G.R. No. 152662 June 13, 2012PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MA. THERESA PANGILINANThe Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed this petition for certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules ofCourt, on behalf of the Republic of the hilippines, pra!in" for the nullification and settin" aside of the#ecision$ of the Court of %ppeals (C%) in C%&G.R. S 'o. (()*(, entitled +,a. Theresa an"ilinan vs.eople of the hilippines and rivate Co-plainant .ir"inia C. ,alolos.+The fallo of the assailed #ecision reads/012R23OR2,theinstantpetitionisGR%'T2#.%ccordin"l!,the assailed #ecisionof theRe"ionalTrial Court of 4ue5onCit!,6ranch$17, isR2.2RS2#andS2T %S8#2andCri-inal Cases'os.7)15$ and 7)15* a"ainst petitioner ,a. Theresa an"ilinan are hereb! ordered #8S,8SS2#.*Culled fro- the record are the follo9in" undisputed facts/On 1( Septe-ber 1)):, .ir"inia C. ,alolos (private co-plainant) filed an affidavit&co-plaint for estafaand violation of 6atas a-bansa (6) 6l". $$ a"ainst ,a. Theresa an"ilinan (respondent) 9ith theOffice oftheCit! rosecutor of 4ue5on Cit!. The co-plaint alle"es that respondent issued nine ())chec;s9ithana""re"atea-ount of 'ine,illionSiud"e of RTC, 6ranch $17, 4ue5on Cit! reversed the 5October $=== Order of the ,eTC. The pertinent portion of the decision reads/urisprudence supersedin" theaforesaid rulin".etitioner contends that in a catena of cases,1* the Supre-e Court ruled that the filin" of a co-plaint9ith the 3iscalEs Office for preli-inar! investi"ation suspends the runnin" of the prescriptive period. 8ttherefore concluded that the filin" of the infor-ations 9ith the ,eTC of 4ue5on Cit! on * 3ebruar! $===9as still 9ithin the allo9able period of four !ears 9ithin 9hich to file the cri-inal cases for violation of6 6l". $$ in accordance 9ith %ct 'o. **$(, as a-ended.8n her co--ent&opposition dated $( ?ul! $==$, respondent avers that the petition of the OSG should bedis-issedoutri"ht forits failure toco-pl!9iththe -andator!re@uire-entsonthesub-issionofacertified true cop! of the decision of the C% and the re@uired proof of service. Such procedural lapsesare alle"edl! fatal to the cause of the petitioner.Respondent reiterates the rulin" of the C% that the filin" of the co-plaint before the Cit! rosecutorEsOffice did not interrupt the runnin" of the prescriptive period considerin" that the offense char"ed is aviolation of a special la9.Respondent contends that the ar"u-ents advanced b! petitioner are anchored on erroneous pre-ises.Sheclai-sthat thecasesrelieduponb!petitionerinvolvedfeloniespunishableundertheRevisedenal Code and are therefore covered b! %rticle )1 of the Revised enal Code (RC)14 and Section 1,Rule 11= of the Revised Rules on Cri-inal rocedure.15 Respondent pointed out that the cri-e i-puteda"ainst her is for violation of 6 6l". $$, 9hich is indisputabl! a special la9 and as such, is "overned b!%ct 'o. **$(, asa-ended. Shesub-itsthat adistinctionshouldthusbe-adebet9eenoffensescovered b! -unicipal ordinances or special la9s, as in this case, and offenses covered b! the RC.3The ;e! issue raised in this petition is 9hether the filin" of the affidavit&co-plaint for estafa and violationof 6 6l". $$ a"ainst respondent 9ith the Office of the Cit! rosecutor of 4ue5on Cit! on 1( Septe-ber1)): interrupted the period of prescription of such offense.0e find -erit in this petition.8nitiall!,9eseethat therespondentEs clai- thattheOSGfailedto attach tothepetitionaduplicateori"inal or certified true cop! of the 1$ ,arch $==$ decision of the C% and the re@uired proof of serviceis refuted b! the record. % perusal of the record reveals that attached to the ori"inal cop! of the petitionis a certified true cop! of the C% decision. 8t 9as also observed that anneudicialproceedin"s for its investi"ation and punish-ent.Theprescriptionshall beinterrupted9henproceedin"sareinstituteda"ainst the"uilt!person, andshall be"in to run a"ain if the proceedin"s are dis-issed for reasons not constitutin" >eopard!.Since 6 6l". $$ is a special la9 that i-poses a penalt! of i-prison-ent of not less than thirt! (*=)da!s but not -ore than one !ear or b! a fine for its violation, it therefor prescribes in four (4) !ears inaccordance 9ith the aforecited la9. The runnin" of the prescriptive period, ho9ever, should be tolledupon the institution of proceedin"s a"ainst the "uilt! person.8n the old but oft&cited case of eople v. Olarte,1( this Court ruled that the filin" of the co-plaint in the,unicipal Court even if it be -erel! for purposes of preli-inar! eudicial @uestion+. The -atter 9as raised before theSecretar! of ?ustice after the Cit! rosecutor approved the petition to suspend proceedin"s. 8t 9as onl!after the Secretar! of ?ustice so ordered that the infor-ations for the violation of 6 6l". $$ 9ere filed9ith the ,eTC of 4ue5on Cit!.Clearl!, it 9as respondentEs o9n -otion for the suspension of the cri-inal proceedin"s, 9hich -otionshepredicatedonhercivil caseforaccountin", that causedthefilin"incourt of the1)):initiatedproceedin"s onl! in $===.%s laiddo9n inOlarte,$5 itis un>usttodeprivethein>ured part! of the ri"ht to obtain vindicationonaccountof dela!s that are not underhis control. The onl! thin" the offended -ust do to initiate theprosecution of the offender is to file the re@uisite co-plaint.8' G8G1T O3 %GG T12 3OR2GO8'G, the instant petition is GR%'T2#. The 1$ ,arch $==$ #ecision ofthe Court of %ppeals is hereb! R2.2RS2# and S2T %S8#2. The #epart-ent of ?ustice is OR#2R2#to re&file the infor-ations for violation of 6 6l". $$ a"ainst the respondent.SO ORDERED.5G.R. No. 18433 Au!u"# , 200$HEIRS OF FEDERI%O %. DELGADO &n' ANNALISA PESI%O vs. L(ISITO ). GON*ALE* &n' ANTONIO T. +(ENAFLORT,e %&"e6efore the Court is a petition for revie9 on certiorari1 assailin" the %-ended #ecision$ dated $) %u"ust$==7 of the Court of %ppealsE 3or-er Special Seventh #ivision, 9hich reversed the Ori"inal#ecision* dated 17 ,arch $==7 of the Court of %ppealsE Seventh #ivision, in C%&G.R. S 'o. 1=11)(.T,e An#e-e'en# F&-#"O11 ,arch $==:, the police found the dead bod! of 3ederico C. #el"ado (#el"ado) at his residence in,a!flo9er 6uildin", $515 Geon Guinto corner 2strada Streets, ,alate, ,anila. The police 9as alertedb! %nnalisa #. esico (esico), 9ho alle"edl! 9as present at the ti-e of the co--ission of the cri-eand 9as li;e9ise in>ured in the incident.4On 1 ?une $==:, on behalf of esico and the heirs of #el"ado (petitioners),5 the ,anila olice #istrict(,#), represented b! %le>andro 6. Han@uilin" ?r., Chief ofthe1o-icide Section, fileda co-plaint&affidavit( 9iththeOfficeof theCit!rosecutorof ,anila. The,#char"edrespondentsGuisito4.Gon5ale5 (Gon5ale5) and %ntonio T. 6uenaflor (6uenaflor) 9ith the -urder of #el"ado and frustrated-urder of esico. Gon5ale5 is the stepbrother of the deceased and 6uenaflor 9as a for-er driver for 15!ears of Citadel Corporation, o9ned b! the #el"ado fa-il!.6To"ether 9ith the co-plaint&affidavit, the police presented the follo9in" docu-ents/1. S9orn State-ent (+Sinu-paan" Sala!sa!+) of esico dated 11 ,arch $==:F:$. Supple-ental S9orn State-ent (+Iara"da"an" Sinu-paan" Sala!sa!+) of esico dated 15,arch $==:F7 and*. Cri-e and ro"ress Reports of Senior olice Officer $ (SO$) .ir"o 6an .illareal dated $*,arch $==:.)%t petitionersEre@uest, thecase9astransferredtothe#epart-ent of ?ustice(#O?)forpreli-inar!investi"ation.1= On $= ?une $==:, the ,# filed a Supple-ental Co-plaint&%ffidavit11 and attached thefollo9in" additional docu-ents/1. Scene of the Cri-e Operation (SOCO) Report dated 11 ,arch $==:F1$$. ,edical Certificate of esico fro- the Ospital n" ,a!nila dated : ?une $==:F1**. Carto"raphic S;etch of one of the suspects dated 1* ,arch $==:, dra9n b! an artist s;etcherof the ,#, as described b! esicoF144. hoto"raphs of cri-inals and #el"adoEs fa-il! -e-bers, relatives, friends and e-plo!ees,sho9n to esico, 9here she reco"ni5ed Gon5ale5 and 6uenaflor as the ones 9ho -auled herand -urdered #el"adoF155. %ffidavit of SO$ .ir"o 6an .illareal dated 15 ?une $==: attestin" to the identification -adeb! esico after vie9in" said photo"raphsF1((. %ffidavit of Retired olice Superintendent Geonito ,anipol Cantollas, the forensic docu-enteur! caused b!the blunt ob>ect that 9as used to -aul her, 9ith s9ollen e!es, tied in the ar-s and le"s, does not totall!forestall thepossibilit!that shecouldhaveseenandidentifiedtheassailantsF (*) esicoidentified8petitionersastheauthorsof theco-plainedactsF and(4) 'oevidencetosho9that esicoandpetitioners;no9eachother astoentertainan!possibilit!that her identification-a!havebeenpro-pted b! ill&-otive. On the other, are petitionersE defense of alibi and denial 9hich the! assert 9erenot considered b! public respondent.8n order to overthro9 the >urisprudential in>unction of "ivin" superior re"ard to positive identification overthe defenses of alibi and denial, these defenses should be clearl! established and -ust not leave an!roo- for doubt as to its plausibilit! and verit!. 8t (alibi) cannot prevail over the positive testi-onies of theprosecution 9itnesses 9ho have no -otive to testif! falsel! a"ainst the accused.The burden of evidence, thus, shifts on the respondents to sho9 that their defenses of alibi and denialarestron"enou"htodefeat probablecause, 9hich9asen"enderedb!theprosecutionEsalle"ede!e9itnessE positive identification of the- as the assailants to the cri-e under investi"ation. ,oreover,for alibi to prosper, there -ust be proof that it 9as ph!sicall! i-possible for the accused to be at thesceneof thecri-eat theti-eit 9asco--itted. %t this>uncture, 0enotetheundisputedfact,concernin" the accessibilit! of the distance bet9een the cri-e scene and the hospital 9here petitionerGon5aleA5B alle"ed to have been detailedKad-itted. The sa-e is true 9ith petitioner 6uenaflor 9ho 9asonl! in the vicinit! of Roandro Han@uilin", ?r., Chief of the 1o-icide Section of the ,# filed the Co-plaint&%ffidavit 9ith the Office of the Cit! rosecutor of ,anila.(5 The Co-plaint&%ffidavit 9as supported b!esicoEs s9orn state-ent, affidavit of consent fro- the heirs of #el"ado, cri-e report, pro"ress report,SOCO report, and carto"raphic s;etch.((reli-inar! investi"ation, althou"h an eurisdictionof theRe"ional Trial Court isbrou"ht totrial unlessapreli-inar! investi"ation is conducted. 0e eud"-ent of thecourts, but thisisonl!soincases9herethepart!in>uredhastoprotect hispecuniar!interest inconnection9iththecivil liabilit!of theaccused. etitioner didnot institutethecaseat bar for thepurpose of protectin" his pecuniar! interest as supposed offended part! of the cri-e char"ed in the15infor-ation that 9as dis-issed, but to cause the restoration of the case and to have it tried as if nothin"had happened. This, certainl!, falls 9ithin the province of the representative of the eople 9ho in thiscase has not appealed nor >oined the private prosecutor in brin"in" this case before Js.6ased on the above discussion, the ter- cri-inal proceedin" includes preli-inar! investi"ation. 