Rule 110 Prsctn of Offns

8/13/2019 Rule 110 Prsctn of Offns

1/27

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure (2002 Edition)

Rule 110Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

Q:How are criminal cases or actions instituted?A:Section 1, Rule 110.

SECTION 1. Institution of criminal actions. Criminal actions shall be instituted asollo!s"

#a$ For oenses !here a %reliminar& in'esti(ation is re)uired %ursuant to section 1 oRule 11*+ b& ilin( the com%laint !ith the %ro%er oicer or the %ur%ose o conductin( there)uisite %reliminar& in'esti(ation.

#b$ For all other oenses+ b& ilin( the com%laint or inormation directl& !ith the,unici%al Trial Courts and ,unici%al Circuit Trial Courts+ or the com%laint !ith the oiceo the %rosecutor. In ,anila and other chartered cities+ the com%laints shall be iled !iththe oice o the %rosecutor unless other!ise %ro'ided in their charters.

The institution o the criminal action shall interru%t the runnin( o the %eriod o%rescri%tion o the oense char(ed unless other!ise %ro'ided in s%ecial la!s. #1a$

The language has been changed no? If you try to compare it with the old Rules, merong maor changes,

meron man ding pareho. The language is now simplier.

Q:Is there a difference between commencementof criminal action and institutionof criminal action?A:!es. "hen you say #commencement$, generally it is already in the court once it is filed in court. %u

#institution$ is earlier. "hen you file a complaint with the fiscal&s office, it is already an institution.

Q:Is preliminary in'estigation re(uired in all criminal cases? %ecause there are some criminal cases which donot re(uire preliminary in'estigation.

A:)enerally, all RT* cases re(uire preliminary in'estigation. %ut right now under the new rules, some casestriable by the +T* may also re(uire preliminary in'estigation.

or e-ample in the RT*, more than years, /ailangan may preliminary in'estigation yan. nder Section 1,from the moment you file a complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting a preliminaryin'estigation, it is already institution.

Q:"ho are these officers referred to?A:They are mentioned in Section , Rule 112

SEC. *. Oicers authori-ed to conduct %reliminar& in'esti(ations. The ollo!in( ma& conduct %reliminar& in'esti(ations"#a$ Pro'incial or Cit& Prosecutors and their assistants#b$ /ud(es o the ,unici%al Trial Courts and ,unici%al Circuit Trial Courts#c$ National and Re(ional State Prosecutors and#d$ Other oicers as ma& be authori-ed b& la!.Their authorit& to conduct %reliminar& in'esti(ations shall include all crimes

co(ni-able b& the %ro%er court in their res%ecti'e territorial urisdictions. #*a$

Q:How about those other offenses which 34 54T re(uire preliminary in'estigation?A:nder the new rules, yung below 6 years and months ang penalty 7 they are triable by the +T*. 8If the

penalty is 6 years, months and 1 day, it re(uires preliminary in'estigation.9

Q:How do you institute them? :i/e slight physical inuries;A:!ou ha'e two 89 options2

1. ile a complaint with the prosecutor&s office in the city or pro'incial who will now file the case in courtor

. =ung gusto mo, directfiling. !ou can file the complaint directly to the +T*. :i/e sa munisipyo, policeman ang mag>file ba.

15


2/27




Howe'er in 3a'ao *ity we do not see that because under the rules, in +etro +anila and other charteredcities, the complaint shall always be filed with the office of the prosecutor unless the charter of the city pro'idesotherwise.

So again, the complaint can be filed either in the +T* in the pro'ince or office of the fiscal merely fopreliminary in'estigation. nli/e in chartered cities na puro fiscals lang ang authoried to conduct preliminary

in'estigation. or example2 +urder, the police can file a complaint for murder before the +T* of Sta. *ru, 3a'aodel Sur. That is not for trial but only for preliminary in'estigation because the +T* of Sta. *ru has no power totry a murder case.

The institution o the criminal action shall interru%t the runnin( o the %eriod o%rescri%tion o the oense char(ed unless other!ise %ro'ided in s%ecial la!s. 8lastparagraph, Section 1, Rule 1109

QUESTION: 3oes the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor&s office interrupt the running of theprescripti'e period of the crime?

In the old case of People vs. del osario81@69, S*2 5o. "hen a complaint is filed in the municipal court onlyfor the purpose of preliminary in'estigation, it does not interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period. "ha

interrupts is the filing of the complaint in court which has urisdiction to try the case.

That is reiterated A years later in the case of People vs. !o"uia.The S* modified it in the case of People vsOlartewhere a complaint for murder is filed in the +T* for preliminary in'estigation. The issue is2 Is the running ofthe prescripti'e period interrupted? S*2 !es, abandoning the case of !o"uiaand del osario. "hy? %ecause theBenal *ode says, the filing of the complaint interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period. Crticle @1 of the RB*does not distinguish whether the filing is for trial or merely for preliminary in'estigation. Howe'er the S* said herethe complaint is filed in court for preliminary in'estigation. If it is filed in the fiscal&s office also for preliminaryin'estigation, Hindi Ddoes not interruptEFF #*ourt$ not #iscal$. That is the original ruling.

Howe'er in 1@GA in the case of #rancisco vs. !A, the S* made it total na2 the filing of the complaint whethein the +T* or the fiscal&s office for preliminary in'estigation is sufficient to interrupt the running of the prescripti'eperiod. Howe'er, in 1@G when the rules were re'ised, the S* reected the ruling in the #ranciscocase2 the filingof the complaint in the fiscal&s office does not interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period. %ut in 1@GG, in>

amend na naman ang rules2 the filing of the complaint in the fiscal&s office is sufficient to interrupt the running ofthe prescripti'e period.

Cnd here comes the 1@@ case of $aldivia vs. e%es Sr.811 S*RC 9 which was a criminal case co'eredby the Summary Rules.

234I5I2 vs.RE6ES SR.11 S*RC

F2CTS2 It was a 'iolation of a municipal ordinance. Arresto &enorlang yan e. >in>ile sa fiscal&soffice. The fiscal is rela-ed because according to him2 the filing of the case with the fiscal&s office issufficient to interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period. So, rela- siya; he too/ his time.

>in>ile niya 8fiscal9 sa court after A months. Bag>file niya, motion to (uash2 'Prescri(ed)*iscal:

'+indee) ,hen the case is filed -ith the fiscals office/ the runnin0 of prescriptive period isinterrupted)*

7E342 !ou 8fiscal9 are wrong. The filing of this case before your office did not interrupt therunning of the prescripti'e period. !ou should ha'e filed that on time before the court.

RE2SON2 !ou loo/ at the first paragraph of Section 1 81@GG Rules1: 'in cases not covered (% theules of Summar% Procedure2*So, that rule only applies in cases not co'ered by the SummaryRules. %ut the case at bar is co'ered by the Summary Rules precisely because it is only arrestomenor.

Therefore, when the case is co'ered by the Rules of Summary Brocedure, the filing of the case with the

16


3/27




fiscal&s office does not interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period 8Jaldi'ia 's. Reyes, Kr, 11 S*RC 9. Itshould be the filing of the case before the court which will interrupt. So, /laro yan until the 1@@G case of

REO4IC2 vs.COURT OF 2PPE23S*8* SCR2 9:, 3a'ide, Kr. 3. 4cho%)1

F2CTS2 The charge here was slight physical inuries through rec/less imprudence which isactually punishable by arresto menor. It was filed with the fiscal&s office within months but it wasfiled in the court beyond months. Cnd definitely, it is co'ered by the Summary Brocedure. In$aldiviacase, the filing in the fiscal&s office interrupts the running of the prescripti'e period.

NOTE2 Remember, the case of $aldiviain'ol'ed a 'iolation of an ordinance.

