CHAPTER 1 Rule 110: Prosecution of Offenses

Section 1 Institution of Criminal Actions

CASE FACTS RULING DOCTRINE
BPI v. Hontanosas Respondents Spouses Borbon and Spouses Xerxes seek to declare null the
The declaration of nullity of a contract is personal in nature. Its filing in the place where it
G.R. No. 157163, promissory notes they executed in favor of BPI. After applying with BPI a loan
was constituted was correct under Section 2, Rule 4 of the ROC. Real actions, defined as Personal actions which involve
June 25, 2014 in the amount of P17 M, they had only been able to pay 13 M due to the economic
those which affect title or interest to real property, should be tried in the court having the recovery of personal property
turmoil in Asia in 1997. Petitioner threatened to foreclose if they did not issue
jurisdiction where the property is involved. Personal actions involve the recovery of shall be filed in court which has
post-dated checks on the balance. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss against
(nullification of respondents complaint on the ground that foreclosure was well within its right
personal property or damages. Respondents seek nullification of promissory notes and jurisdiction over where the party
foreclosure as surety agreements, not the recovery of their title as such has not yet transferred. Thus, filing resides or works in.
and that their complaint was improperly laid.
the case in Cebu, where the one of the plaintiffs work was, was proper.
personal property) W/N the complaint was filed in the proper venue (YES).
Preliminary investigation, although executive, is part of the criminal proceeding. No While the public prosecutor
criminal proceeding under the RTC is tried unless one is conducted by the City Prosecutor. represents the party in the trial,
Police found the dead body of Federico C. Delgado at his residence in Malate.
Heirs of Delgado v. MPD charged Gonzalez and Buenaflor for the murder of Delgado and frustrated
It has been ruled that only the Solicitor General, under the name People of the Philippines only the Solicitor General may
Gonzalez should be the party in a criminal proceeding and bring forth the actions on behalf of take personality of the filing of
murder of witness Pesico. City Prosecutor Luyun dismissed the complaint for
Republic, but a private complaint may be a party in a criminal case in two cases: (1) when the proceedings.
G.R. No. 184337, lack of probable cause that respondents committed murder and frustrated
there is denial of due process or refusal of prosecution to act on the case to partys prejudice,
August 7, 2009 murder. Upon petition for review, Secretary of Justice Devanadera reversed the
or (2) when the offended questions the civil aspect of a decision of a lower court. Such do Private parties may represent
finding of the prosecutor and filed separate charges for murder and LSPI. The
not apply in this case. They have not claimed the failure of the SolGen in appealing to the themselves in criminal
(Murder case where CA, in the MR, quashed Devanaderas finding for lack of evidence.
CA resulting in denial of due process. The SolGen even refused to be part of the oral proceedings if:
SolGen not the filer) (W/N there was probable cause)
proceedings on December 2008. Nor are they appealing the civil aspect of the case. Private (1) Denial of due process
parties in a criminal case may only assail the civil aspect, and any criminal ruling would (2) Question civil aspect
have to be appealed by the Solicitor General. of lower court ruling
NO The only instance where an information for an offense which requires a preliminary
Contreras v. Charges of gross ignorance of the law and gross neglect of duty were filed by
investigation may be filed directly with the court is when accused is lawfully arrested
Monserate the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur. Against Judge Eddie Monserate, for
without a warrant and expressly refuses to waive in writing his right to preliminary Preliminary investigation may
forwarding criminal case People v. Morandarte to the Office of Provincial
AM. No. MTJ-02-1437, investigation under 125 of the RPC. There is no evidence that any refusal was written. Also, be waived only if the accused
Prosecutor without conducting the requisite preliminary investigation.
August 20, 2003 his voluntary surrender may not be an exception to preliminary investigation. Such is not a expresses in writing his refusal
Monserate did so because accused was arrested lawfully without warrant and
mere formal or technical right but a substantive right. Under 110 of the ROC, the proper to waive his right to one under
failed to avail of his right to a preliminary investigation.
(judge did not do officer shall conduct the requisite preliminary investigation, and under 112, a METC judge Article 125 of the RPC.
is such proper officer. Though not a judicial function, such procedure is required before it
prelim. Investigation) (W/N the judge was correct)
may be sent to the Provincial Prosecutor for proper filing.