8n an!event, this issue is acade-ic because on *= October $==:, the 8nfor-ations a"ainst respondents 9erefiled 9ith the trial court. etitioners ad-it that the +eople of the hilippines+ beco-es a part! in interestin a cri-inal proceedin" 9hen an infor-ation is filed 9ith the trial court.0e have ruled in a nu-ber of cases() that onl! the Solicitor General -a! brin" or defend actions inbehalf of theRepublicof thehilippines, or represent theeopleor Stateincri-inal proceedin"sbefore the Supre-e Court and the Court of %ppeals. 1o9ever, >urisprudence la!s do9n t9o eudice to the offendedpart!. The trial court 9as li;e9ise found "uilt! for serious nonfeasance for passivel! 9atchin" the publicprosecutor bun"le the case not9ithstandin" its ;no9led"e that the evidence for the prosecution 9asinsufficient to convict and it could have, motu proprio, called for additional 9itnesses. Thus, petitioner,9ho 9as the -other of the private offended part! in the cri-inal cases for rape 9ith ho-icide, had beendeprived of her da! in court. She could do nothin" durin" the proceedin"s, havin" entrusted the conductof the case in the hands of the public prosecutor. %ll she could do 9as helplessl! 9atch as the publicprosecutor, 9ho 9as under le"al obli"ation to pursue the action on the fa-il!Es behalf, rene"e on thatobli"ation and refuse to perfor- his s9orn dut!. This Court eud"ea"ainst theprosecution 1e"u.#/n!/n'en/&. o0 'ue21o-e"". %sidefro-thedenial of dueprocess, theSolicitor General also-anifestedtoadopt thepetition as if filed b! his office. Thus, 9e ruled in Nano/The petition bein" defective in for-, the Court could have su--aril! dis-issed the case for havin"beenfiled-erel!b!privatecounsel for theoffendedparties, thou"h9iththeconfor-it!of theprovincial prosecutor, and not b! the Solicitor General. 0hile it is the public prosecutor 9ho represents16the eople in cri-inal cases before the trial courts, it is onl! the Solicitor General that is authori5ed tobrin" or defend actions in behalf of the eople or Republic of the hilippines once the case is brou"htup before this Court or the Court of %ppeals (eople v. Calo, 17( SCR% ($= A1))=BF citin" Republic v.artisala, 117 SCR% *$= A1)7$BF Cit! 3iscal of Tacloban v. 2spina, 1(( SCR% (14 A1)77B). #efective asit is, the Court, nevertheless, too; co"ni5ance of the petition in vie9 of the "ravit! of the error alle"edl!co--itted b! the respondent >ud"e a"ainst the prosecution N denial of due process N as 9ell as the-anifestation and -otion filed b! the Office of the Solicitor General pra!in" that the instant petition betreated as if filed b! the said office. 8n vie9 thereof, 0e no9 consider the eople as the sole petitionerinthecasedul!representedb!theSolicitorGeneral. a!-ent of le"al feesisthereforenolon"ernecessar! in accordance 9ith Sec. 1(, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. (2-phasis supplied)8n the second eurisdictional "rounds, the rules state that the petition -a! be filed b! the person a""rieved. 8nsuchcase, thea""rievedpartiesaretheStateandtheprivateoffendedpart!or co-plainant. Theco-plainant hasaninterest inthecivil aspect of thecasesohe-a!filesuchspecial civil action@uestionin"thedecisionor actionof therespondent court on>urisdictional "rounds. 8nsodoin",co-plainant should not brin" the action in the na-e of the eople of the hilippines. The action -a! beprosecuted in (the) na-e of said co-plainant.These t9o eud"-ent for the Secretar! of ?ustice.7=e. The Court of %ppeals under-ined the >urisdiction of the RTC over the cri-inal proceedin"s b!virtue of the filin" of the 8nfor-ation therein.71etitioners do not clai- that the failure of the Solicitor General to appeal the Court of %ppealsE decisionbefore this Court resulted in the denial of due process to the State and the petitioners. etitioners donot assert that the prosecution and the Solicitor General 9ere re-iss in their dut! to protect the interestof the State and the offended part!. 'either do petitioners clai- that the Solicitor General is "uilt! ofblatant error or abuse of discretion in not appealin" the Court of %ppealsE decision.The Solicitor General did not -anifest to adopt petitionersE appeal before this Court. On the contrar!,the Solicitor General -anifested on * #ece-ber $==7 its refusal to participate in the oral ar"u-ents ofthis case held on 1= #ece-ber $==7. This Court cannot ta;e co"ni5ance of the petition because thereis clearl! no denial of due process to the State and the petitioners. 8n short, the first eect hi-to punish-ent under the ,arria"eGa9. 10 Obviousl!, petitioner had no intention of revealin" his duplicit! to his first spouse and "a-bledinstead on the probabilit! that she or an! third part! 9ould ever "o to the local civil re"istrar to in@uire.8n the -eanti-e, throu"h the si-ple eure the reputation of one 6868%'O ,. .8R% and toeudicial proceedin"s. 8n fact, if ac@uitted, theofficial concerned shall be entitled to reinstate-ent and to the salaries and benefits 9hich he failed toreceive durin" suspension. 8n vie9 of this latter provision, the accused elective public officer does notstand to bepre>udiced b!thei--ediate enforce-entofthesuspension order intheeventthattheinfor-ation is subse@uentl! declared null and void on appeal and the case dis-issed as a"ainst hi-.Ta;in" into consideration the public polic! involved in preventivel! suspendin" a public officer char"edunder a valid infor-ation, the protection of public interest 9ill definitel! have to prevail over the privateinterest of the accused. $)To further e-phasi5e the -inisterial dut! of the court under Section 1* of Republic %ct 'o. *=1), it issaid that the court tr!in" a case has neither discretion nor dut! to deter-ine 9hether or not a preventivesuspension is re@uired to prevent the accused fro- usin" his office to inti-idate 9itnesses or frustratehisprosecutionor continueco--ittin"-alfeasanceinoffice. Thepresu-ptionisthat unlesstheaccused is suspended, he -a! frustrate his prosecution or co--it further acts of -alfeasance or doboth, in the sa-e 9a! that upon a findin" that there is probable cause to believe that a cri-e has beenco--itted and that the accused is probabl! "uilt! thereof, the la9 re@uires the >ud"e to issue a 9arrantfor the arrest of the accused. The la9 does not re@uire the court to deter-ine 9hether the accused isli;el! to escape or evade the >urisdiction of the court. *=%ppl!in" no9 the procedure outlined in !uciano, the records of the instant case do not sho9 that theproceedin"s leadin" to the filin" of the infor-ations a"ainst petitioner 9ere tainted 9ith an! irre"ularit!soastoinvalidate the sa-e.Gi;e9ise,the infor-ationssho9thatthe alle"ations contained therein-eet the essential ele-ents of the offense as defined b! the substantive la9. The record is also bereftof undisputed facts to 9arrant the @uashalof the infor-ations under an! of the "rounds provided inSection $, Rule 11: of the Rules of Court. *1 3inall!, a cursor! readin" of the order dated 3ebruar! ),1))4 issued b! respondent court 9ill sho9 that petitioner 9as "iven the opportunit! to be heard on his-otion to @uash. .eritabl!, the Sandi"anba!an did not co--it a "rave abuse of discretion in den!in"the -otion to @uash and orderin" the preventive suspension of herein petitioner.$. %dditionall!, petitioner avers that the infor-ations filed a"ainst hi- on 9hich the order of suspension9as based, are null and void in vie9 of the non&inclusion of his co&principals 9hich thus constitutes aviolationof petitionerQsri"ht todueprocessande@ual protectionof thela9and, therefore, oustedrespondent court of its >urisdiction over the case. etitioner alle"es that in Cri-inal Case 'o. 17=$:, theboard of directors of 2R%Technolo"! Corporation should have been included as principals b!indispensable cooperation because 9ithout the- he could not possibl! have co--itted the offense.39%lso, he clai-s that in Cri-inal Case 'o. 17=$7, the -e-bers of the San""unian" anlala9i"an 9hoissued the resolutions authori5in" the purchase and repair of the -otor launch should li;e9ise havebeenincludedasprincipalsb!induce-ent orindispensablecooperation, considerin"that petitioner9as alle"edl! -erel! i-ple-entin" their resolutions. 1ence, accordin" to hi-, since the infor-ationsare null and void, the suspension order 9hich is based thereon should necessaril! also be declared nulland void. 0e find no -erit in petitionerQs ar"u-ents.%irst, the rule under Section 1, Rule 11= of the Rules of Court, as refor-ulated in Section $, Rule 11= ofthe1)75RulesonCri-inal rocedure, isthat all cri-inal actions-ust beco--encedeither b!co-plaint or infor-ation in the na-e of the eople of the hilippines +a"ainst all persons 9ho appear tobe responsible for the offense involved.+ The la9 -a;es it a le"al dut! for prosecutin" officers to file thechar"es a"ainst 9ho-soever the evidence -a! sho9 to be responsible for an offense. This does not-ean, ho9ever, that the! shall have no discretion at allF their discretion lies in deter-inin" 9hether theevidence sub-itted >ustif! a reasonable belief that a person has co--itted an offense. 0hat the rulede-ands isthat all persons 9hoappear responsibleshall bechar"edintheinfor-ation, 9hichconversel! i-plies that those a"ainst 9ho- no sufficient evidence of "uilt eorit! -e-bers of the rovincial 6oard and the defendant public local elective officer are onopposite sides of the political fence. o9er -a! be abused. Conversel!, if both are of the sa-epolitical persuasion, the suspendin" authorit! 9ill displa! reluctance in eud"-ent of the Re"ional Trial Court of Gu-aca, 4ue5on, 6ranch($ in Cri-inal Case 'o. $*=:&G, findin" petitioner 3idelino Garcia 9ith his co&accused Geopoldo Garciaand 0ilfredo Garcia "uilt! of ho-icide.8n an8nfor-ation dated #ece-ber 1*, 1)7*,3idelino Garcia,Geopoldo Garcia,and 0ilfredo Garcia9ere char"ed 9ith -urder alle"edl! co--itted as follo9s/That onor about the*=thda!of ?ul!1)7*, at 6aran"a!88, inoblacion, ,unicipalit!of,ulana!, rovince of 4ue5on, hilippines, and 9ithin the >urisdiction of this 1onorable Court,the said accused, ar-ed 9ith a ;nife, a piece of 9ood and a bro;en bottle 9ith intent to ;ill, andta;in"advanta"eof their superior stren"thand9ithtreacher!, didthenandthere9illfull!,unla9full! and feloniousl! attac;, hit 9ith said piece of 9ood and stab 9ith the said ;nife andbro;enbottleoneaulinoRodolfo!Ol"ena, thereb!inflictin"uponthelatter thefollo9in"in>uries, to 9it/+0ound lacerated -id parietal area 4c- 9ith linear fracture of underl!in" s;ullF0ound lacerated * c- -id frontal areaF440ound lacerated T shape ri"ht frontal T c-F%brasion ri"ht nasolrid"eFContusion 9ith laceration noseF,ultiple contusion chest ri"ht U* (c- deep non&penetratin"F0ound lacerated left te-poral 1 c-F0ound stab left ar- -edial aspect 1T c-.