7E34" %ut in the case at bar, this is a felon%under the Benal *ode. D3ean I2 )inawan pa ngdistinctionFE If it is a felony, the filing with the fiscal&s office is sufficient to interrupt the running of theprescripti'e period evenif it is co'ered by the Summary Rules. %ut, if it is a light offense punished bya special law li/e an ordinance and therefore co'ered by the Summary Rules, then the filing in thefiscal&s office does not interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period.

So I start to wonder2 Saan ba nanggaling Lyung distinction na Lyun? The S* cited Cct AA which is the lawgo'erning prescription of crimes punished by special laws. "hereas, Crticle @0 of the RB* refers to prescriptionof felonies under the Benal *ode. Cnd under Cct AA, it is 'ery clear that the prescription period for the crime8punished by a special law9 is interrupted only upon udicial proceeding 7 filing in the court.

Cyun palaF C/ala /o the $aldiviacase settled the rule after all. +eron pa palang eodica.

The S* said2 The re'ised rules of Summary Brocedure #cannot be ta/en to mean that the prescripti'e periodis interrupted only by the filing of a complaint or information directly with said courts. It must be stressed thatprescription in criminal cases is a matter of substanti'e law. Bursuant to Section 89, Crticle MIII of the*onstitution, this *ourt, in the e-ercise of its rule>ma/ing power, is not allowed to diminish, increase or modifysubstanti'e rights. Hence, in case of conflict between the Rule on Summary Brocedure promulgated by this *ourtand the Re'ised Benal *ode, the latter pre'ails.$ 8Reodica 's. *C, supra9

!anF "hen I was reading this case, I said, what happened to $aldiviacase? "as it re'ersed? S*2 5oF 5o"e ne'er re'ersed $aldivia. #5either does $aldiviacontrol in this instance. It must be recalled that what wasin'ol'ed therein was a 'iolation of a municipal ordinance< thus, the applicable law was not Crticle @1 of theRe'ised Benal *ode, but Cct. 5o. AA, - - - - - nder, Section thereof, the period of prescription issuspended only when udicial proceedings are instituted against the guilty party. Cccordingly, this *ourt held thatthe prescripti'e period was not interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the 4ffice of the Bro'inciaBrosecutor, as such did not constitute a udicial proceeding< what could ha'e tolled the prescripti'e period therewas only the filing of the information in the proper court. In the instant case, as the offenses in'ol'ed are co'eredby the Re'ised Benal *ode, Crticle @1 thereof and the rulings in #rancisco and !uaresmaapply. Thus, theprescripti'e period for the (uasi offenses in (uestion was interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the fiscalNsoffice three days after the 'ehicular mishap and remained tolled pending the termination of this case. "e cannot,therefore, uphold petitionerNs defense of prescription of the offenses charged in the information in this case$8Reodica 's. *C, supra9.

!anF Cnd I thin/ the eodicacase is now incorporated in the new rules. !ou read the last paragraph ofSection , Rule 1102

;The %rosecution or 'iolation o s%ecial la!s shall be (o'erned b& the %ro'isionthereo. #n$complaint.

The fiscal /new that and so he prepared an information for adultery charging the wife and her

22


9/27




paramour. In the information he stated2 #The undersigned *ity iscal upon sworn statement originallyfiled by the offended party, -ero- copies of which are hereto attached as anne-es C and % ;---$ Sowhat he did was to incorporate the affida'it of the deceased offended husband in the information.

5ow, the wife and the paramour mo'ed to (uash the information alleging lac/ of urisdiction uponthe offense charged because under Crticle A66 of the RB*, the re(uirement for the complaint ofadultery was not complied with citing the case of Beople 's. Santos, 101 Bhil. @G, where it was held

that the complaint filed in the fiscal&s office for a pri'ate crime is not the complaint contemplated bylaw. 4n that basis, RT* Kudge Ilarde dismissed the case.

The prosecution went to the S* on certiorari.

7E342 The respondent trial court is wrong. The order of dismissal is hereby set aside and isdirected to proceed with the trial of the case. #It must be borne in mind, howe'er, that this legalre(uirement was imposed out of consideration for the aggrie'ed party who might prefer to suffer theoutrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial. Thus, the law lea'es it to theoption of the aggrie'ed spouse to see/ udicial redress for the affront committed by the erring spouse.

Cnd this, to 4ur mind, should be the o'erriding consideration in determining the issue of whether ornot the condition precedent prescribed by said Crticle A66 has been complied with. or needless tostate, this *ourt should be guided by the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law.$

#In the case at bar, the desire of the offended party to bring his wife and her alleged paramour to

ustice is only too e'ident. Such determination of purpose on his part is amply demonstrated in thedispatch DspeedE by which he filed his complaint with the fiscal&s office Dbecause he filed the complaintthe day after the crime happenedE. The strong and e(ui'ocal statement contained in the affida'it filedwith the iscalNs 4ffice that #I am formally charging my wife of the crime of adultery and would re(uestthat this affida'it be considered as a formal complaint against them$ 7 is a clear show of such intent.$

#The ruling in People vs. Santos is not applicable to the case at bar. In that case, the swornstatement was not considered the complaint contemplated by Crticle A66 of the Re'ised Benal *odebecause it was a mere narration of how the crime was committed. "hereas, in the case at bar, in theaffida'it>complaint submitted by the offended husband, he not only narrated the facts andcircumstances constituting the crime of adultery, but he also e-plicitly and categorically chargedpri'ate respondents with the said offense 7 #I&m charging my wife and her paramour with adultery.$

#+oreo'er, in Santos, the S* noted that the information filed by the fiscal commenced with thestatement Lthe undersigned fiscal accuses so and so,& the offended party not ha'ing been mentionedat all as one of the accusers. %ut in the present case, it is as if the husband filed the case.$

#The affida'it of the husband here contains all the elements of a 'alid complaint under Section ,Rule I10 of the Rules of *ourt. "hat is more, said complaint>affida'it was attached to the informationas an integral part thereof, and duly filed with the court. Therefore, the affida'it complaint became thebasis of the complaint re(uired by Section .$

So it became sort of an e-ception to the general rule that the affida'it>complaint in the fiscal&s office is not theone contemplated by law. "hile I was reading this case, I noticed that the fiscal was 'ery imaginati'e on what heis going to do, /asi alam niya ang rules eh. That fiscal is now Solicitor )eneral )al'e. Cnd I was surprised whythe husband drafted the affida'it that way. +aybe he /new he was dying. :ater, they found out that the husbandwas a lawyer. Cnd do not be shoc/ed, the paramour was also a lawyerF So that was a 'ery interesting case. Theruling was reiterated in the 1@@1 case of PEOP6E vs. 3AO6 8Kune 1@, 1@@19.

6ast para0raph/ Section 7/ ule 889: No criminal action or defamation!hich consists inthe im%utation o an& o the oenses mentioned abo'e shall be brou(ht eAce%t at theinstance o and u%on com%laint iled b& the oended %art&.

The fifth paragraph of Section is ta/en from Crticle A0 of the RB*. Crticle A0 refers to the crime of li(eloslander.

Q:Is the crime of defamation Dslanderis when you defame somebody orally< li(elis when the defamation is inwritingE a pri'ate crime?

A:54.

23


10/27




Q:*an a case of slander be filed in court without a complaint signed and sworn to by the offended party?A:Cs a )O5ORC: R:O, !OS, OP*OBT when the defamation imputes to the offended party the commission

of any of the crimes mentioned abo'e. +eaning, it imputes to the offended party the commission of a pri'ateoffense li/e adulter%/ concu(ina0e/ a(duction/ seduction/ acts of lasciviousness 8C*CSC9. In this case, thecriminal action shall be brought at the instance of and upon a complaint filed by the offended party.

