ZaldiviavReyes CriminalProcedureActionsPrescriptionSection1,Rule110oftheRulesonCriminal Proceduredoesnotapplytooffenseswhicharesubjecttosummaryprocedure.Thatsection meaningfullybeginswiththephrase,foroffensesnotsubjecttotheruleonsummaryprocedure inspecialcases,whichplainlysignifiesthatthesectiondoesnotapplytooffenseswhichare subjecttosummaryprocedure.Thephraseinallcasesappearinginthelastparagraph obviouslyreferstothecasescoveredbytheSection,thatis,thoseoffensesnotgovernedbythe RuleonSummaryProcedure.Thisinterpretationconformstothecanonthatwordsinastatute shouldbereadinrelationtoandnotisolationfromtherestofthemeasure,todiscoverthetrue legislativeintent. SameSameSameSameThechargeagainstthepetitioner,whichisforviolationofa municipalordinanceofRodriguezisgovernedbytheRuleonSummaryProcedureandnot Section1ofRule110.

AsitisclearlyprovidedintheRuleonSummaryProcedurethatamong theoffensesitcoversareviolationsofmunicipalorcityordinances,itshouldfollowthatthe chargeagainstthepetitioner,whichisforviolationofamunicipalordinanceofRodriguez,is governedbythatruleandnotSection1ofRule110.[Zaldiviavs.Reyes,Jr.,211SCRA 277(1992)] SameSameSameSameIncaseofconflict,theRuleonSummaryProcedureasthespecial lawprevailsoverSection1ofRule110oftheRulesonCriminalProcedureandalsoRule110of theRulesonCriminalProceduremustyieldtoActNo.3326.Atanyrate,theCourtfeelsthatif therebeaconflictbetweentheRuleonSummaryProcedureandSection1ofRule110ofthe RulesonCriminalProcedure,theformershouldprevailasthespeciallaw.Andiftherebea conflictbetweenActNo.3326andRule110oftheRulesonCriminalProcedure,thelattermust againyieldbecausethisCourt,intheexerciseofitsrulemakingpower,isnotallowedto diminish,increaseormodifysubstantiverightsunderArticleVIII,Section5(5)ofthe Constitution.Prescriptionincriminalcasesisasubstantiveright.[Zaldiviavs.Reyes,Jr.,211 SCRA277(1992)] PanaguitonvDOJ GuiaovFigueroa CRIMINALPROCEDUREPERSONSTHATSHOULDBEINCLUDEDINTHEINFORMATION DUTYOFFISCALS.TherulesofCourtmakeitamandatorydutyforthefiscaltofilecharges againstwhomsoevertheevidencemayshowtoberesponsibleforanoffense. 2.ID.ID.DISCHARGEOFONEOFSEVERALDEFENDANTS,DISCRETIONARYUPON COURT.Whenitbecomesnecessarytoexcludefromprosecutionpersonswhoappear responsibleforacrimeinorderthattheymaybeusedasStatewitnesses,theexclusionis lodgedinthesounddiscretionofthecompetentcourt,notinthatoftheprosecutingofficer. 3.ID.ID.ID.FISCALSCANBECOMPELLEDTOINCLUDEPERSONSRESPONSIBLEFOR OFFENSEINTHEINFORMATION.Wherethefiscalchoosetoignorehislegaldutytoinclude intheinformationallpersonswhoappearresponsibleforacrime,itbecameproperand necessaryforthecompetentcourttorequirehimtocomplytherewith.[Guiaovs.Figueroa,94