+9hich directl! caused his death.Contrar! to la9.1etitioner and0ilfredoGarciaarebrothers, 9hiletheir co&accusedinCri-inal Case'o. $*=:&G,Geopoldo, is their first&de"ree cousin.$2arlier, aseparatechar"esheet doc;etedasCri-inal Case'o. $1(5&Ghadbeenfileda"ainstpetitioner 3idelino Garcia, char"in" hi- 9ith direct assault upon an a"ent of a person in authorit!. On,arch 7, 1)74, he 9as arrai"ned in said case and entered a plea of not "uilt!.8n 1)75, the accused in Cri-inal Case 'o. $*=:&G 9ere separatel! arrai"ned. %ll pleaded not "uilt! tothechar"e.%sCri-inal Cases'os. $1(5&Gand$*=:&Garosefro-thesa-eincident, a>oint trialensued.The facts, as established b! the prosecution before the trial court and affir-ed b! the appellate court,are as follo9s/%t around $/*= .,., ?ul! *=, 1)7*, KCpl. 3rancisco Rollera 9as on his 9a! to -ail a letter. 1e 9as9aitin" at the crossin" near the police outpost in the to9n proper of ,ulana!, 4ue5on, 9hen he sa9petitioner, 0ilfredo and Geopoldo, "an"in" up on aulino Rodolfo ! Ol"ena.* 0hile Geopoldo held thevicti-, petitioner hit hi- 9ith an e-pt! bottle. 0ilfredo then stabbed the victi- once 9ith a stainlesssteelfan ;nife (alisong). The ;nife "ot stuc; in aulinoEs bod!. aulino succeeded in 9restlin" freefro- GeopoldoEs "rasp and pullin" out the ;nife fro- his bod!. 1e used the ;nife to stab petitioner in thesto-ach.Rollera tried to stop the fi"ht. 1e pulled out his service pistol and fired three successive 9arnin" shots,callin" upon the co-batants to stop their fi"ht, but to no avail. Still holdin" 0ilfredoEs ;nife, the 9oundedaulino beat a hast! retreat to the store of one ,anuel Roberto. 0ilfredo pursued hi-. 8nside the store,aulino stabbed 0ilfredo t9ice in the nec; and sto-ach. Jnable to stop the affra!, Rollera then as;edthe other people around to su--on other police-en.aulino 9ent bac; to the street. Seein" that 0ilfredo 9as about to hit hi- 9ith a piece of 9ood, Rollerastepped in and 9restled the stic; a9a! fro- 0ilfredo. The latter, ho9ever, -ana"ed to "et hold of ane-pt! bottle. 6efore Rollera could react, petitioner approached hi-, holdin" a bro;en bottle. Rollera-oved bac; and 3idelino chased hi- around a par;ed vehicle.%t this point, t9o other police-en arrived and pacified the anta"onists. % third respondin" police-an"rabbed and cau"ht petitioner chasin" Rollera around the par;ed vehicle.45aulino Rodolfo subse@uentl! died. The -edico&le"al certificate issued b! #r. ,ario %. Cuento of the6ondoceninsula#istrict 1ospital at Catanauan, 4ue5on, revealedthat thecauseof death9as+cerebral he-orrha"e.+4redictabl!, the defense "ave a sli"htl! different version of the incident. 0ilfredo testified that bet9een$/== and */== .,. of ?ul! *=, 1)7*, he 9as on his 9a! to the tric!cle par;in" space in 'anadie"o St.,,ulana!, 4ue5on, 9ith his t9o co&accused follo9in" a short distance behind hi-. 1e -et KCpl. Rolleraand aulino, both of 9ho- appeared to be intoect 9hen 2uries causin" hisdeath.8n "eneral, factual findin"s of the trial court, 9hen affir-ed b! the Court of %ppeals, are bindin" andconclusive upon this Court.$= The rule, ho9ever, does not appl! in the present case. 3or one, the >ud"e9hopennedthetrial courtEs>ud"-ent 9asnot thesa-eone9hoheardtheprosecution9itnessestestif!.$1 3or another, our revie9 of the records indicates that both the trial court and the appellate courthaveoverloo;edso-e-aterial factsandcircu-stancesof 9ei"ht 9hichcould-ateriall!affect theresult of this case.3irst, the Court of %ppeals heavil! relied on the testi-on! of prosecution e!e9itness, KCpl. 3ranciscoRollera. 1o9ever, 9e find his testi-on! riddled 9ith inconsistencies, particularl! the e&nP1o"e-u#o1&n'OI%7D/1e-#o1,EPI+O00/-eo0 #,eO>8u'">&n,,e1e85 &--u"e" 0o1>e1 PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, Jo"e2, E?e1-/#o E"#1&'& &.@.&.:ASIONG SALONGA: AND &.@.& :JOSE 6ELARDE:, #o!e#,e1 A/#, Jo"e BJ/n!!o53 E"#1&'&, %,&1./eBA#on!3 An!, E'A&1'Se1&2/o, 9o.&n'&T. R/-&0o1#e, A.>&A.0&1o, JOHNDOE&.@.&. E.eu#e1/oT&n OR E.eu#e1/oR&>o"T&no1M1.(5,J&neDoe&.@.&. De./&R&?&", &n'Jo,n DOES CJ&neDoe", o0 #,e -1/>e o0 P.un'e1, 'e0/ne' &n' 2en&./De' un'e1 R.A. No. 080, &" &>en'e' 85 Se-.12 o0 R.A. No. 65$, -o>>/##e' &" 0o..oA"ET, 'u1/n!#,e2e1/o'01o>June, 1$$8#oJ&nu&15, 2001, /n#,eP,/./22/ne", &n'A/#,/n#,e?u1/"'/-#/on o0 #,/" Hono1&8.e %ou1#, &--u"e' Jo"e2, E?e1-/#o E"#1&'&, THEN AP(+LI%OFFI%ER, +EINGTHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE REP(+LI% OF THE PHILIPPINES, 85,/>"e.0 ANDFOR /n %ONNI6AN%EF%ONSPIRA%9A/#,,/"-o7&--u"e', 4HOAREMEM+ERSOFHIS FAMIL9, RELATI6ES +9 AFFINIT9 OR %ONSANG(INIT9, +(SINESS ASSO%IATES,S(+ORDINATES ANDFOR OTHER PERSONS, +9 TAGING (ND(E AD6ANTAGE OF HIS OFFI%IALPOSITION, A(THORIT9, RELATIONSHIP, %ONNE%TION, ORINFL(EN%E, '/'#,en&n'#,e1eA/.0u..5, un.&A0u..5 &n' -1/>/n&..5 &>&"", &--u>u.e &n' &-Hu/1e +9 HIMSELF, DIRE%TL9 ORINDIRE%TL9, /..7!o##enAe&.#,/n#,e&!!1e!e&>oun# ORTOTAL6AL(E o0FO(R+ILLIONNINET9 SE6EN MILLION EIGHT H(NDRED FO(R THO(SAND ONE H(NDRED SE6ENT9 THREEPESOS ANDSE6ENTEEN%ENTA6OS IP4,0$,804,13.1J, >o1eo1.e"", THERE+9(NJ(STL9ENRI%HINGHIMSELFORTHEMSEL6ESATTHEEKPENSEANDTOTHEDAMAGEOFTHEFILIPINO PEOPLE AND THE REP(+LI% OF THE PHILIPPINES, #,1ou!, AN9 ORA -o>8/n/on OR A "e1/e" o0 o=e1#OR -1/>/n&. &-#", OR SIMILAR S%HEMES OR MEANS,'e"-1/8e' &" 0o..oA"E;&< 85 1e-e/=/n! OR -o..e-#/n!, '/1e-#.5 o1 /n'/1e-#.5, on SE6ERAL INSTAN%ES, MONE9 INTHE AGGREGATE AMO(NT OF FI6E H(NDRED FORT97FI6E MILLION PESOS;P545,000,000.00& A.0&1o, JOHNDOE&.@.&. E.eu#e1/o T&n OR E.eu#e1/o R&>o" T&n o1 M1. (5, &n' J&ne Doe &.@.&. De./&R&?&", AND OTHER JOHN DOES AND JANE DOESL54;-< 85 '/1e-#/n!, o1'e1/n! &n' -o>2e../n!, FOR HIS PERSONAL GAIN AND +ENEFIT, #,eGo=e1n>en# Se1=/-eIn"u1&n-eS5"#e>;GSIS< TOP(R%HASE 351,88,000SHARES OFSTO%G MORE OR LESS, &n' #,e So-/&. Se-u1/#5 S5"#e> ;SSS>/##e' #,e 21e'/-e &-# /n "e1/e". To insist that the %-ended 8nfor-ation55char"edthepetitioner 9iththeco--issionof onl!oneact or offensedespitethephrase+severalinstances+ is to indul"e in a t9isted, na!, +pret5el+ interpretation.8t -atters little that sub&para"raph (a) did not utili5e the e>/##e' 85 & "e1/e" o0 #,e "&>e 21e'/-e &-# un'e1 Se-#/on 1 ;'< ;2< o0#,e .&A.Si-ilarl!-isleadin"ispetitionerEsstandthat intheO-buds-anResolutionof%pril 4, $==1findin"probable cause to char"e hi- 9ith plunder to"ether 9ith the other accused, he 9as alle"ed to havereceived onl! the su- of $ -illion, 9hich a-ount is 9a! belo9 the -ini-u- of 5= -illion re@uiredunder R.%. 'o. :=7=. Thesub-issionis not borneout b! the%pril 4, $==1Resolutionof theO-buds-an, reco--endin"thefilin"of char"esa"ainst petitioner andhisco&accused, 9hichinpertinent part reads/+< < < < < ueten" operations in 6ulacan. This is "leanedfro-thestate-entsof Gov. Sin"sonhi-self andthefact that ,a!or 2strada, on .e&"# #Aoo--&"/on", turned over to a certain 2--a Gi-, an e-issar! of the respondent "overnor, >ueten" haultotallin" $ -illion, i.e., 1 -illion in ?anuar!, $=== and another 1 -illion in 3ebruar!, $===. %n alle"ed+listahan+ of >ueten" recipients listed hi- as one +?in"le 6ell,+ as affir-ed b! Sin"son ATS' 7 S #ec.$=== S8CtK1: Oct. $=== S6RCKSC8B.+141ence, contrar!totherepresentationsof thepetitioner,theO-buds-an-adethefindin"that $-illion 9as delivered to petitioner as +>ueten" haul+ on : .e&"# #Ao o--&"/on".: The $ -illion is,therefore, no# #,e en#/1e "u> 9ith 9hich petitioner is specificall! char"ed. This is further confir-ed b!the conclusion of the O-buds-an that/+< < < < < ercito2strada, inconfabulation9ith?oseD?in""o!E 2strada, %tt!. 2d9ardSerapio and Holanda Ricaforte, de-anded and received, as bribe -one!, the a""re"ate su- of 545-illion fro- >ueten" collections of the operators thereof, channeled thru Gov. Guis DChavitE Sin"son, inee &n' n&>e /n2&1#/-u.&1 #,e -o7-on"2/1o1" o0 0o1>e1 P1e"/'en# E"#1&'& /n e&-, 21e'/-e &-#. T,e 21e'/-e&-#" &..e!e' /n #,e "&/' 0ou1 "u872&1&!1&2," -o11e"2on' #o #,e /#e>" enu>e1e' /n Se-#/on 1;'< o0 R.A. No. 080. Sub&para"raph (a) alle"ed the predicate act of receivin", on several instances,-one! fro-ille"al "a-blin", inconsiderationof tolerationor protectionof ille"al "a-blin", ande&n -&nno# 8e 0&u.#e' 0o1 /n-.u'/n! #,e21e'/-e &-#" &..e!e' /n "u872&1&!1&2," ;&< #o ;'< o0 #,e A>en'e' In0o1>/on /n one, &n' no# /n0ou1, "e2&1e In0o1>/on". % stud! of the histor! of R.%. 'o. :=7= 9ill sho9 that the la9 9as craftedto avoid the -ischief and foll! of filin" -ultiple infor-ations. The %nti&lunder Ga9 9as enacted in theafter-ath of the M&1-o" 1e!/>e 9here char"es of ill&"otten 9ealth 9ere filed a"ainst for-er resident,arcos and his alle"ed cronies.Go=e1n>en# 21o"e-u#o1" 0oun' no &221o21/e .&A #o 'e&. A/#, #,e>u.#/#u'e&n'>&!n/#u'eo0#,e&-#"&..e!e'.5-o>>/##e'85#,e0o1>e1P1e"/'en##o&-Hu/1e/..e!&. Ae&.#,.$= The! also found that under the then ee &n'1eHu/1e'&"e2&1e-&"e&n'#,eo=e17&.. -on"2/1&-5,&'#o8e81o@en'oAn/n#o"e=e1&.-1/>/n&. &n'!1&0# -,&1!e". Thepreparationof -ultiple8nfor-ations9as ale"al ni"ht-arebuteventuall!,thirt!&nine(*)) separateandindependent cases9erefileda"ainst practicall!thesa-eaccused before the Sandi"anba!an.$1 R.%. 'o. :=7= or the %nti&lunder Ga9$$ 9as enacted precisel! toaddress this procedural proble-. This is pellucid in the 2&!e #o #,e n/on&.e-ono>5. The above&described cri-e does not !et ee o0 2.un'e1,#,e1e0o1e, '/00e1en# 2&1#/e" >&5 8e un/#e' 85 & -o>>on 2u12o"e. 8n the case at bar, the differentaccusedandtheirdifferent cri-inal actshaveaco--onalit!Mtohelpthefor-erresident a-ass,accu-ulate or ac@uire ill&"otten 9ealth. Sub&para"raphs (a) to (d) in the %-ended 8nfor-ation alle"edthe different participation of each accused in the conspirac!. The !1&=&>en o0 #,e -on"2/1&-5 -,&1!e,therefore, is no# that each accused a"reed to receive protection -one! fro- ille"al "a-blin", that each-isappropriated a portion of the tobacco e, 85#,e/1/n'/=/'u&. &-#", &!1ee' #o 2&1#/-/2e, '/1e-#.5 o1 /n'/1e-#.5, /n #,e &>&""/n!, &--u>u./on &n'&-Hu/"/#/on o0 /..7!o##en Ae&.#, o0 &n'Fo1 0o1 0o1>e1 P1e"/'en# E"#1&'&.In#,e A>e1/-&n?u1/"'/-#/on, thepresenceof several accusedin-ultipleconspiraciesco--onl!involves t9o structures/ (1) the so&called +9heel+ or +circle+ conspirac!, in 9hich there is a sin"le personor "roup (the +hub+) dealin" individuall! 9ith t9o or -ore other persons or "roups (the +spo;es+)F and($) the +chain+ conspirac!, usuall! involvin" the distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in 9hichthere is successive co--unication and cooperation in -uch the sa-e 9a! as 9ith le"iti-ate businessoperations bet9een -anufacturer and 9holesaler, then 9holesaler and retailer, and then retailer andconsu-er.$*3ro- a readin" of the %-ended 8nfor-ation, the case at bar appears si-ilar to a +9heel+ conspirac!.The hub is for-er resident 2strada 9hile the spo;es are all the accused, and the ri- that encloses thespo;es is the co--on "oal in the overall conspirac!, i.e., the a-assin", accu-ulation and ac@uisitionof ill&"otten 9ealth.8..So-e of our distin"uished collea"ues 9ould dis-iss the char"e a"ainst the petitioner on the "roundthat the alle"ation of conspirac! in the %-ended 8nfor-ation is too "eneral. The fear is even eurisprudence.4e ",ou.' no# -on0u"e ou1 .