Q:Is the accusation #man0aa0a- n0 asa-a n0 ma% asa-a)$ an imputation of adultery?A:5o. It is a mere implication of a 'ice or defect, not an imputation of adultery. The phrase was translated as

#seducer of the husbands of other woman.$ It implies that the person to whom it is addressed is a :IRT, aTO+BTROSS, or one who indulges in inciting another&s husband. 8)onales 's. Crcilla, 5o'ember 1G, 1@@19

The last paragraph states that #The prosecution for 'iolation of special laws shall be go'erned by thepro'ision thereof.$ The best e-ample is the case of eodica vs. !A, which we already discussed, that prescriptionfor 'iolation of a special law is not go'erned by the RB* but by special law. The ruling was emphasied in the1@@ case of

33ENES vs.4IC4IC2N/ul& =1+ 188

7E342 #The institution of the complaint in the prosecutor&s office shall interrupt the period ofprescription of the offense charged under Section 1, Rule 110. The rule, howe'er, is entirely differentunder Cct 5o. AA, as amended, whose Section e-plicitly pro'ides that the period of prescriptionshall be interrupted by the institution of udicial proceedings, i.e., the filing of the complaint orinformation with the court.$ Therefore, the filing of the complaint in the fiscal&s office does not interruptthe running of the prescripti'e period. That is only true in felonies under the RB*. %ut when in comesto special laws, we follow the special law.

Q:"hen is a complaint or information sufficient?A:Read Section , Rule 110

SEC. . Sufficienc% of complaint or information. 2 com%laint or inormation is suicient

i it states the name o the accused the desi(nation o the oense (i'en b& the statutethe acts or omissions com%lained o as constitutin( the oense the name o the oended%art& the a%%roAimate date o the commission o the oense and the %lace !here theoense !as committed.

hen an oense is committed b& more than one %erson+ all o them shall be includedin the com%laint or inormation. #a$

Q:Suppose the information is defecti'e, /ulang>/ulang ba, there are some essential facts re(uired by lawwhich are not stated. *an it be cured during the trial?

A:!OS. Cny defect in the complaint or information may be cured by e'idence introduced by the prosecution,OP*OBT2

1. when the defect is urisdictional 8Beople 's. Cbad Santos, Bhil. 669< or

. when the complaint or information does not charge any offense. 8Beople 's. Custria, @6 Bhil. G@9

SEC. :. Name of the accused. The com%laint or inormation must state the name andsurname o the accused or an& a%%ellation or nicBname b& !hich he has been or is Bno!n.I his name cannot be ascertained+ he must be described under a ictitious name !ith astatement that his true name is unBno!n.

I the true name o the accused is thereater disclosed b& him or a%%ears in some othermanner to the court+ such true name shall be inserted in the com%laint or inormation andrecord. #:a$

24


11/27




Q: 4ne of the re(uirements under Section is that the name of the accused must be stated in theinformation. Oh /ung nag/amali /a? Is that fatal? "hat is the effect of an erroneous name gi'en to the accused inthe complaint or information?

A: The defect is not fatal. The error will not produce any ad'erse effect because what is important is theidentity of the person of the accused, not his name . 8Beople 's. Ramos, G Bhil. GA9 =ung nag/amali, eh dpalitanF ;pro(lema (a %un< +a)= This reminds me of the #ortun brothers 7 the >elia a?as incident during the

impeachment trial.

SEC. 9. >esi0nation of the offense. The com%laint or inormation shall state thedesi(nation o the oense (i'en b& the statute+ a'er the acts or omissions constitutin( theoense+ and s%eci& its )uali&in( and aggravating circumstances. I there is nodesi(nation o the oense+ reerence shall be made to the section or subsection o thestatute %unishin( it. #9a$

SEC. 8. !ause of the accusation The acts or omissions com%lained o as constitutin(the oense and the )uali&in( and a((ra'atin( circumstances must be stated in ordinar&and concise lan(ua(e and not necessaril& in the lan(ua(e used in the statute but in termssuicient to enable a %erson o common understandin( to Bno! !hat oense is bein(

char(ed as !ell as its )uali&in( and a((ra'atin( circumstance and or the court to%ronounce ud(ment. #8a$

There is one maor change here. The law now specifically emphasies under Section G and Section @ that youdo not only mention the crime. !ou must also specify the aggra'ating and the (ualifying circumstance. "hat isnew here is the 'a00ravatin0.*

The old rule is, there is no need of specifying the aggra'ating circumstances because anyway, they are notelements of the crime. They are only circumstances that affect the criminal liability and if the aggra'atingcircumstances are pro'en, they can still be applied against the accused. The new law now says you do not onlyspecify the (ualifying, you also mention the aggra'ating. 5ow, how does it affect the old urisprudence?

Q:+y (uestion is this, based on my own interpretation of Sections G and @, Pro(lem:the information does noallege the aggra'ating circumstances. In the course of the trial, the prosecution starts pro'ing. nder the new

rule, the defense can obect to any e'idence to pro'e the aggra'ating circumstance because the same is nomentioned in the information. %ut I will go further2 an aggra'ating circumstance is not alleged in the informationand the prosecution starts pro'ing and there was no obection on the part of the defense. 5ow, can the court inimposing the penalty, consider the aggra'ating circumstance?

A: +y personal 'iew is !OS because of the wai'er for failure to obect, in the same manner that anaggra'ating circumstance not alleged may still be considered as such. +y only interpretation of this pro'ision isthat if this is not alleged in the complaint or information and the prosecution starts pro'ing it, the defense canobect and that obection must be sustained. %ut if there is no obection, the old rule can still be applied becauseof estoppel or wai'er.

"ell, that is my personal 'iew on that matter. I do not /now whether my 'iew is correct or not. %ut I belie'emy 'iew is correct because anyway e'en the udges here in 3a'ao are as/ing for my 'iew. I recei'e calls fromtime to time from these people. ;ehem)=

Q::et&s go to Section @. Suppose the offense says, #criminal case for murder$ but in the body of theinformation there is no allegation of a (ualifying circumstance. "hat does the fiscal charge, +urder or Homicide?

A:H4+I*I3O. The S* held that the designation of the offense is not an essential element of a complaint orinformation, because, at most that is a mere conclusion of the fiscal. "hat is controlling is the recital of factsappearing in the body of the complaint or information. 8Beople 's. Cgito, Cpril G, 1@G< Beople 's. *osare, @Bhil. 9

%ut there are some OP*OBTI45S li/e what happened in the case of

U.S. vs.TICON

25


12/27




*@ Phil. :

F2CTS2 C complaint was filed by the woman stating that #while the offended party was inside herhouse at night and all the doors were loc/ed and all the windows were closed, the accusedsurreptitiously entered the house and approached the offended party who was asleep, raised her s/irtand at that 'ery moment the woman wo/e up and resisted.$ DThis can be an attempted rape but the

element of the crime was not fully accomplished because of an act or accident other than her ownresistance.E %ut sabi ng caption, #for trespass to dwelling$ 7 pwede man din.

7E342 Sabi mo, #trespass$. 4=, eh di trespassF So the caption pre'ails. "hen the factsappearing in the complaint or information are so stated that they are capable of two or moreinterpretations, then the designation of the offense in the caption controls.

Ta/e note that under the new rape law, RC @, there are some circumstances which if present call for themandatory death penalty. In the case of

PEOP3E vs.,2N7U6O4+ /R.,a& *0+ 1889

7E342 "hen you charge somebody with a heinous crime such as rape, the information mustma/e reference to the new law. If not, it will only be translated as an ordinary aggra'atingcircumstance because the information was charged after the effecti'ity of the heinous crime law.

#inally, a few words on the lac/ of care de'oted to the preparation of the information filed beforethe trial court. The 4ffice of the Bro'incial Brosecutor had in its possession e'idence that the crimewas committed by a father against his 1>year old daughter after the effecti'ity of R.C. 5o. @,hence the imposable penalty was death. It was then necessary to ma/e reference to the amendatorylaw to charge the proper offense that carried the mandatory imposition of capital punishment.$

#Brosecutors are thus admonished to e-ercise utmost care and diligence in the preparation ofcomplaints or informations to a'ert legal repercussions which may pro'e preudicial to the interest ofthe State and pri'ate offended parties.$

Q:Cccording to Section @, the elements of the crime must be recited in the complaint or information. +ust thee-act language of the law be used?