Section 2 Complaint or Information

An accused in a criminal case
Secretary of Justice Agnes Devanadera requested Chief Justice Puno to transfer NO. PETITION DENIED Public prosecutors are solely responsible for the determination
may be excluded from the
Ampatuan v. De the venue of the trial of Maguindanao Massacre from Cotabato to Metro Manila of the evidence needed to establish probable cause to justify filing the appropriate criminal
information if he agrees to be a
Lima to prevent miscarriage of justice. Before the motion was granted, the Prosecution charges against a respondent. The Court deems it policy not to interfere with the preliminary
state witness and:
filed 15 additional informations for murder against petitioner in Cotabato, and investigations of such Executive Department in determining the sufficiency of the evidence
G.R. No. 197291, (a) Absolute necessity for his
some other informations for murder in the QC branch. Relying on the to establish probable cause. The exclusion of Dalandag did not amount to grave abuse of
April 3, 2013 testimony
testimonies of Kenny Dalandag under the Witness Protection Program, 196 other discretion considering that under Section 2 of 110, the inclusion of all those responsible is
(b) No other direct evidence
individuals were charged with multiple murder. Petitioner requested De Lima subject to exceptions, one of which is when a participant in the crime becomes a state
(Maguindano available
to include Kenny to be in the informations since he has already confessed his witness. This may happen:
(c) Testimony can be
Massacre Witness) participation in the massacre. When De Lima denied, he petitioned. (a) By discharge from a criminal case pursuant to Sec. 17, Rule 119
corroborated
(b) Approval of his application for admission in the WPC of the DOJ.
(d) Does not appear most guilty
CriimPro
 (W/N respondent may be compelled by writ of mandamus to charge Dalandag as an These are intended to encourage a person who witnessed or has knowledge of the (e) Not convicted of moral
accused despite admission to the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ) commission to come and testify. The discharge of an accused to be made a witness is made turpitude.
upon motion by the Prosecution. Such process is vested between them and the lower court
which shall not be disturbed by the court.

Section 3 Complaint Defined

While there is no basis for the charges of harassment as no evidence supports that Oporto
Lourdes Senar, wife of the mayor where Monserate was located, filed a
Jovenal Oporto v. complaint against Rada ad Oporto, for violation of Article 172 and 173 of the
was harassed by the clerk of court, Respondent should be held liable for gross ignorance of
Monserate the law in issuing an arrest warrant despite the complaint not being under oath and the
RPC (Estafa). Monserate issued the arrest warrant for both accused. On the
affidavits were also not certified and under oath. While it does not invalidate the judgment Certification of a complaint
AM. No. MTJ-96-1109, notion that the case fell within jurisdiction of the RTC, he conducted the
and is merely a defect in form, a simple task of reading the complaint wouldve remedied under oath is a requirement on
April 16, 2001 preliminary investigation and declared existence of probable cause and ordered
the problem. As a sworn statement, a complaint must be sworn to before any fiscal, state the form of the complaint and
such to be forwarded to the Prosecutor. The latter found that it should be
prosecutor, or govt official authorized to administer oath. Such is violative of the right of does not affect judgment.
(Did not read FALSIFICATION and not estafa and thus should be under the METC. Oporto
the accused to be informed of the charges. Had he exercised more effort to read it, he would
filed a complaint against Monserate for ignorance and harassment.
complaint) (W/N the case should prosper)
not have conducted a preliminary investigation since it falls under the jurisdiction of his
court (METC).

Section 4 Information Defined

YES BM 1922 requires practicing members of the bar to indicate in ALL PLEADINGS filed
In an information dated March 23, 2009, respondent was charged with Murder
before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies the number of their MCLE Certificate of
People v. Arrojado by the office of the City Prosecutor of Roxas City, Capiz. Respondent filed a
Compliance. Pleadings are written statements of respective claims of parties submitted for Failure to disclose the required
motion to dismiss on the ground that the investigation prosecutor who filed the
G.R. No. 207041, appropriate judgment by the court, while Information is the accusation charging a person information in an information
November 9, 2015 info failed to indicate the number and date of issue of her Mandatory Continuing
with an offense. An information is necessarily a pleading as it alleges a cause of action. BM subjects the counsel to penalty
Legal Education (MLCE) certificate of compliance. The CA summarily dismissed
1922 also states that failure to disclose the required information would cause dismissal of and disciplinary action. (No
the case for failure to indicate this as per BM No. 1922.
(MCLE Certification) the case and expunction of the pleadings from the records. Filing for certiorari was excessive longer dismissal)
on the part of petitioner because while the info was dismissed, he couldve simply re-filed
W/N the complaint was properly dismissed
it with the corrections.

Section 5 Who Must Prosecute

Worldwide Web Chief Inspector Villegas of the RISOO of PNP filed applications for warrants
Corp. v. People before the QC RTC to search the offices of WWC at IBM Plaza Building in Application for a search
An application for a search warrant is NOT a criminal action. The conformity of the public
Eastwood. They alleged that petitioners were conducting illegal toll bypass warrant is not a criminal action
G.R. Nos. 161106 & 161266, prosecutor is not necessary to give accused personality to question an order quashing
operations in violation of PD 401 (Unauthorized Installation of Telephone which requires the conformity
January 13, 2014 warrants. A warrant is obtained by filing a complaint or information but merely filing an
Connections). When the RTC granted the motions to quash the warrants for of the city prosecutor in
application thereof. It is merely a process needed to conduct further inquiry into probability
them being general, PLDT contended such but was denied for failing to acquire questioning its validity or
(Illegal bypass of of a crime.
conformity of the prosecution. quashal.
IBM) (W/N PLDT has personality to question the quashal of the warrants.)