&A on -on"2/1&-5 A/#, -on"2/1&-5 /n A>e1/-&n -1/>/n&. .&A &n' /n-o>>on.&A. (n'e1 P,/./22/ne.&A, -on"2/1&-5",ou.'8eun'e1"#oo'on#Ao.e=e.". A"&!ene1&. 1u.e, -on"2/1&-5 /" no# & -1/>e /n ou1 ?u1/"'/-#/on. I# /" 2un/",e' &" & -1/>e on.5 A,en#,e .&A 0/Me" & 2en&.#5 0o1 /#" -o>>/""/on "u-, &" /n -on"2/1&-5 #o -o>>/# #1e&"on, 1e8e../on&n' "e'/#/on. In -on#1&"#, un'e1 A>e1/-&n -1/>/n&. .&A, #,e &!1ee>en# o1 -on"2/1&-5 /#"e.0 /" #,e!1&=&>en o0 #,e o00en"e.$4 The essence of conspirac! is the co-bination of t9o or -ore persons, b!concerted action, to acco-plish a cri-inal or unla9ful purpose, or so-e purpose not in itself cri-inal or59unla9ful, b! cri-inal or unla9ful -eans.$5 8ts ele-ents are/ a"ree-ent to acco-plish an ille"alob>ective, coupled 9ith one or -ore overt acts in furtherance of the ille"al purposeF and re@uisite intentnecessar! to co--it the underl!in" substantive offense.$(A "#u'5 o0 #,e (n/#e' S#e" %o'e ou!,# #o 8e /n"#1u-#/=e. I# 21/n-/2&..5 2un/",e" #Ao ;2< -1/>e"o0 -on"2/1&-5$: N conspirac! to co--it an! offense or to defraud the Jnited States, &n' conspirac! toi-pedeorin>ureofficer.Conspirac!toco--it offenseortodefraudtheJnitedStatesispenali5edunder 18 (.S.%. Se-. 31,$7 as follo9s/+Sec. 121. *onspiracytocommit offenseor todefraudthe3nitedStates. 8f t9oor -orepersonsconspire either to co--it an! offense a"ainst the Jnited States, or to defraud the Jnited States, or an!a"enc! thereof in an! -anner or for an! purpose, and one or -ore of such persons to an! act to effectthe ob>ect of the conspirac!, each shall be fined not -ore than V1=,=== or i-prisoned not -ore thanfive !ears, or both.8f, ho9ever, the offense, the co--ission of 9hich is the ob>ect of the conspirac!, is a -isde-eanor onl!,thepunish-ent for suchconspirac!shall not eu# o0 (.S.Fe'e1&..&A", A,e#,e1-1/>/n&. o11e!u.o15.*1Thesela9scover cri-inal offensessuchasper>ur!,9hiteslave traffic, rac;eteerin", "a-blin", arson, -urder, theft, ban; robber!, etc. and also include custo-sviolations, counterfeitin" of currenc!, cop!ri"ht violations, -ail fraud, lotteries, violations of antitrust la9sand la9s "overnin" interstate co--erce and other areas of federal re"ulation.*$ Se-#/on 31 2en&./De"#,e-on"2/1&-5#o-o>>/# &n5o0 #,e"e"u8"#&n#/=eo00en"e". T,eo00en"eo0 -on"2/1&-5/"!ene1&..5"e2&1e &n''/"#/n-# 01o>#,e "u8"#&n#/=e o00en"e,** hence, the court rulin"s thatac@uittal on the substantive count does not foreclose prosecution and conviction for relatedconspirac!.*4Theconspirac!to+defraudthe"overn-ent+ referspri-aril!tocheatin"theJnitedStatesout ofpropert! or -one!. 8t also covers interference 9ith or obstruction of its la9ful "overn-ental functions b!deceit, craft or tric;er!, or at least b! -eans that are dishonest.*5 8t co-prehends defraudin" the JnitedStates in an! -anner 9hatever, 9hether the fraud be declared cri-inal or not.*(The 8&"/- '/00e1en-e in the concept of conspirac! no#A/#,"#&n'/n!, a stud! of the %-erican case la9on ,oAconspirac! should be alle"ed 9ill reveal that it is no# ne-e""&15 0o1 #,e /n'/-#>en# #o /n-.u'e602&1#/-u.&1/#/e"o0 #/>e, 2.&-e, -/1-u>"#&n-e"o1-&u"e", /n"#/n!#,e>&nne1&n'>e&n"o0e00e-#/n!#,eo8?e-#o0#,e-on"2/1&-5. Suchspecificit!of detail falls9ithinthescopeof abill ofparticulars.*: An /n'/-#>en# 0o1 -on"2/1&-5 /" "u00/-/en# 9here it alle"es/ (1) the a"ree-entF ($) theoffense&ob>ect to9ard 9hich the a"ree-ent 9as directedF and (*) the overt acts perfor-ed infurtherance of the a"ree-ent.*7 To alle"e that the defendants conspired is, at least, to state that the!a"reed to do the -atters 9hich are set forth as the substance of their conspirac!. To alle"e a conspirac!is to alle"e an a"ree-ent.*) T,e !/"# o0 #,e -1/>e o0 -on"2/1&-5 /" un.&A0u. &!1ee>en#, &n' A,e1e-on"2/1&-5 /" -,&1!e', /# /" no# ne-e""&15 #o "e# ou# #,e -1/>/n&. o8?e-# A/#, &" !1e & -e1#&/n#5&" /" 1eHu/1e' /n -&"e" A,e1e "u-, o8?e-# /" -,&1!e' &" & "u8"#&n#/=e o00en"e.4=In"u>, #,e1e0o1e, #,e1e /" ,&1'.5 & "u8"#&n#/&. '/00e1en-e on,oAP,/./22/ne -ou1#" &n'A>e1/-&n -ou1#" 'e&. A/#, -&"e" -,&..en!/n! In0o1>/on"&..e!/n! -on"2/1&-5 on #,e !1oun'#, #,e5.&-@2&1#/-u.&1/#/e"o0 #/>e, 2.&-e, -/1-u>"#&n-e"o1-&u"e". Inou1?u1/"'/-#/on, &"&0o1e"#e', -on"2/1&-5 -&n 8e &..e!e' /n #,e In0o1>/on &" & >o'e o0 -o>>/##/n! & -1/>e o1 /#>&5 8e &..e!e' &" -on"#/#u#/=e o0 #,e -1/>e /#"e.0. 4,en -on"2/1&-5 /" &..e!e' &" & -1/>e /n /#"e.0,#,e "u00/-/en-5 o0 #,e &..e!/on" /n #,e In0o1>/on -,&1!/n! #,e o00en"e /" !o=e1ne' 85 Se-#/on6, Ru.e 110 o0 #,e Re=/"e' Ru.e" o0 %1/>/n&. P1o-e'u1e. 8t re@uires that the infor-ation for this cri-e-ust contain the follo9in" aver-ents/+Sec. 5. Sufficiency of complaint or information.& % co-plaint or infor-ation is sufficient if it states thena-eof theaccused, thedesi"nationof theoffense"ivenb!thestatuteF #,e&-#"o1o>/""/on"-o>2.&/ne' o0 &" -on"#/#u#/n! #,e o00en"eF the na-e of the offended part!F the appro/""/on" -on"#/#u#/n! #,e o00en"e, the na-e of the offendedpart!,the approud"-ent.4* 'o infor-ation for a cri-e 9ill be sufficient if itdoesnot accuratel!andclearl!alle"etheele-entsof thecri-echar"ed.44 2ver!ele-ent of theoffense -ust be stated in the infor-ation.45 0hat facts and circu-stances are necessar! to be includedtherein -ust be deter-ined b! reference to the definitions and essentials of the specified cri-es.4( There@uire-ent of alle"in" the ele-ents of a cri-e in the infor-ation is to infor- the accused of the natureof the accusation a"ainst hi- so as to enable hi- to suitabl! prepare his defense. The presu-ption isthat the accused has no independent ;no9led"e of the facts that constitute the offense.4:To 1e/#e1e, A,en -on"2/1&-5 /" -,&1!e' &" & -1/>e, #,e &-# o0 -on"2/1/n! &n' &.. #,e e.e>en#"o0 "&/'-1/>e>u"# 8e"e# 0o1#,/n#,e-o>2.&/n# o1 /n0o1>/on. 3or een#" on "u00/-/en-5 o0 &..e!/on" &1e '/00e1en# A,en -on"2/1&-5 /" no# -,&1!e' &" &-1/>e /n /#"e.0 8u# on.5 &" #,e >o'e o0 -o>>/##/n! #,e -1/>e &" /n #,e -&"e 8&1. There is .e""ne-e""/#5 of recitin" its particularities in the 8nfor-ation 8e-&u"e -on"2/1&-5 /" no# #,e !1&=&>en o0#,e o00en"e -,&1!e'.The conspirac! is si"nificant onl! because it chan"es the cri-inal liabilit! of allthe accused in the conspirac! and -a;es the- ans9erable as co&principals re"ardless of the de"ree oftheir participation in the cri-e.4) The liabilit! of the conspirators is collective and each participant 9ill bee@uall! responsible for the acts of others,5= for the act of one is the act of all.51 8n Peo2.e =.)u/#.on!,5$ 9e ruled on ho9 -on"2/1&-5 &" #,e >o'e o0 -o>>/##/n! #,e o00en"e should be alle"ed inthe 8nfor-ation, vi"/+< < en# nee' no#, o0 -ou1"e, &=e1 &.. #,e -o>2onen#" o0 -on"2/1&-5 o1 &..e!e &..#,e 'e#&/." #,e1eo0, ./@e #,e 2&1# #, e&-, o0 #,e 2&1#/e" #,e1e/n ,&=e 2e10o1>e', #,e e=/'en-e21o=/n! #,e -o>>on 'e"/!n o1 #,e 0&-#" -onne-#/n! &.. #,e &--u"e' A/#, one &no#,e1 /n #,e Ae8o0 #,e-on"2/1&-5. Ne/#,e1 /"/# ne-e""&15#o'e"-1/8e-on"2/1&-5A/#,#,e"&>e'e!1eeo02&1#/-u.&1/#51eHu/1e'/n'e"-1/8/n!&"u8"#&n#/=eo00en"e. I# /"enou!,#, #,e/n'/-#>en#-on#&/n"&"#e>en# o0 0&-#"1e./e'u2on#o8e-on"#/#u#/=eo0 #,eo00en"e/no1'/n&15&n'-on-/"e .&n!u&!e, A/#, &" >u-, -e1#&/n#5 &" #,e nu1e o0 #,e -&"e A/.. &'>/#, /n & >&nne1 #,-&nen&8.e&2e1"ono0 -o>>onun'e1"#&n'/n!#o@noAA, /"/n#en'e', &n'A/#,"u-,21e-/"/on#,#,e&--u"e'>&52.e&',/"&-Hu/##&. o1-on=/-#/on#o&"u8"eHuen#/n'/-#>en#8&"e' on #,e "&>e 0&-#". 8t is said, "enerall!, that an indict-ent -a! be held sufficient +if it follo9s the9ords of the statute and reasonabl! infor-s the accused of the character of the offense he is char"ed9ith conspirin" to co--it, or, follo9in" the lan"ua"e of the statute, contains a sufficient state-ent of anovert act to effect the ob>ect of the conspirac!, or alle"es both the conspirac! and the conte-platedcri-e in the lan"ua"e of the respective statutes definin" the- (15% C.?.S. 74$&744).< < < < < en# #o-o>>/# #,e0e.on5&>on!#,e&--u"e'. Su-,&n&..e!/on, /n#,e &8"en-e o0#,e u"u&. u"&!e o0#,e Ao1'":-on"2/1e': o1:-on0e'e1e': o1 #,e 2,1&"e :&-#/n! /n -on"2/1&-5,: >u"# &2#.5 &22e&1 /n #,e /n0o1>/on /n #,e0o1> o0 'e0/n/#/=e &-#" -on"#/#u#/n! -on"2/1&-5. In 0/ne, #,e &!1ee>en# #o -o>>/# #,e -1/>e, #,eun/#5o0 2u12o"eo1 #,e-o>>un/#5o0 'e"/!n&>on!#,e&--u"e'>u"# 8e-on=e5e'"u-,&"either85 #,e u"e o0 #,e #e1> :-on"2/1e: o1 /#" 'e1/=/=e" &n' "5non5>"or85 &..e!/on" o08&"/-0&-#"-on"#/#u#/n!#,e-on"2/1&-5. %on"2/1&-5>u"#8e&..e!e', no#?u"#/n0e11e', /n#,e/n0o1>/ononA,/-,8&"/"&n&--u"e'-&n&2#.5en#e1,/"2.e&, &>#e1#, /"no# #o8e-on0u"e'A/#,o1 ./@ene'#o#,e&'eHu&-5o0 e=/'en-e#, >&58e1eHu/1e'#o21o=e/#.8nestablishin"conspirac!9henproperl!alle"ed, theevidencetosupport it neednot necessaril!besho9n b! direct proof but -a! beinferred fro- sho9n acts and conduct of the accused.< < < < < >/""/on o0 &n o00en"e /n e/#,e1 o0 #,e 0o..oA/n! >&nne1E (1) b! use of the 9ord+conspire,+ or itsderivativesor s!non!-s, suchasconfederate, connive, collude, etcF5* or ($) b!alle"ations of basic facts constitutin" the conspirac! in a -anner that a person of co--onunderstandin" 9ould ;no9 9hat is intended, and 9ith such precision as 9ould enable the accused toco-petentl! enter a plea to a subse@uent indict-ent based on the sa-e facts.54T,e&..e!/ono0 -on"2/1&-5/n#,e/n0o1>/on>u"# no# 8e-on0u"e'A/#,#,e&'eHu&-5o0e=/'en-e #, >&5 8e 1eHu/1e' #o 21o=e /#. % conspirac! is proved b! evidence of actual cooperationFof acts indicative of an a"ree-ent, a co--on purpose or desi"n, a concerted action or concurrence ofsenti-ents to co--it the felon! and actuall! pursue it.55 % state-ent of this evidence is not necessar!in the infor-ation.In #,e -&"e 8&1, #,e "e-on' 2&1&!1&2, o0 #,e A>en'e' In0o1>/on &..e!e' /n !ene1&. #e1>",oA #,e &--u"e' -o>>/##e' #,e -1/>e o0 2.un'e1. 8t used the 9ords +in connivanceKconspirac! 9ithhis co&accused.+ 3ollo9in" the rulin" in )u/#.on!, these 9ords are sufficient to alle"e the conspirac! ofthe accused 9ith the for-er resident in co--ittin" the cri-e of plunder...0eno9co-etopetitionerEspleaforbail. On %u"ust 14, $==$, durin"thependenc!of theinstantpetition before this Court, petitioner filed 9ith respondent Sandi"anba!an an +Jr"ent Second ,otion for6ail for ,edical Reasons.+ etitioner pra!ed that he be allo9ed to post bail due to his serious -edicalcondition 9hich is life&threatenin" to hi- if he "oes bac; to his place of detention. 1wphi1 The -otion9as opposed b! respondent O-buds-an to 9hich petitioner replied.3or three da!s, i.e., on Septe-ber 4, $= and $:, $==1, respondent Sandi"anba!an conducted hearin"son the -otion for bail. #r. Roberto .. %nastacio, a cardiolo"ist of the ,a;ati ,edical Center, testified assole 9itness for petitioner.On #ece-ber 17, $==1, petitioner filed 9ith the Supre-e Court an +Jr"ent ,otion for 2arl!K8--ediateResolutionof ?oseD?in""o!E 2stradaEs etitionfor 6ail on,edicalK1u-anitarianConsiderations.