A:54. !ou can use other words pro'ided it would con'ey the same idea or thought.

E?2,P3E2 THOT. The information does not contain the allegation #intent to gain$ which is an element of thecrime of theft. The S* said it is not re(uired because those words are presumed from the information that theaccused appropriated to himself the things belonging to the offended party. 8.S. 's. Clabot, AG Bhil. @G9

E?2,P3E2 R4%%OR! "ITH 4R*O B45 THI5)S. There was no allegation that the accused entered thehouse of the 'ictim with the use of force upon things but the information alleges that the accused entered thehouse of the 'ictim by passing through a hole in the ceiling, an opening not intended for entrance. Cno yan? TheS* said that is tantamount to use of force upon things. 8Beople 's. :area, A Bhil. G9

E?2,P3E2 +R3OR. There was no allegation of treachery 4alevosia1but the information says that when theaccused /illed the 'ictim, the latter was not in the position to defend himself. The S* said they mean the samething. In fact, it became clearer. 8Beople 's. )ustahan, 6 Bhil. A9

Cnother interesting case of treacher%is the case of

PEOP3E vs.2DU6EN*1= SCR2 @8 #188*$

F2CTS2 The accused here /illed two 89 children, one was aged years and the other was 1Ayears old. He stabbed them. The information charges the accused with the /illing the minors. There

26


13/27




is no statement that there was treachery. Cll that the information says is that the accused /illed the #minors.$

ISSUE2 "as there a murder?

7E342 !OS. "hen the accused /illed the minors, that is e(ui'alent of /illing by treachery and

therefore (ualifies the /illing to murder.#It has, time and again, been held that the /illing of minor children who, by reason of their tender

years, could not be e-pected to put up a defense is considered attended with treachery e'en if themanner of attac/ was not shown. The allegation in the Information that the 'ictims are both minors isto be considered compliance with the fundamental rule that the (ualifying circumstances should bealleged in the information.$

#It is commonly understood in practice that when the 'ictim in physical inuries, homicide, ormurder cases is a child of tender years, he is described in the information as a minor. +inority in sucha case should not be e(uated with its statutory meaning Q that is, below eighteen 81G9 years old. It isused not so much as to state the age of the 'ictim 8otherwise, the charging fiscal would ha'e simplyplaced the e-act ages9 rather, it is more of a description of the state of helplessness of the young'ictim.$

Q:*45SBIRC*!. Ket and Bao are charged for murder pero ang sinasabi sa information, it was Ket who /illedthe 'ictim. 5ow, in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. "ould that sufficiently charge Bao?

A:54. =ailangan mong i>describe ang conspiracy para matamaan si Bao. =laruhin mo yung conspiracyotherwise if the allegation of conspiracy is not shown against Bao, then, there is no crime of conspiracy. This isthe guideline laid down by the S* in the 1@@G case of

PEOP3E vs.UIT3ONG*8* SCR2 *0

7E342 #nli/e the omission of an ordinary recital of fact which, if not e-cepted from or obected toduring trial, may be corrected or supplied by competent proof, an allegation, howe'er, of conspiracy,or one that would impute criminal liability to an accused for the act of another or others, isindispensable in order to hold such person, regardless of the nature and e-tent of his own

participation, e(ually guilty with the other or others in the commission of the crime. Merily, an accusedmust /now from the information whether he faces a criminal responsibility not only for his acts butalso for the acts of his co>accused as well.$

+eaning, if you are charging me for what my companion did, you better be clear that there isconspiracy para ma>apply yung doctrine na @the act of one is the act of all.

#The opinion of the trial court to the effect that conspiracy may be inferred from the allegation ofabuse of superior strength and with the aid of armed men is difficult to accept. the information muststate that the accused ha'e confederated to commit the crime or that there has been a community ofdesign, a unity of purpose or an agreement to commit the felony among the accused. *onspiracymust be alleged, not ust inferred, in the information on which basis an accused can aptly enter hisplea, a matter that is not to be confused with or li/ened to the ade(uacy of e'idence that may bere(uired to pro'e it.$

!ou can pro'e conspiracy by direct e'idence. %ut /ahirap niyan uy unless you were there listening. In criminalaw, when two or more persons act together in unison to attain the same criminal obecti'e, then conspiracy canbe inferred. +eaning, you can use that as e'idence to con'ict a person but for purposes of filing the case, youmust e-pressly allege it.

Therefore, for purposes of charging 7 express. or purposes of pro'ing 7 implied. !anF This is preciselybecause directly pro'ing it, is difficult. The manner of charging is different from the manner of pro'ing. 8Beople 'suitlong, supra9

E?2,P3E2 3IRO*T CSSC:T. The S* said it is not enough for the information to say that the 'ictim is aperson in authority. The charge for such offense must be so framed as to clearly allege the functionsof the person

27


14/27




assaulted, so as to show that he comes under the definition of person in authority. 8Beople 's. *arpio, G0 BhilA69 4f course, I belie'e that if the position is ob'ious, the court will ta/e udicial notice of that. There is no needto describe. %ut if it comes to some position which are not really common, the information must recite thefunctions.

E?2,P3E2 TROCS45. Cn information for treason is insufficient if it merely alleges generally that the accused

had adhered to the enemy, gi'ing her aid and comfort. The charge must be specific by stating what is termed aso'ert act of gi'ing aid and comfort to the enemy. 8)uinto 's. Melu, Bhil. @G9

E?2,P3E2 :I%O:. In charging libel, the prosecution must single out the libelous statements and (uotever(atim in the complaint or information. 8Beople 's. %ustos, @ Bhil. A9

"e will go to another issue regarding HC%ITC: 3O:I5O5*!. The case is

PEOP3E vs. 5ENUS= Phil. >=@

F2CTS2 The *ity iscal of +anila file with the *I of +anila an information charging the accusedwith the crime of robbery in an inhabited house. The information alleges, among others,$ that the

accused is a habitual delin(uent, he ha'ing been pre'iously con'icted by final udgement rendered bya competent court, once for the crime of attempted robbery in an inhabited house and once for theft,the date of his last con'iction being 5o'ember 16, 1@A6.

5ote2 There is habitual delin(uency when, for a period of ten 8109 years, from the date of his lastcon'iction or release for a crime of serious or less serious physical inuries, robbery, theft, estafa andfalsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes, a third time or oftener.

ISSUE2 "as there a sufficient allegation of habitual delin(uency?

7E342 54. #Habitual delin(uency, can not be ta/en into account in the present case because ofthe insufficiency of the allegation on this point in the city fiscalNs information. "hile the informationspecifies the particular offense 8attempted robbery in an inhabited house9 for which the defendant>appellant was alleged to ha'e pre'iously been con'icted and also the date of the last con'iction fortheft which occurred prior to the date of the commission of the offense now charged. %ut this does not

ma/e the information sufficient in law for it fails to specify the date of the con'iction of the accused forthe crime of attempted robbery. or all we /now, the two pre'ious con'ictions for attempted robberyin an inhabited house and theft may ha'e ta/en place on the same date 85o'ember 16, 1@A69 or ontwo different dates so close together as to warrant the court in considering the two con'ictions as onlyone for the purposes of the application of the habitual delin(uency law.$

#pon the other hand, it may happen that a person accused of ro(o, hurto, estafa or falsificacionmay ha'e been con'icted of any of said offenses after the commission of the crime with which he ischarged. "e ha'e already held that pre'ious con'ictions in order to be considered for the purpose ofimposing the additional penalty for habitual delin(uency, must precede the commission of the crimecharged. 4ther instances may be mentioned but those gi'en suffice to demonstrate the necessity ofcharging the e-istence of habitual delin(uency with sufficient clearness and certainty to enable thecourts to properly apply the pro'isions of our law on the subect.$

#It is therefore urged upon prosecuting attorneys that in the prosecution of cases of this nature,

they should not content themsel'es with a general a'erment of habitual delin(uency but shouldspecify the dates2