Phil.1018(1954)] DeCastrovCastaneda CriminalprocedureFiscalsPowerofprosecutingofficer,itsextentandlimitations.Thepower ofaprosecutingofficertodeterminethepersonsprobablyguiltyofthecommissionofanoffense andtoincludethemintheinformationtobefiledincourtcannotextendtothepointof encroachingupontheprerogativeofthecourt.Personswhoappearresponsibleforthe commissionofanoffenseshouldbeincludedintheinformation,and,ifitisnecessarytoutilize anyofthedefendantsasawitnessfortheprosecution,theprovisionsofthelawforhis dischargefromtheinformationshouldbefollowed.Same.Itisfortheprosecutingofficerto determinewhethertheevidenceathandissufficienttoengenderareasonablebeliefthata personcommittedanoffense.Thispowerandprerogativeoftheprosecutingofficerisnot, however,altogetherabsolute.Itissubjecttojudicialreviewinpropercases,aswherefromthe evidencesubmittedandgatheredbytheprosecutingofficerapersonappearingtobe responsibleforthecommissionofanoffenseisnotincludedintheinformation.[DeCastro,Jr. vs.Castaeda,1SCRA1131(1961)] AquinovMariano SameSameSameCriminalProcedureRulethatifappealorotheradequateremedyisstill availableintheordinarycourseoflaw,actionformandamusisimproperFilingofasimple motionwiththeFiscaltoincludeintheinformationLandRegistrationCommissionerNoblejasas oneoftheaccused,ortoamendtheinformation,ismuchmorespeedyandadequatethana mandamuspetition.Thus,ifappealorsomeotherequallyadequateremedyisstillavailablein theordinarycourseoflaw,theactionformandamuswouldbeimproper.Inthecaseatbar, privaterespondentAdriano,Jr.didnotrequestFiscalAquinotoincludeintheinformation CommissionerNoblejasasoneoftheaccused.Hadhedonesoandthesamewasmetwitha denial,Adriano,Jr.couldhaveappealedtotheSecretaryofJusticewhomayreversepetitioner anddesignateanothertoactforthepurpose.Thatway,thefilingofasimplemotionwiththe Fiscaltoincludeortoamendtheinformationismuchmorespeedyandadequatethanapetition formandamus.[Aquinovs.Mariano,129SCRA532(1984)] EstrellavRuiz CriminalprocedurePreliminaryinvestigationAbsenceoffiscalscertificationthatapreliminary investigationhasbeenconductedisnotfataltotheinformation.Itshouldbeobservedthat section3ofRule110definesaninformationasnothingmorethananaccusationinwriting chargingapersonwithanoffensesubscribedbythefiscalandfiledwiththecourt.Thus,itis obviousthatsuchcertificationisnotanessentialpartoftheinformationitselfanditsabsence cannotvitiateitassuch.Whatisnotallowedisthefilingoftheinformationwithoutapreliminary investigationhavingbeenpreviouslyconducted,andtheinjunctionthatthereshouldbea certificationisonlyaconsequenceoftherequirementthatapreliminaryinvestigationshouldfirst beconducted. SameSameOmissionoffiscalscertificationmaybewaived.Inasmuchasthesettled doctrineinthisjurisdictionisthattherighttothepreliminaryinvestigationitselfmustbeasserted

orinvokedbeforetheplea,otherwise,itisdeemedwaived,itstandstoreason,thattheabsence ofthecertificationinquestionisalsowaivedbyfailuretoallegeitbeforetheplea. SameSameRighttopreliminaryinvestigation,ifnotinvokedpriortoarraignment,isdeemed waived.Hereinpetitionerdidnotquestionthevalidityoftheinformationonthegroundof defectivecertification.alreadyadvertedtoabovewithrespecttopreliminaryinvestigationbefore heenteredapleaofnotguilty.Hefiledhismotiontoquashonlyafter1monthsthereafter. Consequently,whenheenteredapleaofnotguilty,hetherebywaivedallobjectionsthatare groundsforamotiontoquash,exceptlackofjurisdictionorfailureoftheinformationtocharge anoffensespecifically,hewaivedhisrighttoapreliminaryinvestigation.[Estrellavs.Ruiz,58 SCRA779(1974)] PachecovSandiganBayan SameSameSameFailuretofurnishrespondentwithacopyofanadverseresolutiondoesnot affectthevalidityofaninformationthereafterfiledevenifacopyoftheresolutionuponwhichthe informationisbasedwasnotservedupontherespondent.Moreover,thefailuretofurnishthe respondentwithacopyofanadverseresolutionpursuanttoSection6doesnotaffectthevalidity ofaninformationthereafterfiledevenifacopyoftheresolutionuponwhichtheinformationis basedwasnotservedupontherespondent.Thecontentionthattheprovisionismandatoryin ordertoallowtherespondenttoavailofthe15dayperiodtofileamotionforreconsiderationor reinvestigationisnotpersuasiveforunderSection7ofthesaidRule,suchmotionmay, nevertheless,befiledandacteduponbytheOmbudsmanifsodirectedbythecourtwherethe informationwasfiled.[Pechovs.Sandiganbayan,238SCRA116(1994)] PeoplevMarquez CriminalprocedureComplaintDismissalWheretrialcourthasjurisdictiondespiteinitial complaintinthejusticeofthepeacecourtwasnotsignedbyoffendedparty.Thetrialcourts questionedorderofdismissaliserroneousitbeingbasedonthegroundthatithadnojurisdiction overthiscasebecausetheinitialcomplaintfiledwiththejusticeofthepeacecourtwasnot signedbytheoffendedpartyandwas,therefore,invalid.Itmaybeconcededthat,asappellee argues,apartfromwhatisprovidedintheRulecited,thereareprecedentstotheeffectthat, exceptastothegovernmentofficersauthorizedbysaidRule,thefilingofacomplaintispersonal totheoffendedparty.(U.S.vs.Malabon,1Phil.731Guevaravs.DelRosario,77Phil.615.)This isnot,however,theonlyprincipleinvolvedunderthecompletefactualsettingofthiscase.It mustberememberedthatappelleedidnotattackthesaidcomplaintwhilehiscasewasstillin thejusticeofthepeacecourt,where,onthecontrary,hewaivedthepreliminaryinvestigation properheallowedthecasetoberemandedto,thecourtoffirstinstanceandfoldedhisarms whentheprovincialfiscalfiledthecorresponding,informationand,hedidnotobjecttohisbeing arraigned,insteadHemerelyenteredapleaofnotguiltyatsaidarraignment.Inthese circumstances,theSupremeCourtheldthattheinitialcomplainthaslostitsimportanceandthe casecanbeviewedonlyinthelightoftheinformationsubsequentlyfiledbytheprovincialfiscal, assuggestedbytheSolicitorGeneral.[Peoplevs.Marquez,27SCRA808(1969)] Same.SameSameFilingofinformationincourta,quomadetheissueofvalidityofcomplaint inthejusticeofthepeacecourtacademic.UndertheRules,acriminalactionmayalsobe