CriimPro

Rosa S. Busuego filed a case of Concubinage, VAWC and Grave Threats against
her husband Alfredo. In the complaint filed by Rosa, she failed to indicate
Busuego v. Office of Alfredos two concubines, Sia and De Leon. Upon receiving this comment from
Alfredo, the Ombudsman conducted a clarificatory hearing to have Rosa amend
the Ombudsman
the defect in her complaint. Alfredo contends that the Ombudsmans oversight
G.R. No. 196842,
of the exclusion of Sia and de Leon as party-respondents violates Section 5 of
October 9, 2013
Rule 110 and warrants outright dismissal of the case.
(W/N the case should be dismissed for failure to implicate the concubines in the
(Concubines not
Concubinage case).
impleaded) (W/N the Ombudsman has full discretionary authority in the determination of probable
cause during a preliminary investigation.)
Section 6 Sufficiency of Complaint or Information
Jessie Castillo was elected mayor of Bacoor, Cavite in the May 1998 elections. An
People v. information was filed against him for the alleged illegal operation of Villa
Sandiganbayan Esperanza dumpsite by giving unwarranted benefits to co-accused Arciaga by
allowing them to operate the dumpsite without an Environmental Compliance
G.R. No. 160619,
Certificate (ECC). Castillo filed a motion to quash on the ground that the charge
September 9, 2015
did not state how or to whom he has caused injury and that the extent of such
should be specified.
(Operate dumpsite
without permit) (W/N an info alleging grant of unwarranted benefits must state the precise amount of
alleged benefit and injury)
Petitioner Zapanta, together with Loyao, was charged with the crime of qualified
theft. The information against him indicated that the acts were committed
sometime in the month of October 2001. He was convicted for acts during
Zapanta v. People November 2001 and not during the period in the info. He contends that this
G.R. No. 170863,
infirmity has deprived him of his right to be informed of the accusation against
March 20, 2013
him.
(W/N the ruling is erroneous)
Section 7 Name of Accused
People v. Bali-Balita Ella Magdasoc y Carbona, 11 years of age, assisted by her sister, filed a complaint
G.R. No. 134266, for rape against Melencio Bali-Balita, her mothers common-law husband.
September 15, 2000 Forensics found that Ella had deep healed lacerations consistent with rape.
NO - Under Section 5, adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon
complaint filed by offended spouse and must indicate both concubine and offending spouse.
Under Rule II in Procedures for Criminal Cases, the investigating officer may conduct a
clarificatory hearing where the parties shall be present but without right to examine the
Amendment of criminal
witness being questioned. Rosas complaint contained more than just Concubinage charges.
information is allowed without
The Ombudsman deemed it fit to hold a hearing in order to determine the need to implead
it being dismissed.
the alleged concubines pursuant to Article 344 of the RPC. It is allowed by law to amend such
defect before institution of the trial.
YES. The Ombudsman has full discretionary authority in the determination of probable cause
The Ombudsman has full
during a preliminary investigation. This is the reason why judicial review of the resolution of
discretionary authority in the
the Ombudsman in the exercise of its power and duty to investigate and prosecute felonies
determination of probable
and/or offenses of public officers is limited to a determination of whether there has been a
cause during a preliminary
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Courts are not
investigation.
empowered to substitute their judgment for that of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman
merely followed the provisions of its Rules of Procedure. No information may be filed and
no complaint may be dismissed without the written authority or approval of the ombudsman
in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbyan, or of the proper Deputy
Ombudsman in all other cases.
YES The purpose of an Information is to ensure than an accused is formally informed of the
facts and acts constituting the charges. If insufficient, the court must drop the case to save
accused from anxiety and inconvenience. To check for sufficiency, the court must check three
things:
(1) What must be alleged in a valid info
Extent of benefit or injury need
(2) Elements of the crime
not be proven. The ultimate
(3) W/N elements are sufficiently stated
facts which constitute the
The sufficiency is important so as to (1) enable accused to prepare defense, and (2) if guilty,
charges are enough.
to plead conviction in subsequent prosecution for same offense. In this case, dismissal by the
CA was on grounds that the injury was not alleged is wrong, for as long as the facts
constituting the offense are alleged, it need not specify the extent of the benefit or the injury
cause. The benefit was merely the grant to operate without complying with the laws. That is
all that is needed.
Section 11 of 110 dictates that the precise date need not be stated unless it is an essential
element of the offense. Otherwise it may specify the closest date to the offense. Thus, the The precise date does need to be
complaint will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense was committed at any date specified in an information
proximate to the offense. Petitioner was fully appraised of the charge of qualified theft since unless it is an essential element
the info stated the date of commission sometime in the month of October 2001. He could of the crime charged. The
reasonably deduce the nature of the crime. The precise date was not an essential element to closest date is sufficient.
the offense and qualified theft could be alleged as near as possible to actual date.
GUILTY However, the filiation of the accused with the victim was not properly alleged in
The information must allege all
the information. The information simply states that undersigned accuses BALI-BALITA,
necessary elements which
common-law husband of the complainants mother, of the crime of rape. The fact that accused
CriimPro
 (rape case did not Respondent contends, among other issues, that Ellas demeanor and testimonies
of the medico-legal are inconsistent with the rape allegations. It is also contended
allege relationship)
that the information does not state the relationship between accused and the
victim.
(W/N accused should be guilty)
Section 8 Designation of the Offense
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City charged accused with 3 counts
People v. Valdez of murder of Ferndinand Sayson, Moises Sayson, and Joselito Sayson while the
G.R. No. 175602, 3 were celebrating the birthday of private petitioners husband and playing jai-
January 18, 2012 alai. The information alleged that respondent murdered the three with treachery
as they were supposedly shot at the back, but accused contends this was not
(murder, did not established.
allege treachery)
(W/N there treachery was properly alleged in the information)
Asilan was charged with the complex crime of Direct Assault with Murder. The
People v. Asilan information alleges that Asilan killed a police officer while the latter was
G.R. No. 188322, arresting a companion of Asilan. The RTC acquitted him of DA, stating that