+etitioner reiterated the -otion for bail he earlier filed 9ith respondent Sandi"anba!an.5(Onthesa-eda!, 9eissuedaResolutionreferrin"the-otiontorespondent Sandi"anba!anforresolution and re@uirin" said court to -a;e a report, not later than 7/*= in the -ornin" of #ece-ber $1,$==1.63On#ece-ber $1, $==1, respondent court sub-ittedits Report. %ttachedtotheReport 9as itsResolution dated #ece-ber $=, $==1 den!in" petitionerEs -otion for bail for +lac; of factualbasis.+5: 6asin"itsfindin"ontheearlier testi-on!of #r. %nastacio, theSandi"anba!anfoundthatpetitioner +failed to sub-it sufficient evidence to convince the court that the -edicalcondition of theaccused re@uires that he be confined at ho-e and for that purpose that he be allo9ed to post bail.+57The cri-e of plunder is punished b! R.%. 'o. :=7=, as a-ended b! Section 1$ of R.%. 'o. :(5), 9iththe penalt! of reclusion perpetua to death. Jnder our Rules, offenses punishable b! death, reclusionperpetua or life i-prison-ent are non&bailable 9hen the evidence of "uilt is stron", to wit/+Sec. 2. *apital offenseor anoffensepunishaleyreclusionperpetuaor lifeimprisonment$ notailale. N 'o person char"ed 9ith a capital offense, or an offense punishable b! reclusion perpetua orlife i-prison-ent, shall be ad-itted to bail 9hen evidence of "uilt is stron", re"ardless of the sta"e ofthe cri-inal prosecution.+5)Section :, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Cri-inal rocedure is based on Section 1*, %rticle 888 of the1)7: Constitution 9hich reads/+Sec. 11. %ll persons, eudice of said %lu; Go""in" Corporation in the aforesaid su-.CO'TR%RH TO G%0. 3OnSepte-ber 1:, 1):5, theprivaterespondents 9erearrai"nedandpleadednot "uilt! tothechar"e 4 %fterthearrai"n-ent, theprivaterespondents-ovedto@uashtheaforestatedinfor-ationbased on the follo9in" "rounds/1. That the facts char"ed do not constitute the cri-e of @ualified theft, there bein" nooffended part!, %lu; Go""in" Corporation bein" neither a ti-ber lessee or licenseeF$. That thepretendedo9ner, %rsenioGu;an", hasnoti-ber licensetooperatein,auban, 4ue5onF*. That the infor-ation is defective is it does not describe the +situs+ of the offense 9ithparticularit!, defendant Ra-on S. Re!es bein" a ti-ber licensee in ,auban, 4ue5on. 5On Septe-ber $),1):5,the rovincial 3iscalof4ue5on filed an opposition to private respondentQs@uashal ar"uin" that/1) the infor-ation is sufficient in for- and substance and that there is a specific offendedpart!F70$) the place of the co--ission of the offense is sufficientl! describedF*) thealle"ationthat Ra-onS. Re!esisati-ber licenseeover theforest 5onein@uestion is a -atter of defense and evidentiar! in nature that should be proven durin"the trialF4) the -otion to @uash 9as filed after the arrai"n-ent of the accused and, therefore, saidaccused should be considered as havin" 9aived all ob>ections 9hich are "rounds for a-otion to @uash. 6The provincialfiscalof 4ue5on pra!ed that the prosecution be allo9ed to a-end the infor-ation b!replacin" the 9ord +Corporation+ 9ith the 9ord +Operation,+ bein" a t!po"raphical error co--itted b!oversi"ht.

OnOctober), 1):5, theprivaterespondentsfiledtheirrepl!reiteratin"the"roundsstatedintheir-otion to @uash. 8The respondent court, in its assailed order dated October $4, 1):5, @uashed the infor-ation for failureto confor-substantiall! totheprescribedfor- $ underSec.*(d)Rule11:,specificall!thefailure tostate the na-e of the offended patt! an e-bodied in See. 11, Rule 11= of the Old Rules of Cri-inalrocedure.8n @uashin" the infor-ation, respondent >ud"e reasoned that the prosecutin" fiscalQs cate"oricalad-ission that the State and not %lu; Go""in" Corp. 9as theoffended part! 9as fatal to theinfor-ation. Such ad-ission b! the fiscal deviated fro- the alle"ations of the infor-ation 9hich affectednot onl! its for- but also its substance. The court held that such a defect in the desi"nation of the na-eof the offended part! could not be cured b! -ere a-end-ent in vie9 of another clai- b! one of theaccused, Ra-on S. Re!es, as the dul! re"istered ti-ber licensee. 10%s an additional reason for the @uashal, the trial court also observed that %lu; Go""in" Corp. 9as not adul!re"isteredpartnershipor corporationandproceededtoconcludethat, necessaril!, it hadnocapacit! to beco-e a lessee nor be a re"istered holder of an! ti-ber license. 111ence, this petition.6efore us, petitioner assi"ns the follo9in" errors, to 9it/8Therespondent court erredin rulin" that the infor-ation filed a"ainst the privaterespondents in Cri-inal Case 'o. *7= of the Court of 3irst 8nstance of 4ue5on, 6ranch., does not char"eanoffensefor failuretocitetheStateasoffendedpart!andco-plainant.88The respondent Court erred in @uashin" the infor-ation on the basis of the said alle"eddefect.The resolution of this case hin"es on the deter-ination of 9hether or not the infor-ation for @ualifiedtheft properl! char"es an offense due to its failure to alle"e the proper offended part! therein.71%s earl! as 1)1(, this Court in the case of 3.S. v. Palo, 12 said/The ri"ht of prosecution and punish-ent for a cri-e is one or the attributes that b! anatural la9 belon"s to the soverei"n po9er instinctivel! char"ed b! the co--on 9ill ofthe -e-bers or societ! to loo; after, "uard and defend the interests of the co--unit!,the individual and social ri"hts and the liberties or ever! citi5en and the "uarant! or theeuredisdee-edi--aterial asthesa-eisa-erefor-al defect 9hichdoesnot tendtopre>udice an! substantial ri"ht of the defendant. 1$Ontheotherhand, thea-end-ent sou"ht b!heroinpetitionerchan"in"the9ord+Corporation+to+Operation+ such that +%lu; Go""in" Corporation+ 9ould read +%lu; Go""in" Operation+ is -erel! for-al.2ven private respondents alternatel! used the 9ords +corporation+ and +operation+ in theirpleadin"s. 20 Thus, it 9as not surprisin" that this for-al defect 9as "lossed over b! the lo9er court.724HEREFORE, the Order dated October $4, 1):5 in hereb! R2.2RS2# and S2T %S8#2 and the caseis R2,%'#2# to the lo9er court for i--ediate disposition on the -erits.SO ORDERED.G.R. No. 152644 Fe81u&15 10, 2006JOHNERI%LONE9,STE6ENPA(LREID&n'PEDRO+. HERNANDE*vs.PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINESThe CaseThisisapetitionforrevie91 of the#ecision$ dated5'ove-ber$==1andtheResolutiondated14,arch $==$ of the Court of %ppeals. The 5 'ove-ber $==1 #ecision affir-ed the rulin" of the Re"ionalTrial Court, 6oac, ,arindu@ue, 6ranch )4, in a suit to @uash 8nfor-ations filed a"ainst petitioners ?ohn2ric Gone!, Steven aul Reid, and edro 6. 1ernande5 (+petitioners+). The 14 ,arch $==$ Resolutiondenied petitionersE -otion for reconsideration.The 3actsetitioners ?ohn 2ric Gone!, Steven aul Reid, and edro 6. 1ernande5 are the resident and Chief2ect of the8nfor-ationstoo;placeF and(*)the8nfor-ationscontainalle"ations9hichconstitutele"al eustification.The Rulin" of the ,TC8n its ?oint Order of 1( ?anuar! 1)): (+?oint Order+), the ,TC1$ initiall! deferred rulin" on petitionersE-otion for lac; of +indubitable "round for the @uashin" of the A8Bnfor-ations < < urisprudence, the Court is convinced that as far as the three (*)aforesaidla9sareconcerned, onl!the8nfor-ationforAvBiolationof hilippine,inin" %ct shouldbe-aintained. 8n other 9ords, the 8nfor-ations for AvBiolation of %nti&ollution Ga9 (# )74) and the 0aterCode (#1=(:) should be dis-issedK@uashed because the ele-ents constitutin" the aforesaidviolations are absorbed b! the sa-e ele-ents 9hich constitute violation of the hilippine ,inin" %ct(R% :)4$).Therefore, < < < Cri-inalCaseAB 'os. )(&44, )(&45 and )(&4( for AvBiolation of the 0ater CodeF andCri-inal CaseAB 'os. )(&4:, )(&47 and )(&4) for AvBiolation of the %nti&ollution Ga9 < < < are hereb!#8S,8SS2#or 4J%S12#andCri-inal CaseAB 'os. )(&5=, )(&51and)(&5$for AvBiolationof thehilippine ,inin" %ct are hereb! retained to be tried on the -erits.The 8nfor-ation for AvBiolation of %rticle *(5 of the Revised enal Code should also be -aintained andheard in a full blo9n trial because the co--on accusation therein is rec;less i-prudence resultin" toAsicB da-a"e to propert!. 8t is the da-a"e to propert! 9hich the la9 punishes not the ne"li"ent act ofpollutin" the 9ater s!ste-. The prosecution for the AvBiolation of hilippine ,inin" %ct is not a bar to theprosecution for rec;less i-prudence resultin" to AsicB da-a"e to propert!.1*The ,TC re&scheduled petitionersE arrai"n-ent on the re-ainin" char"es on $7 and $) ,a! 1)):. 8nthe hearin" of $7 ,a! 1)):, petitioners -anifested that the! 9ere 9illin" to be arrai"ned on the char"efor violation of %rticle *(5 of the RC but not on the char"e for violation of R% :)4$ as the! intended toappeal the Consolidated Order in so far as it -aintained the 8nfor-ations for that offense. %fter -a;in"of record petitionersE -anifestation, the ,TC proceeded 9ith the arrai"n-ent and ordered the entr! of+not "uilt!+ pleas on the char"es for violation of R% :)4$ and %rticle *(5 of the RC.74etitioners subse@uentl! filed a petition for certiorari 9ith the Re"ional Trial Court, 6oac, ,arindu@ue,assailin" that portion of the Consolidated Order -aintainin" the 8nfor-ations for violation of R% :)4$.etitionersE petition 9as raffled to 6ranch )4. 3or its part, public respondent filed an ordinar! appeal9iththesa-ecourt assailin"that portionof theConsolidatedOrder @uashin"the8nfor-ationsforviolationof #1=(:and#)74. ublicrespondentEsappeal 9asraffledto6ranch*7. OnpublicrespondentEs-otion, 6ranch*7orderedpublicrespondentEsappeal consolidated9ithpetitionersEpetition in 6ranch )4.The Rulin" of 6ranch )48nits Resolution14 of $=,arch1))7, 6ranch)4"rantedpublic respondentEs appeal but deniedpetitionersE petition. 6ranch )4 set aside the Consolidated Order in so far as it @uashed the 8nfor-ationsfor violation of # 1=(: and # )74 and orderedthose char"es reinstated. 6ranch )4 affir-edtheConsolidated Order in all other respects. 6ranch )4 held/%fter a careful perusal of the la9s concerned, this court is of the opinion that there can be no absorptionb!one offenseof the threeotheroffenses, asAtheBactspenali5ed b!thesela9s areseparate anddistinct fro-eachother.Theele-entsof provin"eachviolationarenot thesa-e9itheachother.Concededl!, the sin"le act of du-pin" -ine tailin"s 9hich resulted in the pollution of the ,a;ulapnitand 6oac rivers 9as the basis for the infor-ationAsB filed a"ainst the accused each char"in" a distinctoffense. 6ut it is also a 9ell&established rule in this >urisdiction that N+% sin"le act -a! offend a"ainst t9o or -ore entirel! distinct and unrelated provisions of la9, and if oneprovisionre@uiresproof of anadditional fact or ele-ent 9hichtheother doesnot, anac@uittal orconviction or a dis-issal of the infor-ation under one does not bar prosecution under the other. < < eopard! is not at issue because not allof its ele-ents are present.