1. of the commission of the pre'ious crimes,. of the last con'iction or release, andA. of the other pre'ious con'ictions or release of the accused. #

#Informations filed in these cases should be sufficiently clear and specific to a'oid the improperimposition of the additional penalty on a plea of guilty to a general allegation of habitual delin(uency,no less than the fre(uency with which hardened criminals escape the imposition of the deser'edadditional penalty pro'ided for by law.$

28


15/27




Q:+ust e-cepting clauses be alleged in a complaint or information?A:It 3OBO53S. If the e-cepting clause forms part of the definition of the offense, it must be alleged< but if it is

a matter of defense, it need not be alleged in a complaint or information. 8.S. 's. *han Toco, 1 Bhil. 9

Sometimes it is hard to distinguish what is an element of a crime, and what is a matter of defense as stated ina law. The e-cepti'e clauses such as #provided further$, and #provided furthermore$ are 'ery confusing

Sometime you get lost. Cno ba itong #provided further$? Is this part of the crime or is it a part of the defense?*onfusing baF :i/e in the old case of

U.S. vs.PO,PE62=1 Phil. *>@

F2CTS2 The municipal go'ernment passed an ordinance which re(uires all able>bodied maleresidence of the municipality between the ages of 1G and A to assist in peace and order campaign inthe municipality by rendering ser'ices. The accused 'iolated the ordinance. So he was charged. Theinformation says he is a resident of the municipality, he is male, he is able>bodied and he refuses torender ser'ice to the go'ernment. Cccording to the accused, the information is defecti'e, it does notreconcile all the elements because it does not state how old he was. %ut according to the prosecutor,#5oF I do not ha'e to allege your age. It is for you to pro'e that you are below 1G or more than AF$

ISSUE2 "hether or not the clause in the ordinance pertaining to the age range of 1G to A is partof the crime, because if it is part of the crime, then it must be alleged.

7E342 The S* ruled that the age re(uirement is an element of the crime and therefore must bealleged. ailure to allege it is fatal because he may belong to the e-empt age in which case theprosecution may not prosper.

:et us try to compare that in the case ofU.S. vs.62O SI,

A1 Bhil. A01

F2CTS2 The accused was charged with 'iolation of the opium law. The opium law was thepredecessor, the great grandfather of the 3angerous 3rugs Cct. That was the old law which prohibits

the use and smo/ing of opium without the prescription of a licensed practicing physician.The accused argued that there is no crime committed because the information did not allege that

the accused has no prescription from a duly licensed or a practicing physician. %ut the prosecutioncontended that it is for the accused to pro'e that he has a prescription. The element of the crime isonly smo/ing opium.

7E342 The S* said, the prosecution is correct. It is not part of the crime, it is a matter of defense.The crime is smo/ing opium, periodF %ut if you say you ha'e prescription, then you pro'e it.

That is sometimes the difficult areas in the law. !ou don&t /now whether it is part of a crime or ust a part ofyour defense. There are things that we ha'e to determine. This is part of our study of Section @.

Q::i/e for e-ample, yung I::O)C: B4SSOSSI45 4 IROCR+S. 3o you ha'e to allege that the firearm is

not licensed?A:The S* said !OS, that is part of the crime.

Q:%ut in 3C5)OR4S 3R)S C*T, iba man. If you are in possession of opium, mariuana or whate'eryou are liable if without authority of law. 5ow, who will pro'e the authority of law? Is that part of the definition ofthe crime?

A:The S* said 54. It is for you to pro'e that you are authoried. The crime is the possession or use ofmariuana. That you are authoried to possess or smo/e is a matter of defense.

5ow let&s go to the ne-t section. !ou must allege the place of the commission of the crime. !ou must alsoallege the date of the commission of the crime.

29


16/27




SEC. 10. Place of commission of the offense. The com%laint or inormation is suicienti it can be understood rom its alle(ations that the oense !as committed or some o itsessential in(redients occurred at some %lace !ithin the urisdiction o the court+ unlessthe %articular %lace !here it !as committed constitutes an essential element o the

oense char(ed or is necessar& or its identiication. #10a$

Q:"hen you sayplace, do you ha'e to be 'ery specific as to the place where the crime was committed? !oumust describe the /alsada, the street?

A:54. Cs a matter of fact, if you loo/ at the information, it ust says, you committed the crime in 3a'ao *itywithout e'en stating what barangay or barrio. So, the place of the commission of the crime maybe statedgenerally. "hat is only important is it is within the territorial urisdiction

OP*OBTI45 when the place of the commission of the crime constitutes an essential element of the crimecharged. !anF !ou must be specific. O-amples2

E?2,P3E2 TROSBCSS T4 3"O::I5). !ou must specify that the crime was committed by entering into thedwelling of somebody. !ou cannot ust say that he committed it in 3a'ao *ity. !ou must say na pumaso/ siya sa

bahay na ito. Or

E?2,P3E. R4%%OR! I5 C5 I5HC%ITO3 H4SO, B%:I* %I:3I5) 4R O3II*O 3OM4TO3 T4"4RSHIB. !ou must state the particular house. =ailangan specific /a diyan.

SEC. 11. >ate of commission of the offense. H It is not necessar& to state in the com%laintor inormation the %recise date the oense !as committed eAce%t !hen it is a materialin(redient o the oense. The oense ma& be alle(ed to ha'e been committed on a date asnear as possibleto the actual date o its commission. #11a$

Q:How about yung date? Is it necessary that it should be 'ery accurate?A:54. "hat is important is that the information alleges that the crime was committed #on or about$ a certain

date.

Q: The information said that Kudy committed homicide on Kanuary 0. 3uring the trial, pinalabas na3ecember 0 pala 7 one month earlier. Is that harmless or fatal?

A:It is still co'ered by the phrase #on or about.$ C 'ariance of a few months between the time set out in theindictment and that established by the e'idence during the trial has been held not to constitute an error so seriousas to warrant re'ersal of a con'iction solely on that score alone. 8Rocaberte 's. Beople, 1@A S*RC 1@9

%ut when you say 3ecember 000 and then the crime pala was committed in 1@@, ay sobra na yanF That istoo much. i'e 89 years is no longer co'ered by #on or about.$ That is already 'iolati'e of Section 11. C 'arianceof se'eral years, or the statement of the time of the commission of the offense which is so general as to span anumber of years has been held to be fatally defecti'e. 8Rocaberte 's. Beople, 1@A S*RC 1@9

Q:Cnd what is the remedy in that case?A:The remedy against an indictment that fails to allege the time of the commission of the offense with

sufficient definiteness is a motion for a bill of particulars 8Rocaberte 's. Beople, 1@A S*RC 1@9. 3o not dismissthe information. That was commented by the S* in the recent case of People vs. arcia, 5o'ember , 1@@ 8G1S*RC 6A9.

I ha'e to admit that the rules now try to ma/e a gap between the date of the commission of the crime asalleged in the information and the actual date of commission to be not so far. !ou loo/ at Section 112 'xxx Theoffense ma%(e alle0e or committed on a date as near as possi(le to the actual date of its commission.* Thaphrase 'as near as possi(le* is not found in the 1@G rules.

30


17/27




The 45:! OP*OBTI45 is ust li/e in the Section 10, 5:OSS the date of the commission of the crime is anessential element of the crime. :i/e for e-ample2

E?2,P3E2 MI4:CTI45 4 O:O*TI45 *43O, drin/ing li(uor during election day. !ou must be specific /unganong araw yun. Hindi pwedeng #on or about election day.$ Hindi pwede yanF If you dran/ li(uor before, walamang crime. If you drin/ li(uor after, wala mang crime baF

E?2,P3E. I5C5TI*I3O. It is committed by /illing a child less than A days old or less than hours. If theinfant is e-actly A days old, it is no longer infanticide. So the information must be 'ery specific that the child wasborn on this day, on this time and the /illing was done on this day, on this time.