April 11, 2012 while Adovas was in uniform upon death, the prosecution failed to establish that
he was in the performance of his duty when he was assaulted by Asilan.
(backstabber of However, he was still convicted of murder relying on the eyewitness accounts
that he stabbed Asilan multiple times at the back without warning.
policeman)
(W/N murder is proper)
Section 9 Cause of the Accusation
Jessie Castillo was elected mayor of Bacoor, Cavite in the May 1998 elections. An
information was filed against him for the alleged illegal operation of Villa
People v.
Esperanza dumpsite by giving unwarranted benefits to co-accused Arciaga by
Sandiganbayan allowing them to operate the dumpsite without an Environmental Compliance
Certificate. Castillo filed a motion to quash on the ground that the charge did not
(Illegal operation of state how or to whom he has caused injury and that the extent of such should be
specified.
dumpsite without
certification) (W/N an info alleging grant of unwarranted benefits must state the precise amount of
alleged benefit and injury)
The RTC found petitioners Dandy L. Dungo and Gregorio Sibal guilty of
Dungo v. People violation of RA 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) and sentences them to reclusion perpetua.
G.R. No. 209464, The info alleged that during an initiation rite of the APO fraternity, they
July 1, 2015 conspired with 20 other members and willfully assaulted Marlon Mejilla
resulting to his death. Petitioners allege that the information charged them with
willfully using personal violence against them, but both RTC and CA found
(APO initiation; them guilty of inducing the victim to be present during the initiation rites.
merely induced)
(W/N the information properly charged the offense proved)
was the live-in partner of the victims mother and that he lived with the victim was not qualify a crime to inform
specifically stated in the charges or in the narration of the act constituting the offense. For accused of the nature of charge.
qualifying circumstances to attach, every element of the offense must be alleged for such to
apply. This is to allow the accused to be duly informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation.
NO TREACHERY. Treachery is the employment of means in the execution of crimes which
tend to ensure execution without risk to victims defense. In charges, the information must Every element of the offense
state through the factual circumstances and narration how the qualifying circumstance was must be stated in the info. What
employed. What is controlling is not the title nor designation of the offense but the facts are necessary to be
description of the crime charged and particular facts recited. The presumption is that the included must be determined
accused has no independent knowledge of the facts constituting the offense. The information by essentials of specified
simply alleged with intent to kill, qualified with treachery and did not state how this was crimes.
specifically employed.
YES. Treachery is present when the offender commits any crime against person by employing
any means to insure success without risk from victims defense. Both eyewitnesses testified An info which lacks essential
how Asilan attacked Adovas from behind and the latter couldnt have defended because he allegations may sustain
was stabbed in the back repeatedly without warning. He also cannot assail the alleged conviction if accused fails to
insufficiency of the information because he never did so in lower court proceedings. object to it during trial and such
Moreover, an info which lacks essential allegations may sustain conviction if accused fails to deficiency was cured by
object to it during trial and such deficiency was cured by competent evidence therein. He competent evidence therein.
failed to object AND allowed evidence proving treachery to be presented.
To be charged with violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 there must be:
(1) A public officer
(2) Manifest partiality and bad faith or gross negligence
(3) Caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private
party unwarranted benefits in discharge of functions Extent of benefit or injury need
The information specifically alleged he was the Mayor of Bacoor, Cavite who, in his official not be proven. The ultimate
capacity, with bad faith and manifest partiality, wilfully and unlawfully conspired with facts which constitute the
Arciagas and gave unwarranted benefits to the latter by allowing the illegal operation of the charges are enough.
dumpsite to the injury of residents who had to endure the ill-effects of the operation. Such
ultimate facts constitute the violation and need not indicate the extent of the injury. To require
specific peso amounts of the benefits and injury if the point of the sufficiency of the
information is merely to allege how the crime was committed.
YES Section 9 of Rule 110 provides that the acts complained and the circumstances must
be stated in ordinary and concise language and in terms sufficient for a person of common The information need not use
understanding to know the offense being charged.. The wording planned initiation rite the exact language of the statute
necessarily includes the act of inducing Villanueva to attend it. Planned initiation rites have in alleging the acts complained
different phases and stages with perpetrators having different roles. They did not only induce of and that the test is W/N the
him but brought them there and were present. His death would not have accrued if not for person of common
their role in the rites. Secrecy and silence are common in hazing, and to require the understanding knows such
prosecution to indicate every step of the initiation would be arduous and surely lead to charges.
acquittal.
CriimPro
 Section 10 Place of the Commission
As ruled in Foz, Jr. v. People, for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the As ruled also in Union Bank v.
Navaja v. De Castro DKT Philippines filed against petitioner Navaja falsification charges by making
offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within People, the venue of action and
G.R. No. 182926, it appear she incurred meal expenses in the amount of 1.8 M instead of the actual
the jurisdiction of the court. Section 10 supports this and states that only when venue is an of jurisdiction are deemed
June 22, 2015 amount of 810k at Garden Caf, Jagna, Bohol. Navaja filed a motion to quash on
essential ingredient will it be necessary to be specific. In falsification, the venue is the place alleged where the Info states
the ground that none of the essential elements of the crime of falsification
where the document was falsified. The information sufficiently alleged that she did so while that the offense was done or
occurred in Jagna, Bohol, hence the MCTC had no jurisdiction to take the case.
(falsification at in the restaurant in Bohol. The complaint-affidavit also alleged she committed the crime there. some of its elements occurred at
The information stated that she did there and wilfully falsify a commercial
It has been ruled that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the information and a place within jurisdiction of
Garden Caf, Bohol) receipt in Garden Caf
NOT by the result of the proof. the court.