initiatedbythefiscalfilinganinformationwiththepropercourt.(Sec.3,Rule110)Ontheother hand,asalreadystated,theSupremeCourthasconsistentlyheldthatthedefenseofabsenceof apreliminaryinvestigationmustberaisedbeforetheentryoftheplea,otherwise,itiswaived. Accordingly,evenassuming,forthesakeofargument,thatthecomplaintinthejusticeofthe peacecourtwasvoid,ascontendedbyappellee,ontheotherhand,thefilingoftheinformationIn questionwiththecourtaquomadetheissueofvalidityofsaidcomplaintalreadyacademic, consideringthatthesaidcomplaintbadalreadybeensupersededbythesaidinformation.And sincethesaidInformationissufficientinformandsubstance,andtheabsenceofapreliminary investigationmayonlyberaisedbeforetheaccusedentershisplea,otherwise,itiswaived,it followsthatappelleeforfeitedhisrighttoquestionboththecomplaintandtheinformationunder discussionbyenteringhispleaofnotguiltyandotherwisesubmittingto,thejurisdictionofthe courtfortrial.[Peoplevs.Marquez,27SCRA808(1969)]

PeoplevGomez CriminalProcedurePreliminaryinvestigationAbsenceintheinformationsofrequisite certificatesoffiscalsofhavingheldpreliminaryinvestigations,notfatalAbsenceofpreliminary investigationdoesnotaffectcourt'sjurisdictionoveracase.Butthen,assumingthatthe informationsdidnotcontaintherequisitecertificatesregardingtheFiscal'shavinghelda preliminaryinvestigation,theomissionsarenotnecessarilyfatal.Theabsenceofpreliminary investigationsdoesnotaffectthecourt'sjurisdictionoverthecase.Nordotheyimpairthevalidity oftheinformationorotherwiserenderitdefective.Iftherewerenopreliminaryinvestigationsand thedefendants,beforeenteringtheirplea,invitetheattentionofthecourttotheirabsence,the court,"insteadofdismissingtheinformation,shouldconductsuchinvestigation,orderthefiscal toconductitorremandthecasetotheinferiorcourtsothatthepreliminaryinvestigationmaybe conducted."(Peoplevs.Casiano,1SCRA478). SameSameFailureofaccusedtoinvokerighttopreliminaryinvestigationpriorto,oratleastat, thetimeoftheirpleaintheCourtofFirstInstanceconstituteswaiverofsaidright.The defendantsinthesecasesdidnotquestionthevalidityoftheinformationsonthegroundof defectivecertificationsortherighttopreliminaryinvestigationsbeforetheyenteredthepleaofnot guilty.Theyfiledthemotiontodeclareinformationsandwarrantsofarrestnullandvoidonlyafter morethanone(1)yearthereafter.Consequently,whentheyenteredapleaofnotguilty,they therebywaivedallobjectionsthataregroundsforamotiontoquash,exceptlackofjurisdictionor failureoftheinformationtochargeanoffense.Thus,theywaivedtherighttoapreliminary investigationwhentheyfailedtoinvokeitpriorto,oratleastat,thetimeoftheentryoftheirplea intheCourtofFirstInstance.[Peoplevs.Gomez,117SCRA72(1982)]

PeoplevBulaong

QuizovSandiganbayan Againsttheforegoingandconsideringthatafterareinvestigationconductedbyaprosecutor,no