SEC. 1*. Name of the offended part%. The com%laint or inormation must state thename and surname o the %erson a(ainst !hom or a(ainst !hose %ro%ert& the oense!as committed+ or an& a%%ellation or nicBname b& !hich such %erson has been or isBno!n. I there is no better !a& o identi&in( him+ he must be described under a ictitiousname.

#a$ In oenses a(ainst %ro%ert&+ i the name o the oended %art& is unBno!n+ the%ro%ert& must be described !ith such %articularit& as to %ro%erl& identi& the oense

char(ed.#b$ I the true name o the %erson a(ainst !hom or a(ainst !hose %ro%ert& the oense!as committed is thereater disclosed or ascertained+ the court must cause such truename to be inserted in the com%laint or inormation and the record.

#c$ I the oended %art& is a uridical %erson+ it is suicient to state its name+ or an&name or desi(nation b& !hich it is Bno!n or b& !hich it ma& be identiied+ !ithout need oa'errin( that it is a uridical %erson or that it is or(ani-ed in accordance !ith la!. #1*a$

:et&s go to the ne-t rule 7 name of the offended party. !ou must allege also who is the 'ictim. "e are tal/inghere about the 'ictim 7 the pri'ate offended party.

Q:"hy is it that the name of the offended party must be alleged in the information?A:#irst, the general rule is that, aside from the Beople of the Bhilippines, there is a pri'ate 'ictim. Second, so

that we will /now to whom the court will award the ci'il liability.

Q:Is there a possibility by which the name of the offended party is not mentioned in the information but thesame is still 'alid?

A:!OS. Baragraph DaE, in a crime a0ainst propert%. If you do not /now who is the 'ictim of theft or robbery, itis enough that you describe the property in the information.

E?2,P3E2 C thief, nahuli and he was found in possession of stolen goods and he admitted he stole. =anino?'E-an Bo. 5asta 0isnatch Bo man lan0 ito.* *an the police file a case? !OS. !ou ust describe the property in theinformation e'en if we don&t /now the owner because you commit theft when you ta/e personal propertybelonging to another with intent to gain. "hat is important is that, it belongs to another.

PEOP3E vs.CFI OF UEON DR. @*08 SCR2 :0>

F2CTS2 The accused was charged with timber smuggling or illegal cutting of logs from publicforest under B3 5o. A0. Cyan, wala talagang pri'ate offended party diyan. The only offended partyis the go'ernment. %ut the information does not mention that the offended party is the State. Theaccused challenged the information on this ground.

7E342 O'en if the State is not mentioned, the information is 54T defecti'e. "hy? !ou loo/ at thecaption of the case 7 #Beople of the Bhilippines$. That is actually the offended party.

Q:"hat happens if there was an erroneous naming of the offended party?A:In the case of

31


18/27




PEOP3E vs. UD2@@ Bhil 1A6

F2CTS2 Mid, on a certain date, was alleged to ha'e uttered publicly slanderous words againstKessamyn. So Kessamyn is the 'ictim of the slander. Clam niyo during the trial, it turned out that the

'ictim pala was :yle, not Kessamyn. %ut e'erything is the same 7 the date and place of thecommission, the defamatory words 7 pare>parehoF 4nly, there was an erroneous designation of theoffended party.

ISSUE2 *an the court con'ict Mid for the crime of slander?

7E342 54. Clthough the words are the same, the slander against :yle is a separate offense.+eaning, you are charging a different offense from the crime pro'en. !ou cannot con'ict a person ofa crime not properly charged.

#C mista/e in putting in the information the name of the offended party is a material matter whichnecessarily affects the identification of the act charged. The case should be dismissed for 'ariancebetween the allegations of the information and the proof.$

Howe'er, there were exceptionsin the past li/e where the accused, who is not a doctor, was charged ofillegal practice of medicine. The information stated that the offended party is Baul. Bag>trial, hindi pala si Baul. SInay pala dapat ang 'ictim. The S* said the accused can be con'icted. "hy? The crime is illegal practice ofmedicine regardless of whether the 'ictim is Baul or Inay. 83iel 's. +artine, Bhil. A9 !anF It is different fromthe case of U(a.

SEC. 1=. >uplicit% of the offense. 2 com%laint or inormation must char(e onl& oneoense+ eAce%t !hen the la! %rescribes a sin(le %unishment or 'arious oenses. #1=a$

The complaint or information must charge only one offense. It cannot charge or more offenses. If it does, itis called duplicitouscomplaint or information.

Q:"hat is the remedy there?

A:Cctually, you can file a +otion to uash under Section A DfE, Rule 11. %ut the defect is wai'able because ifyou do not file a +otion to uash, the trial can proceed and if you are found guilty for committing or morecrimes, then there will be or more penalties 8Section 6, Rule 109. 3apat diyan, one information, one crime. Thais the )O5ORC: R:O.

This seems to go against the rule in ci'il procedure about oinder of causes of action. In one complaint youcan oin or more causes of action, although you can also file or more cases. Cno&ng tawag diyan? Koinder ofparties or oinder of causes of action. There is no such thing as oinder of crimes in criminal procedure.

E?2,P3E2 The Batric/ got a gun, went out of the street, then met three people. %inaril niya2 %angF %ang%angF Tatlong tao patayF. 5ow, he commits three 8A9 crimes of homicide.

Q:*an I file one information accusing Batric/ of A homicide committed on that day?

A:54. That is duplicitous. There must three 8A9 informations, one for each 'ictim.

Q:%ut that is troublesome. The e'idence or the witnesses are identical. "hat is the remed%?A:!ou file a +otion to *onsolidate your trial 7 oint trial for the A criminal cases. That is the remedy, but not 1

information charging A acts of homicide unless the other party does not (uestion the duplicitous character of theinformation.

OP*OBTI45. The rule prohibiting duplicitous complaints or informations pro'ides for e-ceptions2 #O-ceptwhen the law prescribes a single punishment for 'arious offenses.$ "hen the law pro'ides only one penalty for or more offenses then Section 1A is not 'iolated. Examples:

32


19/27




E?2,P3E2 *4+B:OP *RI+OS 7 when a single act produces or more gra'e or less felonies or when oneoffense is a necessary means to commit another. Cctually, parang duplicitous yun eh /ung tingnan mo becauseyou are accusing somebody of homicides based on 1 single act. %ut that is only an e-ception. There is onepenalty anyway.

E?2,P3E2 SBO*IC: *4+B:OP *RI+OS. Robbery with homicide or Rape with Homicide. That is not

duplicitous. There is one penalty there.

E?2,P3E2 3O:IT4 *45TI5C34. The accused stole rooster owned by different people. Cctually, thereare acts of ta/ing but in the eyes of the law, there is only one crime. The accused was moti'ated by singlecriminal resolution.

E?2,P3E2 %abang was charged of the crime of RO%O::I45. Rebellion 7 she too/ up arms against thego'ernment, /illed soldiers, burned go'ernment properties. '>uplicitous %an) Cadamidami n%an o)*54. That isnot duplicitous because based of the a(sorption doctrine7 the common crimes are not to be treated as separatecrimes but are already absorbed in the rebellion. The S* said there is no crime such as rebellion comple-ed withmurder or homicide. %ut why do you ha'e to recite all these things? That is merely a recital of the manner of thecrime of rebellion. That is not a 'iolation of Section 1A.

PEOP3E vs.DUEN5I2/E>: Phil. @=

F2CTS2 There was a special law penaliing in once section the crime of illegal practice ofmedicine C53 illegally ad'ertising oneself as a doctor. The penalty of >year imprisonment shall beimposed on a person who, not being a physician, practice medicine or ad'ertise himself as aphysician. There is only one penalty for these acts. The information alleges2 #That the accused ischarged of 'iolating that law because he practiced medicine, or I5 THO C:TOR5CTIMO, head'ertised himself as a doctor when in fact, he is not.$

ISSUE2 Is the information duplicitous?