Section 11 Date of Commission

NO. Still GUILTY
Accused-appellant Joel Anjoy Buca was the neighbor of the victim AAA. It is
First, the precise date of commission of rape is NOT an essential element to proving the crime. Section 11 further states that it
alleged that sometime in December, accused entered the house of AAA and her
Failure to specify the exact date when the rape was done DOES NOT render the Info defective is not necessary to be precise
People v. Buca siblings and ordered the latter to leave. He then proceeded to have sex with AAA
since the gravamen of the crime is the carnal knowledge. when the date is NOT AN
G.R. No. 209587, (7 years old). When CCC saw what was happening, he pulled her away and was
Second, it has already been ruled in various cases that the statement of before and until, ESSENTIAL ELEMENT of the
September 23, 2015 warned not to tell their parents. Upon knowledge of this, BBB (mom) filed a
sometime in the year, and days thereafter are sufficient in convicting one of rape. It is evident offense. The crime may be
complaint against Buca for her rape and for the rape of her daughter. The
that accused was able to testify about the incident on December 24, 2002 because the date alleged on a date as near as
information alleged that the crime was committed sometime before December
(The Rape of AAA on alleged was not vague or covering an unreasonable period as to deprive him the opportunity possible to actual date.
24, 2002. Accused alleges that the failure to state the exact date of December 24
to prepare his defence. Nor is there any record of any objection about the date during
Christmas Eve) was a violation of his right to due process and thus must be acquitted.
arraignment and offer of exhibits or witness stand. The failure to raise a timely objection to Failure to object to time
time difference is a WAIVER of such right to object. He also did not disavow the incident and difference constitutes waiver.
(W/N the failure to specify December 24 was essential to the case)
admitted that he spoke with AAA on December 24, 2002.