$7 1o9ever, for theli-ited purpose of controvertin" petitionersE clai- that the! should be char"ed 9ith one offense onl!, 9e@uote 9ith approval 6ranch )4Es co-parative anal!sis of # 1=(:, # )74, R% :)4$, and %rticle *(5 ofthe RC sho9in" that in each of these la9s on 9hich petitioners 9ere char"ed, there is one essentialele-ent not re@uired of the others, thus/8n .#. 1=(: (hilippines 0ater Code), the additional ele-ent to be established is the du-pin" of -inetailin"sintothe,a;ulapnit River andtheentire6oacRiver S!ste-9ithout prior per-it fro-theauthorities concerned. The "rava-en of the offense here is the absence of the proper per-it to du-psaid -ine tailin"s. This ele-ent is not indispensable in the prosecution for violation of # )74 (%nti&ollution Ga9), AR%B :)4$ (hilippine ,inin" %ct) and %rt. *(5 of the Revised enal Code. One can bevalidl! prosecuted for violatin" the 0ater Code even in the absence of actual pollution, or even AifB it hasco-plied 9ith the ter-s of its 2nviron-ental Co-pliance Certificate, or further, even AifB it did ta;e thenecessar! precautions to prevent da-a"e to propert!.8n.#. )74(%nti&ollutionGa9), theadditional fact that -ust beprovedistheeeopard!. 0e held that it did, not because the offenses punished b!thoset9ola9s9erethesa-ebut becausetheact "ivin"risetothechar"es9aspunishedb!anordinance and a national statute, thus fallin" 9ithin the proscription a"ainst -ultiple prosecutions for thesa-e act under the second sentence in Section $$, %rticle 8. of the 1):* Constitution, no9 Section $1,%rticle 888 of the 1)7: Constitution. 0e held/The petitioner concludes that/+The unauthori5ed installation punished b! the ordinance Aof 6atan"as Cit!B is not the same as theft ofelectricit! Aunder the Revised enal CodeBF that the second offense is not an attempt to co--it the firstor a frustration thereof and that the second offense is not necessarily included in the offense charged inthe first information.+The above ar"u-entA B -ade b! the petitioner AisB of course correct. This is clear both fro- the euries,9hile the da-a"e to his car a-ounted to 7,54$.==.Three da!s after the incident, or on $= October 1)7:, the co-plainant filed an %ffidavit ofCo-plaint 1 a"ainst petitioner 9ith the 3iscalQs Office.On1*?anuar!1)77, aninfor-ation 2 9asfiledbeforetheRe"ional Trial Court (RTC) of ,a;ati(doc;etedasCri-inal Case'o. **)1))char"in"petitioner9ith+Rec;less8-prudenceResultin"in#a-a"e to ropert! 9ith Sli"ht h!sical 8n>ur!.+ The infor-ation read/The undersi"ned $nd %sst. 3iscalaccuses 8sabelita Reodica of the cri-e of Rec;less8-prudence Resultin" in #a-a"e to ropert! 9ith Sli"ht h!sical 8n>ur! as follo9s/That onor about the1:thda!of October, 1)7:inthe,unicipalit!ofaraPa@ue, ,etro,anila, hilippinesand9ithinthe>urisdictionof this1onorable Court, the above-entioned accused, 8sabelita .elascoReodica, bein"thenthedriver andKor personinchar"eof aTa-ara9bearin"plateno. '?J&*=(, didthenandthere9illfull!, unla9full!andfeloniousl! drive, -ana"e and operate the sa-e in a rec;less, careless,ne"li"ent and i-prudent -anner, 9ithout re"ard to traffic la9s, rules andre"ulations and 9ithout ta;in" the necessar! care and precaution to avoidda-a"e to propert! and in>uries to person, causin" b! such ne"li"ence,carelessnessandi-prudencethesaidvehicletobu-pKcollide9ithaTo!ota Corolla bearin" plate no. '8,&)1) driven and o9ned b! 'orberto6onsol, thereb! causin" da-a"e a-ountin" to 7,54$.==, to the da-a"eand pre>udice of its o9ner, in the afore-entioned a-ount of 7,54$.==.That asfurther conse@uenceduetothestron"i-pact, said'orberto6onsol sufferedbodil!in>uries9hichre@uired-edical attendanceforaperiod of less that nine ()) da!s and incapacitated hi- fro- perfor-in"his custo-ar! labor for the sa-e period of ti-e.Jpon arrai"n-ent, petitioner pleaded not "uilt! to the char"e. Trial then ensued.On *1 ?anuar! 1))1, the RTC of ,a;ati, 6ranch 145, rendered a decision 3 convictin" petitioner of the+@uasi offense of rec;less i-prudence resultin" in da-a"e to propert! 9ith sli"ht ph!sical in>uries,+ andsentencin" her/AtBo suffer i-prison-ent of si< (() -onths of arresto mayor, and to pa! the co-plainant,'orberto6onsol !%tien5a, thesu-of ThirteenThousand3ive1undred3ort!&T9o(1*,54$), hilippine Currenc!, 9ithout subsidiar! i-pair-ent in case of insolvenc!F andto pa! the costs. 4The trial court >ustified i-posin" a (&-onth prison ter- in this 9ise/81%saresult of therec;lessi-prudenceof theaccused, co-plainant sufferedsli"htph!sical in>uries (2uries thru rec;less i-prudence isno9 punished 9ith penalt! of arresto mayor in its -aoinin"cause9ithher astothefirst assi"nederror. 1o9ever, sheconsiderstheOSGQsrelianceon Bueranov.*ourt of-ppeals 18 as-isplaced, for nothin"therevalidatesthe+co-pleuriesthrou"hrec;less i-prudence. *hicov. :sidro22 is li;e9ise+inapposite,+ for it deals 9ithatte-ptedho-icide, 9hich is not covered b! the Rule on Su--ar! rocedure.etitioner finall! avers that People v. *uaresma 23 should not be "iven retroactive effectF other9ise, it9ould either unfairl! pre>udice her or render nu"ator! the en anc rulin" in >aldivia 24 favorable to her.84The pleadin"s thus raise the follo9in" issues/8. 0hether the penalt! i-posed on petitioner is correct.88. 0hether the ,uasi offenses of rec;less i-prudence resultin" in da-a"eto propert! in the a-ount of 7,54$.== and rec;less i-prudence resultin"in sli"ht ph!sical in>uries are li"ht felonies.888. 0hether the rule on co-ple< cri-es under %rticle 47 of the Revisedenal Code applies to the ,uasi offenses in @uestion.8.. 0hether the duplicit! of the infor-ation -a! be @uestioned for the firstti-e on appeal... 0hether the Re"ional Trial Court had >urisdiction over the offenses in@uestion..8. 0hether the ,uasi offenses in @uestion have alread! prescribed.:. #he Proper Penalty0e a"ree 9ith both petitioner and the OSG that the penalt! of si< -onths of arresto mayor i-posed b!the trial court and affir-ed b! respondent Court of %ppeals is incorrect. 1o9ever, 9e cannot subscribeto their sub-ission that the penalt! of arresto menor in its -aurisdictional a-bitofthe,eTCs,,TCsand,CTCs,itfollo9s thatthosepenali5ed9ithcensure,9hich isa penalt!lo9erthan arrestomenor underthe"raduated scalein %rticle :1oftheRevised enal Code and 9ith a duration of 1 to *= da!s, should also fall 9ithin the >urisdiction of saidcourts. Thus, rec;less i-prudence resultin" in sli"ht ph!sical in>uries 9as co"ni5able b! said courts.%s to the rec;less i-prudence resultin" in da-a"e to propert! in the a-ount of 7,54$.==, the sa-e9as also under the >urisdiction of ,eTCs, ,TCs or ,CTCs because the i-posable penalt! therefor9as arresto mayor in its -ini-u- and -ediu- periods M the duration of 9hich 9as fro- 1 -onth and1 da! to 4 -onths.Cri-inal Case 'o. **)1) should, therefore, be dis-issed for lac; of >urisdiction on the part of the RTCof ,a;ati.9:. Prescription of the ;uasi .ffenses in ;uestion.ursuant to %rticle)=of theRevisedenal Code, rec;lessi-prudenceresultin"insli"ht ph!sicalin>uries, bein"ali"ht felon!, prescribesint9o-onths. Ontheother hand, rec;lessi-prudenceresultin" in da-a"e to propert! in the a-ount of 7,54$.==, bein" a less "rave felon! 9hose penalt!is arresto mayor in its -ini-u- and -ediu- periods, prescribes in five !ears.88Toresolvetheissueof 9hether these ,uasi offenseshavealread!prescribed, it isnecessar!todeter-ine9hetherthefilin"of theco-plaint 9iththefiscalQsofficethreeda!saftertheincident in@uestion tolled the runnin" of the prescriptive period.%rt. )1 of the Revised enal Code provides/%rt. )1.*omputationof prescriptionof offenses. MTheperiodof prescriptionshallco--ence to run fro- the da! on 9hich the cri-e is discovered b! the offended part!,the authorities, or their a"ents, and shall e interrupted y the filing of the complaint ofinformation, and shall co--ence to run a"ain 9hen such proceedin"s ter-inate 9ithoutthe accused bein" convicted or ac@uitted, or are un>ustifiabl! stopped b! an! reason noti-putable to hi-. (e-phasis supplied)'otabl!, the afore@uoted article, in declarin" that the prescriptive period +shall be interrupted b!the filin" of the co-plaint or infor-ation,+ does not distin"uish 9hether the co-plaint is filed forpreli-inar! eudicial proceedin"F 9hat could have tolled the prescriptive period there 9as onl! the filin"of the infor-ation in the proper court.8n the instant case, as the offenses involved are covered b! the Revised enal Code, %rticle )1 thereofand the rulin"s in %rancisco and *uaresma appl!. Thus, the prescriptive period for the ,uasi offenses in@uestion9asinterruptedb!thefilin"of theco-plaint 9iththefiscalQsofficethreeda!safter thevehicular -ishapandre-ainedtolledpendin"theter-inationof thiscase. 0ecannot, therefore,uphold petitionerQs defense of prescription of the offenses char"ed in the infor-ation in this case.012R23OR2, theinstant petitionis GR%'T2#. Thechallen"edecisionof respondent Court of%ppealsin C%&G.R.CR'o.14((= isS2T %S8#2astheRe"ionalTrial Court,9hose decision9asaffir-ed therein, had no >urisdiction over Cri-inal Case 'o. **)1).89Cri-inal Case 'o. **)1) is ordered #8S,8SS2#.'o pronounce-ent as to costs.SO ORDERED.G.R. No. 164015 Fe81u&15 26, 200$90RAMON A. AL+ERT vs. THE SANDIGAN+A9AN,T,e %&"eThisisapetitionforcertiorari1 of theResolutionsdated1=3ebruar!$==4$ and*,a!$==4* of theSandi"anba!an. The1=3ebruar!$==4Resolution"rantedtheprosecutionEs,otionto%d-it the%-ended 8nfor-ation. The * ,a! $==4 Resolution denied the ,otion 3or Reconsideration of petitionerRa-on %. %lbert (petitioner).T,e F&-#"On$4,arch1))), theSpecial rosecutionOfficer (SO) 88 of theOfficeof theO-buds-anfor,indanao char"ed petitioner and his co&accused, 3avio #. Sa!son and %rturo S. %su-brado, beforethe Sandi"anba!an 9ith violation of Section *(e) of Republic %ct 'o. *=1) (R% *=1)) or the %nti&Graftand Corrupt ractices %ct in Cri-inal Case 'o. $5$*1. The 8nfor-ation alle"ed/The undersi"ned Special rosecution Officer 88 of the Office of the O-buds-an for ,indanao hereb!accuses R%,O' %. %G62RT, 3%.8O #. S%HSO', and %RTJRO S. %SJ,6R%#O for (sic) violation ofSection *(e) R.%. *=1), as a-ended, co--itted as follo9s/That in(sic) or about ,a!1))=andso-eti-eprior or subse@uent thereto, intheCit!of #avao,hilippines and 9ithin the >urisdiction of this 1onorable Court, accused R%,O' %. %G62RT, a publicofficer, bein" then the resident of the 'ational 1o-e ,ort"a"e and 3inance Corporation, occup!in"thesaidposition9ithasalar!"radeabove$:, 9hileintheperfor-anceof hisofficial function,co--ittin" the offense in relation to his office, ta;in" advanta"e of his official position, conspirin" andconfederatin" 9ith accused 3%.8O #. S%HSO', then the ro>ect #irector of CO#2 3oundation 8nc. andaccused %RTJROS.