7E342 54. "hen the information merely recites in the alternati'e or otherwise the different waysof committing the offense li/e the information charges the accused for illegal practice of medicine and

with illegally ad'ertising himself as a physician, there is only one crime because these are onlyalternati'e ways of committing the crime.

The rule is different when the accused is charged of 'iolating different sections of the same law with distincpenalties which, if charged in a single information, would render it duplicitous. 8Beople 's. errer, 101 Bhil. A69

SEC. 1>.Amendment or su(stitution. 2 com%laint or inormation ma& be amended+ inorm or in substance+ !ithout lea'e o court and !hen it can be done !ithout causin(%reudice to the ri(hts o the accused.

7o!e'er+ an& amendment beore %lea+ !hich do!n(rades the nature o the oensechar(ed in or eAcludes an& accused rom the com%laint or inormation+ can be made onl&u%on motion b& the %rosecutor+ !ith notice to the oended %art& and !ith lea'e o court.The court shall state its reasons in resol'in( the motion and co%ies o its order shall be

urnished all %arties+ es%eciall& the oended %art&. #n$I it a%%ears at an&time beore ud(ment that a mistaBe has been made in char(in( the

%ro%er oense+ the court shall dismiss the ori(inal com%laint or inormation u%on theilin( o a ne! one char(in( the %ro%er oense in accordance !ith section 18+ Rule 118+%ro'ided the accused shall not be %laced in double eo%ard&. The court ma& re)uire the!itnesses to (i'e bail or their a%%earance at the trial. #1>a$

In ci'il procedure, formal amendment7 no problem. It can be allowed at any stage. Su(stantial amendmentfor as long as there is still no responsi'e pleading, the plaintiff can amend his complaint anytime. 4nce aresponsi'e pleading is filed, substantial amendment is allowed but with lea'e of court.

33


20/27




In criminal procedure the rule is2 for as long as the accused has not yet entered his plea 7 wala pangarraignment, the accused has not yet pleaded guilty or not guilty 7 the information can be amended either insubstance or in form.

Q:"hat happens if the accused has alread%enteredhis plea? *an the information still be amended by theprosecution?

A:Cs to 4R+ 7 !es, as a matter of udicial discretion. =ailangan merong permission.Cs to S%STC5*O 7 5e'erF %awalF 100 prohibited.

Q:How do you determine whether the amendment is formal or substantial? Sometimes madali, sometimesmahirap. =ung wrong spelling lang, talagang formal yan.

A:Cccording to the S* based on certain cases, the following are considered su(stantialand therefore cannobe allowed after plea2

1. if the amendment changes the manner of the commission of the offense< 8Beople 's. Julueta, G@ Bhil9

. if it changes the name of the offended party< 8Beople 's. ba, @@ Bhil. 1A69

A. if it changes the date of the commission of the offense< 8Beople 's. 4pemia, @G Bhil. @G9:et&s say, from the year 000 to years bac/wards. Hindi pwedeng maging formal yan.

6. when the purpose of amendment is to ma/e the information charge an offense when the originainformation does not charge an offense


21/27




being conclusions of law which in no way affect the legal aspects of the information, but from theactual recital of facts as alleged in the body of the information.$

#Betitioner in the case at bench maintains that, ha'ing already pleaded #not guilty$ to the crime ofhomicide, the amendment of the crime charged in the information from homicide to murder is asubstantial amendment preudicial to his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation againsthim. He utterly fails to dispute, howe'er, that the original information did allege that petitioner stabbed

his 'ictim #using superior strength$. Cnd this particular allegation (ualifies a /illing to murder,regardless of how such a /illing is technically designated in the information filed by the publicprosecutor.$

+eaning, in the case of 5uhatthe prosecutor belie'es originally that it is homicide, but it is murder pala alalong. "e are not adding anything new.

=aya nga when I read it, I thin/ there&s something wrong here with this /ind of ruling. Kust imagine, na>capitacrime /a, tapos formal amendment lang? !ou /now my personal 'iew in the case of 5uhat, it should be treatedonly as homicide with the aggra'ating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. %ut that was what the S* saideh. "ala tayong magawa.

7o!e'er+ an& amendment beore %lea+ !hich do!n(rades the nature o the oense

char(ed in or eAcludes an& accused rom the com%laint or inormation+ can be made onl&u%on motion b& the %rosecutor+ !ith notice to the oended %art& and !ith lea'e o court.The court shall state its reasons in resol'in( the motion and co%ies o its order shall beurnished all %arties+ es%eciall& the oended %art&. #n 94second para0raph/ Section 8D/ ule8891

The second paragraph of Section 16 is new. Ta/e note in the case of 5uhat, from homicide to murder. Itonaman, bali/tad. :et&s say before arraignment, sabi ng iscal2 #Te/a muna, di pala murder, homicide lang pala,$So, gi>downgrade baF

5ow, if prosecutor will do that, he must notify the offended party, at least the family, so that he can be heardbefore the trial court allows. So this time, the amendment is not a matter of right.

Cgain, when you amend a complaint or information to downgrade the nature of the offense or when the

amendment is to e-clude an accused from the complaint or information, of course, it can only be done by motionof the prosecutor, notice to the offended party, and decree of court. That is a new pro'ision.

I it a%%ears at an&time beore ud(ment that a mistaBe has been made in char(in( the%ro%er oense+ the court shall dismiss the ori(inal com%laint or inormation u%on theilin( o a ne! one char(in( the %ro%er oense in accordance !ith section 18+ Rule 118+%ro'ided the accused shall not be %laced in double eo%ard&. The court ma& re)uire the!itnesses to (i'e bail or their a%%earance at the trial. 46ast para0raph/ Section 8D/ ule 8891

:et&s go to basic.

Q:Cfter the trial, the crime pro'en is different from the crime charge. Howe'er, the former is included in thelatter. "ill you dismiss the case?

A: 54, ust con'ict the accused for the crime pro'en since the crime pro'en is included in the crime charged.

E?2,P3E2 Kenny was charged with murder. Cfter trial, the prosecution pro'ed homicide. "hat will the courtdo? 3ismiss the complaint for murder? 54. Kenny should be con'icted for homicide because all the element ofhomicide are also included in the crime of murder. 8Rule 11@9

Howe'er, that is not what Section 16 contemplates. "hat is contemplated by Section 16 is, the offensepro'en is completely differentfrom the crime charged and therefore the accused cannot be con'icted for thecrime pro'en because the crime pro'en is not included in the crime charged.

Q:So what should the court do?

35


22/27




A: The court should dismiss the complaint or information upon the filing of a new information by theprosecution. Bro'ided, the principle of double eopardy is not applicable.

Remember the case of U(a, where Mid was charged with oral defamation for uttering slanderous remar/sagainst Kessamyn on a particular date and time. %ut during the trial, it turned out that the slander was committedagainst :yle. 5ow, can Mid be con'icted for the crime of slander against :yle, when the information says the

crime was against Kessamyn? 54. Clthough the crime pro'en is the same, howe'er the erroneous designation ofthe offended party deals with entirely another crime committed against a different person.

Q:"hat should the court do in that case?A:ollowing Section 16, the fiscal should file a new information almost e-actly the same as the old one, now

the offended party is :yle. The court will now dismiss the original charge which is entirely different.

Q:"hat do you call that?A:S%STITTI45 of complaint or information.

Q:5ow, how do you distinguish su(stitutionof information from amendmentof information?C2 The case of

TEE72NEE /R. vs. ,24262G

*0: SCR2 1=>

F2CTS2 This case was about the murder of +aureen Hultman. She was shot but did not dieimmediately. So the crime charged was frustrated murder. %ut while the case was pending, Hultmandied. Therefore, the fiscal filed a new information for consummated murder.

ISSUE2 3istinguish amendment of information from substitution of information? DThis would beclearer when we reach Rule 11 on Breliminary In'estigationE

7E342 The first paragraph pro'ides the rules for amendment of the information or complaint,while the second paragraph refers to the substitution of the information or complaint.