Section 12 Name of the Offended

Petitioner Lee Pue (Paul Lee) is the president of CHI, a company affiliated with
PETITION DENIED Section 12 of Rule 110 of Criminal Procedure defines an offended
Clothman Knitting Corporation (CKC). CKC Group is subject of intra-corporate Every man criminally liable is also
party as the person against whom or whose property the offense was committed. The court
disputes between petitioner and his siblings, including respondent Chua Pue civilly liable. When a person
has rejected petitioners theory that it is only the State which is offended in public offenses.
(sibling). Respondent and others took over and barricaded themselves in the commits a crime he offends two
From the language of Section 12, it is reasonable to assume that the offended party, public
CKC factory. It appears that petitioner applied for the Issuance of a Duplicate entities namely (1) the society in
Lee Pue Liong v. or private, is the party to whom the offender is civilly liable.
Copy of the TCT because as president he was in possession of one but was lost which he lives in or the political
The statement of petitioner regarding custody of TCT, if found to be perjured, is injurious
Chua Pue Chin Lee beyond recovery and needed a copy as it was subject to mortgage to its creditors. entity called the State whose law
to respondents personal credibility and reputation as her position of Board Member and
G.R. No. 181658, Respondent prayed to set aside such order stating that petitioner knew fully well he has violated
Treasurer of CHI. Even assuming that no civil injury was alleged, the court has ruled in
August 7, 2013 that it was in possession of respondent as Corporate Treasurer and that and (2) the individual member of
Lim Tek Goan v. Yatco that whether public or private crimes are involved, it is wrong for
petitioner merely needs a copy to mortgage the property with Planters the society whose person, right,
the RTC to consider the intervention of the offended party by counsel as a matter of
Development Bank. She also presented the alleged lost duplicate copy. She filed honor, chastity or property has
(perjury) tolerance. Where private prosecution has asserted its right to intervene, that right MUST
a case of perjury against Paul Lee. During trial, Atty. Macam appeared as counsel been actually or
BE RESPECTED. This is so to enforce civil liability born from the criminal act and not of
for respondent and as private prosecutor under the supervision of the public directly injured or damaged by
demanding punishment of accused. An act or omission is felonious because it is punishable
prosecutor. Petitioners counsel alleged that since perjury is a public offense, and the same punishable act or
by law and gives rise to civil liability not because it is a crime because it caused damage to
thus a private prosecutor cannot intervene especially since offended party is the omission.
another.
State alone and not respondent.
An information for estafa was filed against Ramoncita Senador before the RTC NO On the outset, variance between allegations in the information and evidence offered In offenses against property, if the
Senador v. People
of Dumaguete. Accused obtained and received from one Cynthia Jaime various DOES NOT itself entitle acquittal, especially if the variance is a mere formal defect which subject matter of the offense is
G.R. No. 201620,
kinds of jewelry amounting to 700k. Senador allegedly went to see Rita Jaime does NOT affect substantial rights of the accused. generic and not identifiable, an
March 6, 2013
(daughter-in-law) of Cynthia (engaged in jewelry business) expressing interest First The accuseds citation of Uba is untenable, for that case was an oral defamation case error in the designation of the
to see the jewelry and sell such on commission. When Senador failed to pay upon wherein the name of the offended was material. In this case, the crime is against property, offended party is fatal.
CriimPro
(jewelry, not name, is demand, estafa charges were made. Senador asserts that the person named as
offended party in the Information was different than the offended because the
material)
perso who appeared during trial was Rita, not Cynthia. Petitioner states she
must be acquitted on violation of due process.
(W/N the error in the information on the offended party violates due process)
Section 13 Duplicity of Offense
Appellant was charged with Double Murder in Criminal Case 7698 against
respondents two daughters. He was also charged along with 2 other
accomplices with Multiple Attempted Murder. It appears that accused went to
People v. Jugueta
the house of Norberto (respondent, brother-in-law) and asked that he come
G.R. No. 202124, down. IT was then he fired multiple shots with his two companions on the
April 5, 2016 family. Norberto alleges it was due to an altercation between him and accused
wherein the former filed charges of molestation against him. Accused simply
(Firing at the family) alleged denial and that he was at home, but admitted Norbertos house was 5
minutes away. Accused alleges that the prosecution failed to state from the
beginning that all 3 of them had guns and to categorically identify appellant as
the one holding the gun used to kill Norberto.
Petitioenrs Loney, Reid, and Hernandez are officers of the Mining Operations
Loney v. People
for Marcopper Mining. Marcopper placed a concrete plug at the tunnels end
G.R. No. 152644, leading to Boac and Makaluprit rivers which gushed out wastes and tons of
February 10, 2006 tailings into the riveres. The DOJ filed 4 charges against them, (Water Code,
National Pollution Control Decree, Philippine Mining Act, and the RPC
(Marcopper Mining) Reckless Imprudence resulting in Damage to Property). Petitioners allege it
violates the Duplicity of Offenses rule and thus they should be acquitted.
Section 14 Amendment or Substitution
A shooting incident took place in Poblacion, Lanao Del Sur on May 11, 1998
which killed Limbona and Ante Maguindanao and seriously wounding two
others. Probable cause was found against Jalandoni, Balindongs for doubler
murder and multiple frustrated murder. After reinvestigation, the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor downgraded the charges against Jalandoni and Anwar
and Kennedy Balindong while dropping the other two Balindongs. Private
Balindong v. CA
complainant Zenaida Limbona filed a petition for review against Prov Pros. DOJ
G.R. Nos. 177600 & 178684,
ordered modified the resolution and instead file 2 informations of frustrated
October 19, 2015
murder with attempted murder, and two informations for frustrated murder
and an info for attempted murder. This was further dismissed by Secretary Perez
(new DOJ) but reinstated by motion to the CA. upon raffling to the RTC of QC,
they found probable cause to charge Murder with Attempted Murder,
Frustrated murder, and Attempted Murder. After the issuance of warrants of
arrest, they questioned the CA but was denied.