%SJ,6R%#O, thentheresident of the6uhan"inResidentsand2-plo!ees%ssociation for #evelop-ent, 8nc.,actin" 9ith evidentbadfaithand -anifest partialit!andor "rossne"lect of dut!, didthenandthere9illfull!, unla9full!andcri-inall!causeunduein>ur!tothe"overn-ent and public interest, enter and -a;e it appear in Ta< #eclaration 'os. #&*&1&:()1 and #&*&1&:()$ that t9o parcels of real propert! particularl! described in the Certificate of Titles 'os. T&151)$=and T&151)$1 are residential lands 9hich Ta< #eclarations accused sub-itted to the '1,3C 9hen intruth and in fact, as accused 9ell ;ne9, the t9o pieces of real propert! covered b! Certificate of Titles'os. T&151)$= and T&151)$1 are a"ricultural land, and b! reason of accusedEs -isrepresentation, the'1,3C released the a-ount of4,5*5,4==.== 9hich is hi"her than the loanable a-ount the land couldco--and bein" a"ricultural, thus causin" undue in>ur! to the "overn-ent.CO'TR%RH TO G%0.4On $( ,arch 1))), a 1old #eparture Order 9as issued b! the Sandi"anba!an a"ainst petitioner andhis co&accused.On$5,a!1))), petitioner fileda,otionto#is-issCri-inal Case'o. $5$*1onthefollo9in""rounds/ (1) the accused (petitioner) 9as denied due process of la9F ($) the Office of the O-buds-andid not ac@uire >urisdiction over the person of the accusedF (*) the constitutional ri"hts of the accused toaspeed!dispositionof casesandtoaspeed!trial 9ereviolatedF and(4)theresolutiondated$(3ebruar! 1))) findin" the accused "uilt! of violation of Section *(e) of R% *=1) is not supported b!evidence.5On 17 #ece-ber $===, pendin" the resolution of the ,otion to #is-iss, petitioner filed a ,otion to Gift1old #eparture Order and to be %llo9ed to Travel. The prosecution did not ob>ect to the latter -otion on91the condition that petitioner 9ould be +provisionall!+ arrai"ned.( On 1$ ,arch $==1, petitioner filed anJr"ent ,otion to %-end ,otion to Gift 1old #eparture Order and to be %llo9ed to Travel. The follo9in"da!, or on 1* ,arch $==1, the Sandi"anba!an arrai"ned petitioner 9ho entered a plea of +not "uilt!.+ 8nthe Resolution dated 1( %pril $==1, the Sandi"anba!an "ranted petitionerEs Jr"ent ,otion to %-end,otion to Gift 1old #eparture Order and to be %llo9ed to Travel.On$('ove-ber $==1, theSandi"anba!andeniedpetitionerEs,otionto#is-issandorderedtheprosecution to conduct a reinvesti"ation of the case 9ith respect to petitioner. 8n a ,e-orandu- dated( ?anuar! $==*, the SO 9ho conducted the reinvesti"ation reco--ended to the O-buds-an that theindict-ent a"ainst petitioner be reversed for lac; of probable cause. 1o9ever, the O-buds-an, in anOrder dated1=,arch$==*, disapprovedthe,e-orandu-anddirectedtheOfficeof theSpecialrosecutor to proceed 9ith the prosecution of the cri-inal case. etitioner filed a ,otion forReconsideration of the Order of the O-buds-an.8naResolutionpro-ul"atedon1(,a!$==*, theSandi"anba!anscheduledthearrai"n-ent ofpetitioner on $4 ?ul! $==*. 1o9ever, in vie9 of the pendin" -otion for reconsideration of the order ofthe O-buds-an, the arrai"n-ent 9as reset to $ October $==*.8n a ,anifestation dated $4 Septe-ber $==*, the SOinfor-ed the Sandi"anba!an of theO-buds-anEs denial of petitionerEs -otion for reconsideration. On even date, the prosecution filed an2ect #irector of CO#2 3oundation 8nc. andaccused %RTJROS.%SJ,6R%#O, thentheresident of the6uhan"inResidentsand2-plo!ees%ssociation for #evelop-ent, 8nc., actin" 9ith evident bad faith and -anifestpartialit! &n'Fo1 "ross /neM-u"&8.e ne!./!en-e, did then and there 9illfull!, unla9full! and cri-inall!cause undue in>ur! to the "overn-ent and public interest, enter and -a;e it appear in Ta< #eclaration'os. #&*&1&:()1 and #&*&1&:()$ that t9o parcels of real propert! particularl! described in theCertificate of Titles 'os. T&151)$= and T&151)$1 are residential lands 9hich Ta< #eclarations accusedsub-ittedtothe'1,3C9henintruthandinfact, asaccused9ell ;ne9, thet9opiecesof realpropert!coveredb!Certificateof Titles'os. T&151)$=andT&151)$1area"ricultural land, andb!reasonof accusedEs-isrepresentation, the'1,3Creleasedthea-ount of4,5*5,4==.==9hichishi"her than the loanable a-ount the land could co--and bein" a"ricultural, thus causin" undue in>ur!to the "overn-ent.CO'TR%RH TO G%0.792etitioner opposed the -otion, alle"in" that the a-end-ent -ade on the infor-ation is substantial and,therefore, not allo9ed after arrai"n-ent.T,e Ru./n! o0 #,e S&n'/!&n8&5&n8n its Resolution of 1= 3ebruar! $==4,) the Sandi"anba!an "ranted the prosecutionEs ,otion to %d-it%-ended 8nfor-ation. %t the outset, the Sandi"anba!an eur! co-pared to an infor-ation alle"in" "ross ineur! is a constitutive ele-ent. % chan"e to this effect constitutes substantial a-end-ent considerin"that the possible defense of the accused -a! divert fro- the one ori"inall! intended.8t -a! be considered ho9ever, that there are three -odes b! 9hich the offense for .iolation of Section*(e) -a! be co--itted in an! of the follo9in"/1. Throu"h evident bad faithF$. Throu"h -anifest partialit!F*. Throu"h "ross ineudice the ri"hts of the accused.etitioner contendsthat replacin"+"rossne"lect of dut!+ 9ith+"rossineudicial to his ri"hts. 1e asserts that under thea-ended infor-ation, he has to present evidence that he did not act 9ith +"ross ineur! to an! part!, includin" the Govern-ent, or "ivin" an! private part! an!un9arranted benefits, advanta"e or preference in the dischar"e of his official, ad-inistrative or >udicialfunctions throu"h -anifest partialit!, evident bad faith or "ross ineudicial or official functionsF$. 1e -ust have acted 9ith -anifest partialit!, evident bad faith or "ross ineur!toan!part!,includin"the"overn-ent, or "avean!private part! un9arranted benefits, advanta"e or preference in the dischar"e of his functions.Thesecondele-ent providesthedifferent -odesb!9hichthecri-e-a!beco--itted, that is,throu"h+-anifest partialit!,+ +evident bad faith,+ or +"ross ineoined in onl! one 8nfor-ationF andthat (b) the a-end-ent of the four 8nfor-ations for ille"alrecruit-ent into a sin"le 8nfor-ation for a"raver offense violates her substantial ri"hts.Respondent, on the other hand, pra!s that the petition be denied for lac; of -erit.Section 14, Rule 11= of the Revised Rules on Cri-inal rocedure provides/Section 14. %-end-ent or substitution. N A -o>2.&/n# o1 /n0o1>/on >&5 8e &>en'e', /n0o1> o1 /n "u8"#&n-e, A/#,ou# .e&=e o0 -ou1#, &n5 #/>e 8e0o1e #,e &--u"e' en#e1" ,/"2.e&. %fter the plea and durin" the trial, a for-al a-end-ent -a! onl! be -ade 9ith leave ofcourt and 9hen it can be done 9ithout causin" pre>udice to the ri"hts of the accused.1o9ever, an! a-end-ent before plea, 9hich do9n"rades the nature of the offense char"ed inor eeopard!. The court -a! re@uire the 9itnesses to "ive bail for theirappearance at the trial. (2-phasis ours)Si-pl! stated, 8e0o1e the accused enters his plea, a for-al or substantial a-end-ent of the co-plaintor infor-ation -a! be -ade 9ithout leave of court. %fter the entr! of a plea, onl! a for-al a-end-ent-a! be -ade but 9ith leave of court and onl! if it does not pre>udice the ri"hts of the accused. %fterarrai"n-ent, a substantial a-end-ent is proscribed e2.&/n# or /n0o1>/on, it does not -ean that t9o or -ore co-plaints or 8nfor-ations cannotbea-endedintoonl!one8nfor-ation. Surel!, suchcouldnot havebeenintendedb!thisCourt.Other9ise, there can be an absurd situation 9hereb! t9o or -ore co-plaints or 8nfor-ations could nolon"er be a-ended into one or -ore 8nfor-ations. On this point, Section (, Rule 1 of the Revised Rulesof Court is relevant, thus/S2C. (. *onstruction. & TheseRulesshall beliberall!construedinorder topro-otetheirob>ective of securin" a >ust, speed! and ineeopard!, considerin" that his 1o-icide case had been ter-inated 9ithout his eeopard!.8n an Order1= dated October $5, $==$,11 the respondent >ud"e denied the ,otion to 4uash. 1e ruled thata clai- of for-er ac@uittal or conviction does not constitute double >eopard! and cannot be sustainedunless >ud"-ent 9as rendered ac@uittin" or convictin" the defendant in the for-er prosecutionF thatpetitioner 9as never ac@uitted or convicted of 1o-icide, since the 8nfor-ation for 1o-icide 9as -erel!correctedKor a-ended before trial co--enced and did not ter-inate the sa-eF that the 8nfor-ation for1o-icide 9as patentl! insufficient in substance, so no valid proceedin"s could be ta;en thereonF andthat 9ith the alle"ation ofa""ravatin" circu-stance of +disre"ard ofran;,+ the cri-e of 1o-icide is@ualified to ,urder.100etitioner filed a ,otion to 8nhibit 9ith attached ,otion for Reconsideration. 8n his ,otion to 8nhibit, healle"ed that the respondent >ud"e eurisdiction in an arbitrar!, capricious and partial -anner in-andatin" the a-end-ent of the char"e fro- 1o-icide to ,urder in disre"ard of the provisions of thela9 and eud"eQs conclusion that disre"ard of ran; @ualifies the ;illin" to ,urder, it is a"eneric a""ravatin" circu-stance 9hich onl! serves to affect the i-position of the period of the penalt!.etitioneralsoar"uedthat thea-end-ent andKorcorrectionorderedb!therespondent >ud"e9assubstantialF and under Section 14, Rule 11= of the Revised Rules of Cri-inal rocedure, this cannot bedone, since petitioner had alread! been arrai"ned and he 9ould be placed in double >eopard!.8n his Order dated #ece-ber 17, $==$,1$ the respondent >ud"e denied the ,otion to 8nhibit and "rantedthe ,otion for Reconsideration, thus/012R23OR2, in vie9 of the fore"oin", the ,otion to 8nhibit is hereb! #2'82# 9hile the ,otion forReconsideration is hereb! GR%'T2#.Jnless ordered other9ise b! the 1i"hest Court, the presidin" >ud"e shall continue hearin" this case.3urther, the Order dated October $5, $==$ is reconsidered and the ori"inalinfor-ation char"in" thecri-e of ho-icide stands.1*8n "rantin" the ,otion for Reconsideration, respondent >ud"e found that a close scrutin! of %rticle $47of the Revised enal Code sho9s that +disre"ard of ran;+ is -erel! a "eneric -iti"atin"14 circu-stance9hich should not elevate the classification of the cri-e of ho-icide to -urder.On %pril *=, $==*, petitioner filed herein petition for certiorari on the follo9in" "rounds/T12R2SO'#2'T?J#G2GR%.2GH%6JS2#18S#8SCR2T8O'%'#2OC22#2#18S?JR8S#8CT8O' 8' OR#2R8'G T12 %,2'#,2'T O3 T12 8'3OR,%T8O' 3RO, 1O,8C8#2TO ,JR#2R.T12 R2SO'#2'T ?J#G2 GR%.2GH %6JS2# 18S #8SCR2T8O' %'# .8OG%T2# T12 G%08' #2'H8'G T12 ,OT8O' TO 4J%S1 T12 8'3OR,%T8O' 3OR ,JR#2R.T12R2SO'#2'T?J#G2GR%.2GH%6JS2#18S#8SCR2T8O'%'#2OC22#2#18S?JR8S#8CT8O' %'#.8OG%T2#T12G%08'OR#2R8'GT12R28'ST%T2,2'T O3 T128'3OR,%T8O' 3OR 1O,8C8#2 018C1 0%S %GR2%#H T2R,8'%T2#.15etitioner alle"es that despite havin" entered his plea of not "uilt! to the char"e of 1o-icide, the publicrespondent orderedthea-end-ent of the8nfor-ationfro-1o-icideto,urder becauseof thepresence of the a""ravatin"circu-stance of +disre"ard of ran;,+ 9hich is in violation of Section14,Rule 11= of the Revised Rules of Cri-inal rocedureF that the public respondentEs rulin" that +disre"ardof ran;+ is a @ualif!in" a""ravatin" circu-stance 9hich @ualified the ;illin" of $Gt. 2scueta to -urder iserroneous since, under