lessthantheTanodbayanhimselfdirectedthedismissalofthecasebasedonfindingsthat"itis clearthattheaccusedneverpocketedthemoney"andthat"theshortagewerevalesof coemployees"(Annex"D,"'p.39,Rollo),theCourtisinclinedtosustainpetitioner'scontention thattheSandiganbayangravelyabuseditsdiscretionwhenitrefusedtograntthemotionto dismiss.Itisnotfairtocompeltheprosecutortosecuretheconvictionofanaccusedon evidencewhichinhisopinion,isinsufficientandweaktoestablishevenaprimafaciecase. [Quizovs.Sandiganbayan,149SCRA108(1987)] CrespovMogul CriminalProcedureAcourtthatgrantamotionofthefiscaltodismissacasecommitsnoerror andthefiscalsviewthereon,inaclashofviewswiththejudgeorcomplainant,shouldnormally prevail.Thus,afiscalwhoasksforthedismissalofthecaseforinsufficiencyofevidencehas authoritytodoso,andCourtsthatgrantthesamecommitnoerror.Thefiscalmayreinvestigate acaseandsubsequentlymoveforthedismissalshouldthereinvestigationshoweitherthatthe defendantisinnocentorthathisguiltmaynotbeestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubt.Ina clashofviewsbetweenthejudgewhodidnotinvestigateandthefiscalwhodid,orbetweenthe fiscalandtheoffendedpartyorthedefendant,thoseofthefiscalsshouldnormallyprevail.On theotherhand,neitheraninjunction,preliminaryorfinalnorawritofprohibitionmaybeissuedby theCourtstorestrainacriminalprosecutionexceptintheextremecasewhereitisnecessary fortheCourtstodosofortheorderlyadministrationofjusticeortopreventtheuseofthestrong armofthelawinanoppressiveandvindictivemanner. SameOnceaninformationisfiledincourt,thecourtspriorpermissionmustbesecurediffiscal wantstoreinvestigatethecase.Thepreliminaryinvestigationconductedbythefiscalforthe purposeofdeterminingwhetheraprimafaciecaseexistswarrantingtheprosecutionofthe accusedisterminateduponthefilingoftheinformationinthepropercourt.Inturn,asabove stated,thefilingofsaidinformationsetsinmotionthecriminalactionagainsttheaccusedin Court.Shouldthefiscalfinditpropertoconductareinvestigationofthecase,atsuchstage,the permissionoftheCourtmustbesecured.Aftersuchreinvestigationthefindingand recommendationsofthefiscalshouldbesubmittedtotheCourtforappropriateaction.Whileitis truethatthefiscalhasthequasijudicialdiscretiontodeterminewhetherornotacriminalcase shouldbefiledincourtornot,oncethecasehadalreadybeenbroughttoCourtwhatever dispositionthefiscalmayfeelshouldbeproperinthecasethereaftershouldbeaddressedfor theconsiderationoftheCourt,TheonlyqualificationisthattheactionoftheCourtmustnot impairthesubstantialrightsoftheaccused,ortherightofthePeopletodueprocessoflaw. SameSame.Whethertheaccusedhadbeenarraignedornotandwhetheritwasduetoa reinvestigationbythefiscalorareviewbytheSecretaryofJusticewherebyamotiontodismiss wassubmittedtotheCourt,theCourtintheexerciseofitsdiscretionmaygrantthemotionor denyitandrequirethatthetrialonthemeritsproceedfortheproperdeterminationofthecase, SameWherethecourtrefusestograntthefiscalsmotiontodismiss,includingacasewhere theSecretaryofJusticeorderedthefiscaltomovetodismissthecase,thefiscalshould continuetoappearinthecasealthoughhemayturnoverthepresentationofevidencetothe privateprosecutor.However,onemayask,ifthetrialcourtrefusestograntthemotionto dismissfiledbythefiscaluponthedirectiveoftheSecretaryofJusticewilltherenotbea

vacuumintheprosecution?Astateprosecutortohandlethecasecannotpossiblybe designatedbytheSecretaryofJusticewhodoesnotbelievethatthereisabasisforprosecution norcanthefiscalbeexpectedtohandletheprosecutionofthecasetherebydefyingthesuperior orderoftheSecretaryofJustice.Theanswerissimple.Theroleofthefiscalorprosecutoras Weallknowistoseethatjusticeisdoneandnotnecessarilytosecuretheconvictionofthe personaccusedbeforetheCourts.Thus,inspiteofhisopiniontothecontrary,itisthedutyof thefiscaltoproceedwiththepresentationofevidenceoftheprosecutiontotheCourttoenable theCourttoarriveatitsownindependentjudgmentastowhethertheaccusedshouldbe convictedoracquitted.Thefiscalshouldnotshirkfromtheresponsibilityofappearingforthe PeopleofthePhilippinesevenundersuchcircumstancesmuchlessshouldheabandonthe prosecutionofthecaseleavingittothehandsofaprivateprosecutorforthentheentire proceedingswillbenullandvoid.Theleastthatthefiscalshoulddoistocontinuetoappearfor theprosecutionalthoughhemayturnoverthepresentationoftheevidencetotheprivate prosecutorbutstillunderhisdirectionandcontrol.[Crespovs.Mogul,151SCRA462(1987)]