It may accordingly be posited that both amendment and substitution of the information may bemade before or after the defendant pleads, but they differ in the following respects2

1. C+O53+O5T may in'ol'e either formal or substantial changes, while S%STITTI45necessarily in'ol'es a substantial change from the original chargecalled continuous crimeunder Crticle 6G also /nown as #delicto continuado.$ 3alawang /laseng continuing crimeeh. 4ne of the relati'es of comple- crime is #delicto continuado$ 7 where a person performs a series of acts but alemanating from one criminal resolution 7 but the issue to be resol'ed is2 how many crimes were committed by theaccused? !un ang tanong dun.

Ito namang #continuin0 offense$, the (uestion here is2 in which court of what place will the crime be tried?!anF

Q:How do you define a continuing offense or transitory crime?A:It is a crime where the elements occur in se'eral places.

E?2,P3E2 =I35CBBI5) or C%3*TI45. The accused /idnapped Oltor in 3a'ao *ity and brought the Oltoin *otabato and hidden there. Same thing with abduction2 =aren was abducted in 3a'ao *ity and brought in*otabato.

Q:"here should the case of /idnapping or abduction as the case may be, be filed?A:It could be filed in 3a'ao where the 'ictim was ta/en or abducted, orin *otabato were the 'ictim was

brought.

Q:%rod Bito too/ your 'ehicle here in 3a'ao and brought it to *otabato. "here should the crime of (ualifiedtheft be tried? 3a'ao or *otabato? Is that a continuing offense or not?

A:3a'ao. It is a local offense. rom the moment the car was ta/en in 3a'ao, the crime has already beenconsummated. It is not an indispensable re(uisite of theft that the thief carry, more or less far away, the thingta/en by him from its owner. 83uran 's. Tan, G Bhil. 69 Theft is committed by ta/ing personal things. Ta/ing is

instant. rom the moment it came to y our possession, tapos naF

:et&s go to the issue of O5*I5) 7 you buy stolen property. If you ha'e /nown it is stolen, you are liable. %utta/e note2 there can be no fencing if there is no robbery or theft. encing presupposes there is robbery or theft.

Q:Inday stole a property in 3igos. It was brought here and +aritess bought it here in 3a'ao. +aritess is nowcharged with fencing. 4f course +aritess can be charged here in 3a'ao *ity because she bought it here. %ut canthe crime of fencing be also filed in 3igos where the theft was committed on the theory that2 how can there befencing unless there was theft? Therefore e'erything can go bac/ to the place where the original crime wascommitted. Is that correct?

A: It is 54T correct because fencing is not a continuing crime. It is a local offense. It is different from thecrime of theft or robbery. %oth crimes are two different crime. The law on fencing does not re(uire the accused toha'e participated in the criminal design to commit, or to ha'e been in any wise in'ol'ed in the commission of, the

crime of robbery or theft. 5either is the crime of robbery or theft made to depend on an act of fencing in order thatit can be consummated. True, the obect property in fencing must ha'e been pre'iously ta/en by means of eitherrobbery of theft but the place where the robbery or theft occurs is inconse(uential.

It may not be suggested, for instance, that, in the crime of bigamy which presupposes a prior subsistingmarriage of an accused, the case should thereby be triable li/ewise at the place where the prior marriage hasbeen contracted. 8Beople 's. 3e )uman, 4ctober , 1@@A9

Q:OSTCC or +C:MORSCTI45. The company&s head office is in +a/ati. =enneth is the representati'e ofthe company assigned in 3a'ao. He collects payments from customers in 3a'ao and he is supposed to remit alhis collections to +a/ati. =enneth did not remit his collections to +a/ati. "here should the case of estafa bebrought? 3a'ao or +a/ati?

38


25/27




A:Oither of the two. The crime is continuing. It shall be instituted in the place where the misappropriation wascommitted Oin the place where the accused was to render his accounting. 8.S. 's. +esina, 6 Bhil. 9

:et&s go to %45*I5) *HO*=S law. "here should the criminal case for 'iolation of bouncing chec/s law befiled? Sometimes, fiscals get confused. !ou owe me, you are in +anila, then you issue a chec/ in +anila and sentit to 3a'ao. Then I will deposit the chec/ in 3a'ao. 4f course the ban/ will forward it to +anila for clearance. The

+anila ban/ dishonored it /ay walang pondo. "here is the 'enue for such crime? That is what happened in thecase of

PEOP3E vs. GOROSPE/anuar& *0+ 1899

8reiterated in 6ee vs. !AD1@@E9

F2CTS2 The accused is from %ulacan. He was a dealer of San +iguel products and he is underthe control of the *entral :uon Regional 4ffice of San +iguel *orporation 8S+*9 which is in Sanernando, Bampanga. So a representati'e of S+* went to %ulucan, collected from him, he issuedchec/s which were drawn in %ulucan. The chec/s were recei'ed by the representati'e of S+* andwent to the Head 4ffice in Bampanga and turned>o'er it. The Bampanga office of S+* deposited thechec/s with its depositary ban/ in San ernando, Bampanga. The chec/s were sent to %ulacan for

clearing. TalbogF "ith this, series of cases were filed. Some cases were estafa. Some were for'iolation of %B .The accused challenged it because all these cases were filed in San ernando, Bampanga eh.

Cccording to him, the cases should be filed in %ulacan. Remember, the chec/s were %ulucan chec/sand it was dishonored also in %ulacan. He said, #I did not deli'er it in San ernando. I ga'e it to yourrepresentati'e. So the chec/ was deli'ered to a representati'e. So the deli'ery was made in %ulacan.Thus the Bampanga court has no urisdiction.$

ISSUE2 Is the contention of the accused correct?

7E342 54F +aliF Cctually, the crime is continuin0because the crime continues up to the deli'eryof the chec/ to the *entral :uon 4ffice of S+* in Bampanga. nder the 5egotiable Instruments:aw, the deli'ery of the chec/ must be made to a person who ta/es it as a holder or bearer of theinstrument. The chec/s are intended to be deli'ered in the Head 4ffice because it is the deli'ery in

Bampanga which ma/es the payee the bearer or the holder 7 not the employer who went to %ulacan.So tinamaan ang Bampanga court. In effect, it is a continuing crime.

In respect of the %ouncing *hec/s case, #it is li/ewise true that /nowledge on the part of thema/er or drawer of the chec/ of the insufficiency of his funds, which is an essential ingredient of theoffense is by itself a continuing e'entuality, whether the accused be within one territory or another.

Cccordingly, urisdiction to ta/e cogniance of the offense also lies in the Regional Trial *ourt ofBampanga.$ +eaning, where'er the chec/s go, the /nowledge of insufficiency is a continuingelement.

Q:"here shall the criminal action for C:SII*CTI45 of a pri'ate document be filed?A:It shall be filed in the place where the document was falsified, regardless of whether it was or was not put

to the illegal use for which it was intended. 8.S. 's. %arretto, A Bhil. 069

Q:)enie e-ecuted a false affida'it in +anila. It was sent to 3a'ao to be used in a certain proceeding or case"here is the 'enue of the BORKR!?

A:It should be filed in the place where the false e'idence was submitted and 54T in the place where thefalse affida'it was subscribed and sworn to. 8.S. 's. *aete, A0 Bhil. A19

:et&s go to some OP*OBTI45S2

Q:Cre there instances where the crime is committed in this place but the trial can be filed in another place,other than the place where the crime was committed?

A:!OS, if the law says so because of the opening clause of paragraph 8a9 of Section 1 which says, 'su(?ecto existin0 la-s.*+eaning, this is the applicable rule unless other e-isting law says otherwise.

39


26/27




Q:)i'e instances where the crime maybe committed in one place but the law pro'ided for a different 'enueof trial.

A:The following21. 6i(el7 under Crticle A0 of RB*, it is to be filed where the libelous matter was printed or first

published, orwhere the inured party resides or where he holds office

Documents

Rule 110 Prsctn of Offns