourse is to file an application for bail
with the court where the criminal case is
pending and to allow hearings thereon to
proceed.”
Moncupa vs Enrile does not apply in this case
because petitioner’s restraint of liberty did not
become arbitrary. His application for bail has yet
to commence (to be heard).
The delay in the hearing of his petition for bail
cannot be pinned solely to the Sandiganbayan
or on the prosecution because he himself is
partly to be blamed (his actions caused delay
too.
As a general rule, the writ of habeas corpus will
not issue where the person alleged to be
restrained of his liberty in custody of an officer
under a process issued by the court which
jurisdiction to do so.
7
In exceptional circumstances, habeas Criminal Case No. C-58693. On the other hand,
corpus may be granted by the courts even when appellant Ferol was convicted of rape in
the person concerned is detained pursuant to a Criminal Case N o . C-58693 but was acquitted
valid arrest or his voluntary surrender, for this of rape in Criminal Case No. C-58617. Appellants
writ of liberty is recognized as the fundamental filed a motion for reconsideration 48 but this
instrument for safeguarding individual freedom was denied. 49 On 10 February 2002, appellants
against arbitrary and lawless state action due to elevated the instant case to us for review. 50
its ability to cut through barriers of form and However, pursuant to our ruling in People v.
procedural mazes. Mateo, 51 we remanded the case to the Court
of Appeals for proper disposition. On 29 July
2005, the Court of Appeals promulgated its
Decision af􀀵rming in toto the RTC Decision.
Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration 52
People of the Phil. v. Aure, G.R. No. 180451,
which was denied. 53
October 17, 2008
FACTS: On 20 January 2000, two separate
Appellants maintain that the foregoing 􀀵ndings
informations 3 for rape were 􀀵led with the RTC
and rulings of the RTC are inconsistent with the
charging appellants of rape. did then and there
allegations of conspiracy in the two
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have
informations and that the RTC cannot
sexual intercourse with one AAA, 4 45 years old,
individually and separately convict appellants of
married, against the latter's will and without her
rape because the informations in the two cases
consent. Subsequently, these cases were
alleged conspiracy between them in raping
consolidated for joint trial. When arraigned on
AAA. Also, appellant Ferol cannot be convicted
30 May 2000, appellants, assisted by their
in Criminal Case No. C-58693 of rape committed
respective counsels de parte, pleaded "Not
on 8 November 1999 because such fact was not
guilty" to the charges. 5 Trial on the merits
alleged in the informations. Appellants argued
thereafter followed. 0. On 11 November 1999,
that the said 􀀵nding and ruling of the RTC
AAA, per advice of her lawyer, reported the rape
violated their constitutional rights to be
incident to the NBI. The case was assigned to
informed of the nature of the case against them,
Agent Abulencia and Agent Erum, Jr. before
to be presumed innocent of the charges, and to
whom AAA narrated the rape incident. The
due process. 60
incident was reduced into AAA's sworn
statement. NBI Medico-Legal Of􀀵cer Dr.
Soliman also conducted a genital examination
ISSUE:
on AAA. 15 After investigation, the NBI, through
RULING: Although the informations in Criminal
Director Federico Opinion, Jr., submitted a
Cases No. C-58617 and No. C-58693 both
letter-referral to the Caloocan City Prosecutor's
alleged that appellants conspired in raping AAA,
Of􀀵ce recommending the conduct of inquest
it does not necessarily follow that the RTC
proceedings on appellants and the 􀀵ling of
cannot individually and separately convict
charges against appellants for robbery,
appellants of rape. The rule is that once a
extortion and rape. The letter-referral was
conspiracy is established, the act of one is the
studied by Caloocan City Chief
act of all, and each of the conspirators is liable
Inquest Prosecutor Oscar Yu (Prosecutor Yu).
for the crimes committed by the other
Prosecutor Yu also conducted a preliminary
conspirators. It follows then that if the
examination on AAA. proceeded to the CIDG
prosecution fails to prove conspiracy, the
of􀀵ce for the purpose of inquesting appellants.
alleged conspirators should be held individually
Upon arriving therein, however, Colonel Edgar
responsible for their own respective acts. 61 In
C. Danao (Colonel Danao), Chief of the CIDG
the instant cases, the RTC ruled that the
of􀀵ce, refused to turn over appellants to
prosecution failed to establish conspiracy
Prosecutor Yu and to the NBI agents for inquest
between appellants in raping AAA.
proceedings. Prosecutor Yu and the NBI agents
Nevertheless, on the basis of AAA's credible
then left the CIDG office. 17 Subsequently, a
testimony and documentary evidence for the
preliminary investigation on the case was
prosecution, the RTC found that appellant Aure
conducted but appellants did not appear during
alone raped AAA on 7 November 1999 and that
the hearings despite notice. Thereupon,
appellant Ferol alone raped AAA on 8 November
appellants were charged with rape before the
1999. Thus, the RTC was correct in holding
RTC and corresponding warrants for their arrest
appellants individually responsible for their
were issued. 18 Appellants then were arrested
respective acts of rape. CADSHI It is true that
and detained at the PAOCTF of􀀵ce by Inspector
the information in Criminal Case No. C-58693
Dandan and his men. 1 After trial, the RTC
alleged that appellants conspired in raping AAA
rendered a Decision on 5 December 2000
on 7 November 1999, and that the RTC
convicting appellant Aure of rape in Criminal
convicted appellant Ferol alone in Criminal Case
Case No. C-58617 and acquitting him of rape in
 8