(W/N there was mistake which warranted the invocation of Section 14 of Rule 110 of
Rules of Court.)
and the name of the offended is NOT indispensable. What is necessary is the identification However, if the subject matter of
of the criminal act charged. the offense is specific and
Second As per Section 12, in offenses against property, the materiality depends on W/N identifiable, such as a warrant, as
the subject matter of the offense was sufficiently described. The citing of Lahoylahoy in Kepner, or a check, such as in
referred to money which is generic and the only way to identify such was to connect it to Sayson and Ricarte, an error in the
an offended party. designation of the offended party
is immaterial
The facts allege that petitioner is guilty of 2 counts of murder and not Double Murder since
the killing was the result of several acts of appellant. He is also guilty of 4 counts of
When two or more offenses are
Attempted Murder. Such informations failed to comply with Section 13 of Rule 110. As a
charged in a single complaint but
general rule, a complaint or info must charge only one offense, otherwise it is DEFECTIVE.
the accused fails to object to it, the
HOWEVER, since he entered NOT GUILTY and FAILED to move for quashal of the Info,
following happen:
he is deemed to have WAIVED his right to question the same. As per Section 9 of Rule
(1) Implied waiver of
117, failure to assert any ground for motion to quash before he pleads is deemed a
motion to quash
WAIVER.
(2) Can be convicted for
In a complex crime, two crimes are done with one single act. However, it clearly shows that
each offense charged
in firing successive shots, there was intent to kill the entire family. They are committing
more than one crime and is not complex. Each act of aiming and firing is a separate crime.
Petition DENIED Duplicity of charges means a single complaint or information with more than one offense. Here, the
prosecution filed 4 separate informations with one offense each, there is NO duplicity.
Water Code dumping of mine taillings without prior permit. (Not indispensable in APL or PMA or RPC)
Anti-Pollution Law Existence of actual pollution.
Philippine Mining Act - Violation of Environmental Compliance Certificate is not an essential element to other acts
RPC (Article 365) Lack of adequate precaution to prevent damage.
Two or more offenses arising from the same act IS NOT double jeopardy if each act requires an element different
People v. Relova NOT applicable not an act giving rise to the charges was punished by an ordinance and national
There was no mistake in charging the proper offenses. Balindong, et al. fully exhausted the procedure to determine the proper
offenses to be charged against them by going all the way up to the Secretary of Justice. Their quest was ultimately settled with
finality by the Secretary of Justice denying their second motion for reconsideration and declaring that such offenses were two
counts of murder with attempted murder, two counts of frustrated murder, and one count of attempted murder. They thereafter
attempted to undo such final determination by filing a third motion for reconsideration in the DOJ, and they initially succeeded
because Secretary Perez directed the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Lanao del Sur "to cause the filing of the amended
information for double homicide with multiple frustrated homicide against Mayor Anwar Berua Balindong, Lt. Col. Jalandoni
Cota and PO1 Kennedy Balindong," and dropped Amer Oden Balindong and Ali S. Balindong from the informations. But their
success was overturned by the CA, whose nullification of Secretary Perez's favorable action on their third motion for
reconsideration was affirmed in G.R. No. 159962. Thus, this Court even issued its judicial imprimatur on the probable cause for
two counts of murder with attempted murder, two counts of frustrated murder, and one count of attempted murder. For
Balindong, et al. to rely on Section 14, supra, as basis for the RTC to still reach a determination of probable cause different from
those sanctioned in G.R. No. 159962 would be untenable.
CriimPro
 The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) filed a complaint-affidavit with the
Department of Justice against the petitioner, Dr. Joel C. Mendez. The BIR alleged
that the petitioner had been operating as a single proprietor doing business
and/or exercising his profession for taxable years 2001 to 2003 and failed to file
his income tax returns for taxable years 2001 to 2003. After the information,
Mendez v. People accused was already arraigned and pleaded not guilty on March 5, 2007.
G.R. No. 179962, However, the prosecution filed a Motion to Amend Information with Leave of
June 11, 2014 Court on May 4, 2007.
1. The change in the date in the crime from 2001 to 2002;
2. The addition Mendez Group to Weigh Less
(failure to pay tax for
3. The change and/or addition of the branches of petitioners operation;
Mendez Medical) 4. The addition of the phrase for income earned
The CTA First Division granted the prosecutions motion. It ruled that the
prosecutions amendment is merely a formal one as it merely states with
additional precision something already contained in the original.
(W/N the prosecutions amendments made after the petitioners arraignment are
substantial in nature and must perforce be denied.)
On August 26, 2006, a mass grave was discovered by the 43rd Infantry Brigade of
the AFP in Leyte. It allegedly contained remains of victims of Operation Veneral
Ocampo v. Abando Disease launched by members of the CPP/NPA.NDFP to purge their ranks of
G.R. Nos. 176830, 185587,
suspected military informers. After finding probable cause, Prosecutor Vivero
etc., February 11, 2014
recommended filing for an information of 15 counts of multiple murder against
54 named members. Petitioner Ocampo alleges that a Criminal Case for
(Mass Grave and rebellion was already filed against him in the RTC of Makati and under the
Political Offense political offense doctrine. Acting on the observation of the Court that the
information was defective for charging 15 counts of murder, the prosecution
Doctrine) filed to amend the Info. Judge Abando granted such motion.
(W/N the murders were done in furtherance of a political offense.)
Prosecutions evidence reveal that on June 19, 1988, Jesus Mallo knocked on the
Kummer v. People door of petitioner. Petitioner opened the door and shot Mallo twice. He chased
G.R. No. 174461, down Mallo and ensured his death. Accused alleges that there were noises
September 11, 2013 outside and he suspected such to be due to NPA stuff. After a rock hit one of her
daughters, he got his shotgun and shot outside which silenced the noise.
Prosecution filed for information on January 12, 1989 and they were arraigned
(Boy Mallo Change and pleaded not guilty, waiving pre-trial. Petitioner also claims that she was not
of date is ok) arraigned on the amended information which she was convicted.