RepublicvSunga CriminalProcedureJurisdictionHowthecourtacquiresjurisdictionoverthecaseandoverthe personoftheaccused.ThefilingofacomplaintorinformationinCourtinitiatesacriminal action.TheCourttherebyacquiresjurisdictionoverthecase,whichistheauthoritytohearand determinethecase.Whenafterthefilingofthecomplaintorinformationawarrantforthearrest oftheaccusedisissuedbythetrialcourtandtheaccusedeithervoluntarilysubmittedhimselfto theCourtorwasdulyarrested,theCourttherebyacquiredjurisdictionoverthepersonofthe accused. SameSameDismissalAmotiontodismissthecasefiledbythefiscalshouldbeaddressedto theCourtwhichhastheoptiontograntordenythesame.Therulethereforeinthisjurisdiction isthatonceacomplaintorinformationisfiledinCourtanydispositionofthecaseasits dismissalortheconvictionoracquittaloftheaccusedrestsinthesounddiscretionoftheCourt. Althoughthefiscalretainsthedirectionandcontroloftheprosecutionofcriminalcaseseven whilethecaseisalreadyinCourthecannotimposehisopiniononthetrialcourt.TheCourtis thebestandsolejudgeonwhattodowiththecasebeforeit.Thedeterminationofthecaseis withinitsexclusivejurisdictionandcompetence.Amotiontodismissthecasefiledbythefiscal shouldbeaddressedtotheCourtwhohastheoptiontograntordenythesame.Itdoesnot matterifthisisdonebeforeorafterthearraignmentoftheaccusedorthatthemotionwasfiled afterareinvestigationoruponinstructionsoftheSecretaryofJusticewhoreviewedtherecords oftheinvestigation. SameSameSameSameAnymoveonthepartofthecomplainantoroffendedpartyto dismissthecriminalcaseevenifwithoutobjectionoftheaccusedshouldfirstbereferredtothe prosecutingFiscalforhisownviewonthematter.Toavoidsimilarsituations,theCourttakes theviewthat,whiletheCrespodoctrinehassettledthatthetrialcourtisthesolejudgeon whetheracriminalcaseshouldbedismissed(afterthecomplaintorinformationhasbeenfiledin court),still,anymoveonthepartofthecomplainantoroffendedpartytodismissthecriminal case,evenifwithoutobjectionoftheaccused,shouldfirstbereferredtotheprosecutingfiscal

forhisownviewonthematter.Heis,afterall,incontroloftheprosecutionofthecaseandhe mayhavehisownreasonswhythecaseshouldnotbedismissed.Itisonlyafterhearingthe prosecutingfiscalsviewthattheCourtshouldexerciseitsexclusiveauthoritytocontinueor dismissthecase.[Republicvs.Sunga,162SCRA191(1988)] VizcondevIAC

PeoplevRamos

USvVayson ID.ID.INCREASEINPENALTYAFTERENTRYOFJUDGMENT.Acourthasthepowerto reviseandincreasethesentenceimposeduponaconvictbeforeitbecomesfinalandbeforeany partoftheoriginalsentencehasbeenperformed[UnitedStatesvs.Vayson.,27Phil.447(1914)] ID.ID.ID.DISCRETION.Whereacourtinpassingsentencehasactedundera misapprehensionofthefactsnecessaryandpropertobeknowninfixingthepenalty,itmay,in theexerciseofsoundjudicialdiscretionandinfurtheranceofjustice,exmeromotu,beforethe judgmenthasbecomefinalandbeforetheoriginalsentencehasgoneintooperation,reviseand increaseordiminishsuchsentencewithinthelimitsauthorizedbylaw.[UnitedStatesvs. Vayson.,27Phil.447(1914)] PeoplevArlegui CriminalProcedureTheinformationatbardoesnotsufferfromanyambiguity.Anexamination oftheinformationshowsonitsfacethatitdoesnotsufferfromanymaterialorsubstantialdefect oranysocalledambiguityordoublemeaningastowarrantthedismissalofthecase.Contrary totherespondentsclaim,theinformationappearssufficientlyexplicit.Itdoesnotsufferfromthe obscurity,unintelligibility,orvaguenessallegedbytherespondents.RespondentsEspaola createdambiguitywheretherewasnone.Resorttostatutoryconstructionorinterpretationwas, therefore,unnecessary. SameIfaninformationisambiguoustheproperrecourseisnotamotiontodismiss,buta motionforbillofparticulars.Assumingtheinformationtohavebeenvagueandambiguous, alternativecoursesofactioncouldhavebeentaken.RespondentEspaolacouldhavefileda motionforabillofparticularsifhedidnotfeellikeresearchingintoaPresidentialDecreewitha Section4bandaSection4B.AbillofparticularswhileprovidedforunderSection6ofRule116 isnotapopularprocedureamonglawyersfortheaccusedincriminalcases.Foronething,it mayinviteanamendedinformationwhichisnotonlyclearerbutmayalsobestrongerandmore incriminating.However,itwouldhaveclarifiedandcorrectedatanearlystagethekindofdoubt whichtheaccusedinthisparticularcaseallegedtohaveentertained. SameSame.ButtherulingofthisCourtwasnotfollowed.Instead,afterrespondentEspaola filedamotiontoquashtowhichtheFiscaltogetherwiththecomplainantPhilippineTourism Authorityinterposedanopposition,thesamewasgranted.Tomakemattersworse,thecase hadtobebroughttothisCourtoncertiorari.Thefilingofthispetitionandtheresultant