No. C-58693 of raping AAA on 8 November 1995, she was threatened with a wooden club the information in the instant case alleged that
1999. Nonetheless, the discrepancy on the by Tampus, who then succeeded in having ABC was a minor during the incident, there was
actual date of rape does not constitute a serious sexual intercourse with her, against her will. no allegation that Ida was her parent. Since the
error warranting the reversal of appellant Agustos B. Costas, M.D. 31 (Dr. Costas), the relationship between ABC and appellant was
Ferol's conviction. The date or time of the Head of the Department of Psychiatry of the not duly established, the award of exemplary
commission of rape is not a material ingredient Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center, issued damages is not warranted.
of the said crime because the gravamen of rape a Medical Certi􀀵cation, 32 which showed that
is carnal knowledge of a woman through force appellant Ida was treated as an outpatient at
and intimidation. The precise time or date when the Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center Dr. Mendez v. People of the Phil. G.R. No.
the rape took place has no substantial bearing Psychiatry Department from November 11, 179962, June 11, 2014
on its commission. As such, the date or time 1994 to January 12, 1995 and was provisionally FACTS: The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
need not be stated with absolute accuracy. It is diagnosed with Schizophrenia, paranoid type. filed a complaint-affidavit 4 with the
suf􀀵cient that the information states that the CcEHaI The trial court convicted Tampus of two Department of Justice against the petitioner.
crime has been committed at any time as near counts of rape, as principal in Criminal Case No. The BIR alleged that the petitioner had been
as possible to the date of its actual commission. 013324-L and Criminal Case No. 013325-L. operating as a single proprietor doing business
62 In the case at bar, the difference between Appellant Ida was found guilty as an accomplice and/or exercising his profession for taxable
date/time of the rape as alleged in Criminal Case in Criminal Case No. 013324-L. The trial court years 2001 to 2003 under the following trade
No. C-58693 (7 November 1999) and as testi􀀵ed appreciated in Ida's favor the mitigating names and registration addresses: 5 Based on
to by AAA (8 November 1999) was one day only. circumstance of illness which would diminish these operations, the BIR alleged that petitioner
Indeed, appellant Ferol's actual commission of the exercise of will-power without depriving her failed to file his income tax returns for taxable
rape was not that remote or far with the date of of the consciousness of her acts, pursuant to years 2001 to 2003 and, consequently evaded
rape alleged in the information under Criminal Article 13 (9) of the his obligation to pay the correct amount of taxes
Case No. C-58693. Besides, all the essential Revised Penal Code. Pending resolution of the due the government. However, he countered
elements of rape were stated in the said appeal before the Court of Appeals, accused that he did not file his income tax returns in
information and the prosecution had duly Tampus died on November 16, 2000 35 and his these places because his business
established that appellant Ferol had carnal appeal was dismissed by the Third Division of establishments were registered only in 2003 at
knowledge of AAA through force and this Court. 36 Thus, the appeal before the Court the earliest; thus, these business
intimidation on 8 November 1999. IcHDCS the of Appeals dealt only with that of appellant Ida. establishments were not yet in existence at the
case under consideration, AAA was raped by The appellate court gave credence to the time of his alleged failure to file his income tax
appellants while she was under the custody of testimony of ABC and af􀀵rmed the trial court's return. 7 After a preliminary investigation, State
the CIDG. Further, appellants were members of decision with modi􀀵cation. It appreciated the Prosecutor Juan Pedro Navera found probable
the PNP-CIDG at the time they raped AAA. mitigating circumstance of illness in favor of Ida, cause against petitioner for non-filing of income
Nonetheless, these aggravating/qualifying but found that Ida failed to prove that she was tax returns for taxable years 2001 and 2002 and
circumstanceswere not speci􀀵cally alleged in completely deprived of intelligence on April 1, for failure to supply correct and accurate
the informations. It is settled that the 1995. On the basis of the medical report and the information as to his true income for taxable
aggravating/qualifying circumstances be testimony of the attending physician, Ida's year 2003, in violation of the National Internal
expressly and speci􀀵cally alleged in the schizophrenia was determined by both the trial Revenue Code. 8 Accordingly an Information 9
information, otherwise they cannot be court and the Court of Appeals to have was filed with the CTA charging the petitioner
appreciated, even if they are subsequently diminished the exercise of her will-power with violation of Section 255 of Republic Act No.
proved during the trial. 83 Thus, the RTC was though it did not deprive her of the 8424 (Tax Reform Act of 1997). The accused was
correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion consciousness of her acts. arraigned 11 and pleaded not guilty on March 5,
perpetua on each of the appellants. 2007. 12 On May 4, 2007, the prosecution filed
ISSUE: a "Motion to Amend Information with Leave of
RULING: The Court of Appeals, however, did not Court". 13 The petitioner failed to file his
award any civil indemnity to ABC, and only comment to the motion within the required
People of the Phil. v. Tampus, G.R. No. 181084, awarded moral and exemplary damages. We period; thus on June 12, 2007, the CTA First
June 16, 2009 deem it necessary and proper to award ABC civil Division granted the prosecution's motion. 15
FACTS: The present appeal stems from two indemnity of P50,000.00. In the case at bar, no The CTA ruled that the prosecution's
criminal cases: (1) Criminal Case No. qualifying or aggravating circumstance was amendment is merely a formal one as it "merely
013324-L charging Bartolome Tampus (Tampus) appreciated against Ida. Although, the minority states with additional precision something
and Ida as conspirators in the rape of AB C 4 on of the victim coupled with the fact that the already contained in the original information."
April 1, 1995 at 4:30 p.m.; and (2) Criminal Case offender is the parent of the victim could have The petitioner filed the present petition after
No. 013325-L charging Tampus of raping ABC on served to qualify the crime of rape, the presence the CTA denied his motion for reconsideration.
April 4, 1995 at 1:00 a.m. On September 22, of these concurring circumstances cannot 17 The petitioner claims in his petition that the
1995, ABC 􀀵led two Complaints. She accused justify the award of exemplary damages since prosecution's amendment is a substantial
Tampus of taking advantage of her by having the relationship of the offender, Ida, to the amendment prohibited under Section 14, Rule
carnal knowledge of her, against her will, while victim, ABC, was not alleged in the 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
she was intoxicated and sleeping on April 1, Information. 112 The minority of the rape victim It is substantial in nature because its additional
1995 at 4:30 p.m. She declared in her and her relationship with the offender must allegations alter the prosecution's theory of the
Complaint that this was done in conspiracy with both be alleged in the information and proved case so as to cause surprise to him and affect
accused Ida who gave permission to Tampus to during the trial in order to be appreciated as an the form of his defense. 18 Thus, he was not
rape her. And again, she stated that on April 3, aggravating/qualifying circumstance. 113 While
 9