(W/N the amended information warranted another arraignment)
Section 15 Place Where Act Instituted
Union Bank v. Tomas was charged in court for perjury under Article 183 of the RPC for making
a false narration in a certificate against Forum Shopping. While the informations
People were filed in Pasay City, petitioner argues that the venue was improper since it
G.R. No. 192565,
is the Pasay City court, where the Certificate Against Forum Shopping, was
February 28, 2012
submitted and used and not the MeTC of Makati that has the jurisdiction.
According to jurisprudence, substantial matters in the complaint or information consist of the recital of facts constituting the
offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. However, amendments that do not charge another offense
different from that charged in the original one, or do not alter the prosecutions theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the
accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume are considered merely as formal amendments.
There was NO change in date it merely erred in the original info when it stated that it was 2001 even if the record is clear that
the alleged is 2002. This was a result of failure to pay the tax for 2001 on the due date w/c was 2002.
Income earned phrase mere formal amendment since it merely adds precision to what is already contained in the original
information.
Mendez Medical Group and Addition of Branches - Since the petitioner operates as a sole proprietor from taxable years 2001 to
2003, the petitioner should have filed a consolidated return in his principal place of business, regardless of the number and
location of his other branches. Addition of the branches of operation does not constitute substantial amendment because it does
not change the prosecutions theory that the petitioner failed.
Under the political offense doctrine, public prosecutors are not obliged to consistently
The political offense doctrine is not
charge respondents with simple rebellion instead of common crimes as such are under
a ground to dismiss the charge
their discretion. Further, the defense for such is presented during trial and not in this
against petitioners prior to a
petition. If during trial, petitioners are able to show that the murders were indeed
determination by the trial that the
committed in furtherance of rebellion, they may invoke Section 14 of Rule 110. Dismissal
murders were done in furtherance of
of the complaint may only be done when there is such mistake and if such mistake is
rebellion.
duly proven. Hence, the defense has the duty to determine during trial whether their
murders were committed in furtherance of a political purpose.
Section 14 permits a mere formal amendment of a complaint even after the plea but only
if it is made with leave of court and done without causing prejudice to rights of the
accused. A mere change in the date of the commission of 1 month (disparity not great)
is more formal than substantial. It does NOT prejudice the rights of the accused since
the proposed amendment would not alter the nature of the offense. Neither is it Mere formal amendment which does
necessary to state the price time since the act may be alleged at any time as near as to the not prejudice accused does not
actual date of offense especially since it is NOT an essential element of the crime. There require a second pleading.
is NO need for arraignment either for amended information as it only pertains to
substantial amendments which charge an offense different, alter theory of prosecution,
cause surprise and affect defense and do not affect substantial rights of the accused.
Also, defense still available.
SHOULD BE MAKATI Venue determines not only the place where the criminal action The provisions of Section 15 of the
is to be instituted but also the court that has jurisdiction to try and hear it. First, jurisdiction Rules of Court Rule 110 place the
of trial courts is limited to well-defined territories. Next, laying the venue in the locus venue not only where the offense
crimins is grounded on necessity of having accused on trial in the municipality where was committed but also where
witnesses and other facilities for defense are available. essential elements took place. The
For perjury to be committed: venue is sufficiently alleged if the
CriimPro
(Perjury in Pasay or (W/N the venue should be Pasay (where used) and not Makati where the certificate was
notarized)
Makati?)
Section 16 Intervention of Offended
Respondent Amelia Chan filed a bigamy case against Leon Basiliio (aka
Leonardo Villalon). During the subsistence of their marriage solemnized in May
6, 1954, Leonardo contracted a 2nd marriage with Erlinda Talde on June 2, 1993.
Villalon v. Chan
Sine Amelia was living in the US and could not personally file the case, she
G.R. No. 196508,
requested Benito Ya Cua and Wilson Go to file the criminal complaint against
September 24, 2014
him. During pre-trial, Aty. Atencia appeared in behalf of Amelia and filed his
entry as private prosecutor. Petitioner Leonardo assailed such stating that
(Bigamy while Amelia could not be represented since it was not her who filed the complaint.
The RTC ruled in his favor, but the CA reversed the decision stating that as a
Abroad)
public crime, such can be denounced by anyone, not only the private offended
party.
(W/N there was waiver of being represented.)
(a) Accused made statement under oath on material matter information states that the offense
(b) Statement before competent officer was committed or some of its
(c) Made willful, deliberate assertion of falsehood elements took place within the
(d) Statement containing falsity required by law or for legal purpose jurisdiction of the court.
The certificate of forum Shopping was made under oath and before notary public in
Makati City. The information also sufficiently alleged that the material statement was
made there. It is immaterial where the affidavit is used the important thing to note is that
the act of lying consummated the act (which was in Makati).
NO Petitioner states that Amelia was never denied due process even when Atty. Atencia
The civil action shall be deemed
was disqualified because the respondent never denied her right to participate and was
instituted with the criminal
even called but could not due to being abroad, hence waiver. As per Section 16, Rule 110,
action, except when the offended
the civil action shall be deemed instituted with the criminal one, except when offended
party waives the civil action,
party waives the civil action OR reserves the right to institute separately and or prior to the
reserves the right to institute it
criminal one. No such waiver was made by respondent. The fact that she secured services
separately or institutes the civil
of an attorney reveals her willingness to participate in the prosecution of bigamy and
action prior to the criminal action.
recover civil liability from the petitioners.
CriimPro