unnecessaryadditiontotheheavydocketofthisCourtcouldhavebeenavoidedbythesimple expedientoforderingthefilingofanamendedinformation.[Peoplevs.Arlegui,128SCRA 556(1984)] SameAnerrorintheinformationwhichspecifiesthewrongstatutedoesnotnecessarilyvitiate theinformation.Wehaveheldthatanerrorwhichspecifiesthewrongprovisionofapplicable lawdoesnotnecessarilyvitiatetheinformation(Peoplev.Arnault,92Phil.252).Afortiorishould animaginedambiguitynotvitiatetheinformation.Foritisawellsettledrulethattherealnatureof thecrimechargedinaninformationorcomplaintisdeterminednotbythetitleofthecomplaint, norbythespecificationoftheprovisionoflawallegedtohavebeenviolated,butbythefacts allegedinthecomplaintorinformation(Peoplev.Oliveria,67Phil.427).[Peoplevs.Arlegui,128 SCRA556(1984)] PeoplevCamba RemedialLawEvidenceMurder,withassaultuponanagentofapersoninauthorityMistakein designatingthecrimebothintheinformationandinthejudgment,notfatal,sincethechargein theinformationandtheevidenceistothesameeffect.Sincethechargeintheinformationis robberywithhomicideandtheevidenceistothesameeffect,themistakeindesignatingthe crimebothintheinformationandinthejudgmentisnotfatal.[Peoplevs.Camba,133SCRA 251(1984)] USvGoChanco PerjuryCriminalPracticeandProcedureDemurrertoComplaint.Ademurrertoacomplaint inacriminalcasewillnotbesustainedwhenthefactsareallegedandsetoutinsuchamanner astoenableapersonofcommonunderstandingtoknowwhatisintended,andthecourtto pronouncejudgmentaccordingtoright.Acomplaintwillbesufficientifitdescribestheoffensein thelanguageofthestatute,ifthestatutecontainsalloftheessentialelementsconstitutingthe particularoffense.Itisnotnecessary,however,tofollowthelanguageofthestatuteinthe complaint.Thecomplaintwillbesufficientifitdescribesthecrimedefinedbythelaw.A complaintchargingthecrimeofperjurywillbesustainedifthecrimeisdescribedinthe complaintinintelligibleterms,withsuchparticularityastoapprisetheaccused,withreasonable certainty,oftheoffensewithwhichheischarged.Itshouldstatethesubstanceofthe controversyuponwhichthefalseoathwastaken,specifythecourtorofficerbywhomthefalse oathwasadministered,andallegethatsuchcourtorofficerhadauthoritytoadministersuch oath,togetherwithanallegationofthefalsityoftheoath.[UnitedStatesvs.GoChanco,etc.,23 Phil.,641(1912)] CabralvPuno SameTheprivateprosecutorisunderthecontrolofthefiscalandonlythemotionfor reconsiderationorappealfiledbythefiscalcaninterrupttheperiodforappeal.Whileitistrue thattheoffendedparty,SilvinoSanDiego,throughtheprivateprosecutor,filedamotionfor reconsiderationwithinthereglementary15dayperiod,suchmovedidnotstoptherunningofthe periodforappeal.Hedidnothavethelegalpersonalitytoappealorfilethemotionfor

reconsiderationonhisbehalf.Theprosecutioninacriminalcasethroughtheprivateprosecutor isunderthedirectionandcontroloftheFiscal,andonlythemotionforreconsiderationorappeal filedbytheFiscalcouldhaveinterruptedtheperiodforappeal. SameSeparatecivilactionWherethereisapendingcivilcasearisingoutofthesamealleged forgeddocumentfiledbytheoffendedparty,theoffendedvictimhasnorighttointervenein prosecutionofthecriminalcase.Itappearing,therefore,fromtherecordthatatthetimethe orderofdismissalwasissuedtherewasapendingcivilactionarisingoutofthesamealleged forgeddocument,filedbytheoffendedpartyagainstthesamedefendant,theoffendedpartyhas norighttointerveneintheprosecutionofthecriminalcase,andconsequentlycannotaskforthe reconsiderationoftheorderofdismissal,orappealfromsaidorder.[Cabralvs.Puno,70SCRA 606(1976)]