para"raph *, %rticle 14 of the Revised enal Code, disre"ard of ran; is onl! a"eneric a""ravatin" circu-stance 9hich serves to affect the penalt! to be i-posed upon the accusedand does not @ualif! the offense into a -ore serious cri-eF that even assu-in" that disre"ard of ran; isa@ualif!in"a""ravatin"circu-stance, suchisasubstantial a-end-ent 9hichisnot allo9edafterpetitioner has entered his plea.101etitioner neud"e "ravel! abused his discretion 9hen he denied the,otion to 4uash the 8nfor-ation for ,urder, considerin" that the ori"inal 8nfor-ation for 1o-icide fileda"ainst hi- 9as ter-inated 9ithout his eud"eto"rant the,otionto4uashthe8nfor-ationfor ,urder onthe"roundof double>eopard!F that his,otionforReconsideration did not see; the reinstate-ent of the 8nfor-ation for 1o-icide upon the dis-issal ofthe 8nfor-ation for ,urder, as he 9ould a"ain be placed in double >eopard!F thus, the respondent >ud"eco--itted "rave abuse of discretion in reinstatin" the 1o-icide case.8nhis Co--ent, theSolicitor General ar"ues that therespondent >ud"eQs Order reinstatin" the8nfor-ationto1o-icideafterinitiall! motu proprio orderin"itsa-end-ent to,urderrendershereinpetition -oot and acade-icF that petitioner failed to establish the fourth ele-ent of double >eopard!, i.e.,thedefendant 9as ac@uittedor convicted, or thecasea"ainst hi-9as dis-issedor other9iseter-inated9ithout hisconsentF that petitionerconfusesa-end-ent 9ithsubstitutionof 8nfor-ationFthat the respondent >ud"eQs Order dated Septe-ber 1$, $==$ -andated an a-end-ent of the8nfor-ation as provided under Section 14, Rule 11= of the Revised Rules of Cri-inal rocedureF andthat a-end-ents do not entail dis-issal or ter-ination of the previous case.rivate respondent Col. Oli-pio 2scueta, father of the victi-, filed his Co--ent alle"in" that no "raveabuseof discretion9asco--ittedb!therespondent >ud"e9henhedeniedpetitionerQs,otionto4uash the %-ended 8nfor-ation, as petitioner 9as not placed in double >eopard!F that the proceedin"sunder the first 8nfor-ation for ho-icide has not !et co--enced, and the case 9as not dis-issed orter-inated 9hen the 8nfor-ation 9as a-ended.8nhisRepl!,petitioner reiterateshiscontentionthat thea-end-ent of thechar"eof 1o-icideto,urder after his arrai"n-ent 9ould place hi- in double >eopard!, considerin" that said a-end-ent 9as9ithout his eudicial hierarch! of courts. 1o9ever, the >udicial hierarch! of courts isnot an iron&clad rule.1( % strict application of the rule of hierarch! of courts is not necessar! 9hen thecases brou"ht before the appellate courts do not involve factual but le"al @uestions.1:8n the present case, petitioner sub-its pure @uestions of la9 involvin" the proper le"al interpretation ofthe provisions on a-end-ent and substitution of infor-ation under the Rules of Court. 8t also involvesthe issue of double >eopard!, one of the funda-ental ri"hts of the citi5ens under the Constitution 9hichprotects the accused not a"ainst the peril of second punish-ent but a"ainst bein" tried for the sa-eoffense. These i-portant le"al @uestions and in order to prevent further dela! in the trial of the case9arrant our relaudicial hierarch! of courts.T,e %ou1#3" Ru./n!The petition is not -eritorious.1020efindno-erit inpetitionerQs contentionthat therespondent >ud"eco--itted"raveabuseofdiscretion in a-endin" the 8nfor-ation after petitioner had alread! pleaded not "uilt! to the char"e inthe 8nfor-ation for 1o-icide. The ar"u-ent of petitioner &&Considerin" the fact that the case for 1o-icide a"ainst hi- 9as alread! ter-inated 9ithout his eudice to the ri"hts of the accused.< < ud"-ent that a -ista;e has been -ade in char"in" the proper offense,the court shall dis-iss the ori"inal co-plaint or infor-ation upon the filin" of a ne9 one char"in" theproper offense in accordance 9ith Rule11),Section 11, provided the accused 9ould not be placedthereb! in double >eopard!, and -a! also re@uire the 9itnesses to "ive bail for their appearance at thetrial.9ith Section 1), Rule 11) of 9hich provides/S2C. 1). ?hen mista)e has een made in charging the proper offense. - 0hen it beco-es -anifest atan!ti-ebefore>ud"-ent that a-ista;ehasbeen-adeinchar"in"theproper offenseandtheaccused cannot be convicted of the offense char"ed or an! other offense necessaril! included therein,the accused shall not be dischar"ed if there appears "ood cause to detain hi-. 8n such case, the courtshall co--it the accused to ans9er for the proper offense and dis-iss the ori"inal case upon the filin"of the proper infor-ation.3irst, a distinction shall be -ade bet9een a-end-ent and substitution under Section 14, Rule 11=. 3orthis purpose, #eehan)ee v. (adayag1) is instructive, vi"/The first para"raph provides the rules for amendment of the infor-ation or co-plaint, 9hile the secondpara"raph refers to the sustitution of the infor-ation or co-plaint.8t -a! accordin"l! be posited that both a-end-ent and substitution of the infor-ation -a! be -adebefore or after the defendant pleads, but the! differ in the follo9in" respects/1. %-end-ent -a! involve either for-al or substantial chan"es, 9hile substitution necessaril!involves a substantial chan"e fro- the ori"inal char"eF$. %-end-ent beforepleahas beenenteredcanbeeffected9ithout leaveof court, butsubstitutionof infor-ation-ust be9ithleaveof court astheori"inal infor-ationhastobedis-issedF103*. 0here the a-end-ent is onl! as to for-, there is no need for another preli-inar!investi"ation and the reta;in" of the plea of the accusedF in substitution of infor-ation, anotherpreli-inar! investi"ation is entailed and the accused has to plead ane9 to the ne9 infor-ationFand4. %n a-ended infor-ation refers to the sa-e offense char"ed in the ori"inal infor-ation or toan offense 9hich necessaril! includes or is necessaril! included in the ori"inalchar"e, hencesubstantial a-end-ents to the infor-ation after the plea has been ta;en cannot be -ade overtheob>ectionof the accused,for if the ori"inal infor-ation 9ould be 9ithdra9n,theaccusedcould invo;e double >eopard!. On the other hand, substitution re@uires or presupposes that thene9infor-ationinvolves adifferent offense9hichdoes not includeor is not necessaril!included in the ori"inal char"e, hence the accused cannot clai- double >eopard!.8n deter-inin", therefore, 9hether there should be an a-end-ent under the first para"raph of Section14, Rule 11=, or a substitution of infor-ation under the second para"raph thereof, the rule is that 9herethesecondinfor-ationinvolvesthesa-eoffense, or anoffense9hichnecessaril!includesor isnecessaril! included in the first infor-ation, an a-end-ent of the infor-ation is sufficientF other9ise,9here the ne9 infor-ation char"es an offense 9hich is distinct and different fro- that initiall! char"ed,a substitution is in order.There is identit! bet9een the t9o offenses 9hen the evidence to support a conviction for one offense9ould be sufficient to 9arrant a conviction for the other, or 9hen the second offense is eudiceto the ri"hts or defense of petitioner.1040hile the respondent >ud"e erroneousl! thou"ht that +disrespect on account of ran;+ @ualified the cri-eto-urder, as thesa-e9as onl!a"eneric a""ravatin"circu-stance,$* 9edonot findthat heco--itted an! "rave abuse of discretion in orderin" the a-end-ent of the 8nfor-ation after petitionerhad alread! pleaded not "uilt! to the char"e of 1o-icide, since the a-end-ent -ade 9as onl! for-aland did not adversel! affect an! substantial ri"ht of petitioner.'eeopard! b! the chan"e of the char"e fro-1o-icideto,urderF andsubse@uentl!, fro-,urder bac;to1o-icide. etitionerQsclai-that therespondent >ud"e co--itted "rave abuse of discretion in den!in" his ,otion to 4uash the %-ended8nfor-ation for ,urder on the "round of double >eopard! is not -eritorious.etitionerQs,otionto4uash9asanchoredonSection*, Rule11:of theRulesof Court, 9hichprovides/S2C. *. 'rounds. & Theaccused-a!-oveto@uashtheco-plaint or infor-ationonan!of thefollo9in" "rounds/< < < eopard! attachedprior to the secondF ($) the first >eopard! has been validl! ter-inatedF and (*) a second >eopard! is forthe sa-e offense as in the first.$4%stothefirst re@uisite, thefirst >eopard!attachesonl!(a) after avalidindict-entF (b) beforeaco-petent courtF (c) after arrai"n-entF (d) 9henavalidpleahasbeenenteredF and(e) 9hentheaccused 9as ac@uitted or convicted, or the case 9as dis-issed or other9ise ter-inated 9ithouthiseud"eQs Order dated Septe-ber 1$, $==$ 9as for the trialprosecutor to correct anda-end the 8nfor-ation but not to dis-iss the sa-e upon the filin" of a ne9 8nfor-ation char"in" theproper offense as conte-plated under the last para"raph of Section 14, Rule 11= of the Rules of Court&& 9hich, for convenience, 9e @uote a"ain &&8f it appears at an!ti-e before >ud"-ent that a -ista;e has been -ade in char"in" the proper offense,the court shall dis-iss the ori"inal co-plaint or infor-ation upon the filin" of a ne9 one char"in" theproper offense in accordance 9ith section 1), Rule 11), provided the accused shall not be placed indouble >eopard!. The court -a! re@uire the 9itnesses to "ive bail for their appearance at the trial.and Section 1), Rule 11), 9hich provides/S2C. 1).& ?hen mista)e has een made in charging the proper offense & 0hen it beco-es -anifest atan!ti-ebefore>ud"-ent that a-ista;ehasbeen-adeinchar"in"theproper offenseandtheaccused cannot be convicted of the offense char"ed or an! other offense necessaril! included therein,the accused shall not be dischar"ed if there appears "ood cause to detain hi-. 8n such case, the courtshall co--it the accused to ans9er for the proper offense and dis-iss the ori"inal case upon the filin"of the proper infor-ation.2videntl!, the last para"raph of Section 14, Rule 11=, applies onl! 9hen the offense char"ed is 9holl!different fro- the offense proved, i.e., the accused cannot be convicted of a cri-e 9ith 9hich he 9asnot char"ed in the infor-ation even if it be proven, in 9hich case, there -ust be a dis-issalof thechar"e and a substitution of a ne9 infor-ation char"in" the proper offense. Section 14 does not appl!to a second infor-ation, 9hich involves the sa-e offense or an offense 9hich necessaril! includes or isnecessaril! included in the first infor-ation. 8n this connection, the offense char"ed necessaril! includesthe offense proved 9hen so-e of the essential ele-ents or in"redients of the for-er, as alle"ed in theco-plaintor infor-ation,constitute the latter. %nd an offense char"ed is necessaril! included in theoffenseproved9hentheessential in"redients of the for-er constitute or for-apart of thoseconstitutin" the latter.$71o-icide is necessaril! included in the cri-e of -urderF thus, the respondent >ud"e -erel! ordered thea-end-ent of the 8nfor-ation and not the dis-issal of the ori"inal 8nfor-ation. To repeat, it 9as thesa-e ori"inal infor-ation that 9as a-ended b! -erel! crossin" out the 9ord +1o-icide+ and 9