properly informed of the nature and cause of

the accusation against him.

ISSUE: Whether the prosecution's amendments

made after the petitioner's arraignment are
substantial in nature and must perforce be
denied?

RULING: In short, amendments that do not

charge another offense different from that
charged in the original one; 27 or 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 are
considered merely as formal amendments.
TcCEDS
In the present case, the amendments sought by
the prosecution pertains to (i) the alleged
change in the date in the commission of the
crime from 2001 to
2002; (ii) the addition of the phrase "doing
business under the name and style of
Mendez Medical Group"; (iii) the change and/or
addition of the branches of petitioner's
operation; and (iv) the addition of the phrase
"for income earned".
We cannot see how these amendments would
adversely affect any substantial right of the
petitioner as accused. Since the petitioner
operates as a sole proprietor from taxable years
2001 to 2003, the petitioner should have filed a
consolidated return in his principal place of
business, regardless of the number and location
of his other branches. Consequently, we cannot
but agree with the CTA that the change and/or
addition of the branches of the petitioner's
operation in the information does not
constitute substantial amendment because it
does not change the prosecution's theory that
the petitioner failed to file his income tax
return. Here, the prosecution's theory of the
case, i.e., that petitioner failed to file his income
tax return for the taxable year 2001 did not
change. The prosecution's cause for filing an
information remained the same as the cause in
the original and in the amended information.
For emphasis, the prosecution's evidence
during the preliminary investigation of the case
shows that petitioner did not file his income tax
return in his place of legal residence 37 or
principal place of business in Quezon City or
with the Commissioner. In short, the
amendment sought did not alter the crime
charged.