PeoplevCollado CRIMINALPRACTICEANDPROCEDUREAPPRECIATIONOFAGGRAVATING ClRCUMSTANCESNOTALLEGEDINTHECOMPLAINTORINFORMATION.Althougha complaintorinformationcontainsnoallegationthatgenericaggravatingcircumstancesofany kindwerepresentinthecommissionofacrime,saidcircumstancesmaybeprovenatthetrial and,ifproven,mustbetakenintoconsiderationintheimpositionofthecorrespondingpenalty. [Peoplevs.Collado,60Phil.610(1934)]

PeoplevDomondon ID.ID.APPRECIATIONOPAGGRAVATINGCIRCUMSTANCESNOTALLEGEDINTHE INFORMATION.Althoughitisnotallegedinacomplaintorinformationthatgenericaggravating circumstancesofanykindhavebeenpresentinthecommissionofthecrime,said circumstancesmaybeprovenatthetrialand,ifproven,mustnecessarilybetakeninto considerationinimposingthecorrespondingpenalty.Thereforesaidtwocircumstances (subsections1and6,article14oftheRevisedPenalCode),whicharenotqualifying circumstancesbutmerelygeneric,shouldbetakenintoconsideration.(U.S.vs,Campo,23 Phil.,368Peaplevs.Collado,p.610,ante.)[Peoplevs.Domondon,60Phil.729(1934)] USvCampo .CriminalPracticeandProcedureRightsofAccused.Theaccusedinacriminalcasehasa righttobeinformedastothenatureoftheoffensewithwhichheischargedbeforeheisputon trial,andtoconvicthimofahigheroffensethanthatchargedinthecomplaintorinformationon whichheistried,wouldbeanunauthorizeddenialofthatright. 2.Id.SufficiencyofInformationConviction.Exceptinaveryearlycase(U.S.vs.Dinsing,1 Phil.Rep.,738),whereinacontraryviewappearstohavebeentakenapparentlywithout extendeddiscussion,butwhichhaslongsincebeenoverruled,wehaveuniformlyandfrequently laiddowntherulethatanaccusedpersonmaybeconvictedof"anycrimedescribedand chargedbythefactssetoutintheinformation"irre spectiveofandwithoutregardtothe designationorcharac terizationofthecrimesetforthinthetitleofthecomplaintorinformationby

theprivatecomplainantorthepublicpros ecutingofficer.[UnitedStatesvs.Campo,23Phil., 368(1912)]

PeoplevOcbina 3.CRIMINALLAWANDPROCEDURECOMPLAINTORINFORMATIONSUFFICIENCYOF ALLEGATIONHABITUALDELINQUENCY.Anallegationinaninformationtotheeffectthatthe accused"isanhabitualdelinquent,hehavingalreadybeenconvictedthreetimesofthecrimeof theft,byvirtueoffinaljudgmentsofacompetentcourt,thedateofhislastconvictionbeing December13,1935,"istoogeneralandthereforeinsufficienttosustainaconvictionforhabitual delinquencyuponapleaofguilty.[Peoplevs.OcbinaandPamero,63Phil.528(1936)]

PeoplevBurgos 1.LIBELANDSLANDERLIBELOUSEXPRESSIONS.Itiselementarylawthatinany prosecutionforlibeltheoffensiveexpressionsmustbesetoutverbatim.Inthepresentcase,if thereareanysuchnuggetsintheinformation,theyareburiedunderamountainofvaluelessand irrelevantmatter.Itisnotincumbentuponthecourtstominethemout. 2.ID.ID.Whereanarticleislengthyandcontainsmatterthatislibelouswithmuchthatisnot, thelibelousmattermustbesingledoutandtheprosecutionbasedthereon.[Peoplevs.Burgos, 59Phil.375(1934)]

FiscalofPampangavReyes CRIMINALLAWLIBELANDSLANDERINFORMATION.Aninformationforlibelpublishedina nonofficiallanguage,likePampango,inthiscase,isvalid,evenifthelibelousarticleisnot quotedinit,butinaSpanishtranslation.[FiscalofPampangavs.ReyesandGuevarra,55Phil. 905(1931)] UsvChuaMo OpiumLawEvidenceJudicialNotice.Thecomplaintchargedthatthedefendantdid"onor aboutthe19thofMarch,1912,inthecityofManila,PhilippineIslands,voluntarily,illegally,and criminallyhaveinhispossessionandunderhiscontrolacertainquantityofopium."Thelower courtfoundthatthecrimehadbeencommitted"atNo.717CalleSacristiainthecityofManila." Anexaminationoftheevidenceshowsthatthecrimewascommitted"atNo.717Calle Sacristia."NoneofthewitnessesstatedwhereorinwhatcityNo.717CalleSacristiawas located.Held:Undertheprovisionsofsection275oftheCodeofProcedureinCivilActions(Act No.190)thatthelowercourtwasdulyauthorizedtotakejudicialnoticeofthefactthatsaid houseandsaidstreetwerewithinitsjurisdiction.Citiesandmunicipalitiesarecreatedbypublic law.Theirlimitsarealsoprescribedbypubliclaw.Thestreetsarelaidout,surveyedand establishedbyvirtueofpublicauthority.Courtsofjusticeareboundtotakejudicialnoticeofthe territorialextentoftheirjurisdiction.Courtsmaytakejudicialnoticethatacertaincityhasbeen surveyedintolots,blocksandstreetsandjudicialnoticemaybetakenofsuchdivisions.[United

Statesvs.ChuaMo,23Phil.,233(1912)]

PeoplevFerrer CRIMINALPROCEDUREINFORMATIONCHARGINGTwoORMOREOFFENSES,MAKES INFORMATIONDEFECTIVE.Theinformationisdefectivewhenitchargestwoormore offenses.Theruleenjoiningthechargingoftwoormoreoffensesinaninformationhasforits aimtogivethedefendantthenecessaryknowledgeofthechargetoenablehimtopreparehis defense.TheStateshouldnotheapuponthedefendanttwoormorechargeswhichmight confusehiminhisdefense.[Peoplevs.Ferrer,101Phil.234(1957)] PeoplevBautista ID.ID.JEOPARDYPRELIMINARYINVESTIGATIONISNOTATRIALNORAPART THEREOF.Ifinthiscasetherehadbeennothingmorethanapreliminaryinvestigation,it clearlycouldnotbesaidthattheaccusedhadeverbeeninjeopardy.Thisisbecausea preliminaryinvestigationisnotatrialoranypartthereofanddoesnothaveforitsobjectthatof determiningdefinitelytheguiltoftheaccusedbyproofs,counterproofs,andtheotherformalities prescribedbylaw.(U.S.vs.YuTuico,34Phil.,209.) 3.ID.ID.ID.COMPETENTCOURT.Onecannotbeconsideredtohavebeeninjeopardy unlessthepriorjudgment,whetheroneofacquittalorconvictioninthepropercase,hasbeen renderedbyacourthavingjurisdictiontotrythesamebyreasonofthecrimewithwhichhewas chargedandthepenaltyprescribedtherefor.(Graftonvs.U.S.,206U.S.,33311Phil.,776U. S.vs.Rubin,28Phil.,631.) 4.ID.ID.ID.ID.Incasesoflackofauthorityorjurisdictiononthepartofthejudge,the proceedingstakenbyhimaremillandthetrialoftheaccusedundersaidcircumstanceshasnot placedhimindangerofconvictionforthereasonthattherehasbeennoreallyvalidtrial. Therefore,therightofthegovernmenttoprosecutethecrimesubsistsandmustbeattendedto bythecompetentjudgecalledupontotakecognizanceofthesame,andthedefenseofjeopardy doesnotlieagainstit.(U.S.vs.Arceo,11Phil.,530Kepnervs.U.S.,195U.S.,10011Phil., 669U.S.vs.Jayme,24Phil.,90U.S.vs.LedesmaandBernad,29Phil.,481.)[Peoplevs. Bautista.,67Phil.518(1939)] PeoplevMagpale 1.CriminalLawandProcedurePurposesopPreliminaryInves tigations.Invarying" phraseology,butconveyingthesamecentralthought,thiscourthassetoutthepurposesofa pre liminaryinvestigationasfollows:"Theobjectofapre liminaryinvestigation,oraprevious inquiryofsomekind,beforeanaccusedpersonisplacedupontrial,istosecuretheinnocent againsthasty,maliciousandoppressiveprosecutions,andtoprotecthimfromanopenand publicaccusationofcrime,fromthetrouble,expensesandanxietyofapublictrial,andalsoto protecttheStatefromuselessandexpensiveprosecutions."(U.S.vs.GrantandKennedy,18 Phil.,122.)"Preliminaryin vestigationsareintendedtosecuretherighttoeverypersoncharged withcrimetobefreefromtheinconvenience,expenseandburdenofdefendinghimselfinthe courseofaformaltrialuntilthereasonableprobabilityofhisguilthasbeenpasseduponina

moreorlesssummaryproceedingbyacompetentofficerdesignatedbylawforthatpurpose andthattheyareintendedfurthertoguardthestatefromtheburdenofun necessaryexpense involvedinholdingtrialsbasedonfalse,frivolousorgroundlesscharges."(U.S.vs.Marfori,35 Phil.,666.).'Apreliminaryinvestigationisnotatrialoranypartthereofandhasnopurpose exceptthatofdeterminingwhetheracrimehasbeencommittedandwhetherthereisprobable causetobelievetheaccusedguiltythereof."(U.S.vs.YuTuico,34Phil.,209.)[Peoplevs. Magpale,70Phil.,176(1940)] 3.Id.Id.Id.Waiver.Granting,however,thathewasentitledtoasecondpreliminary investigation,stillhisrighttheretowasinvokedafterhepleadednotguiltywhenarraigned.Tn Peoplevs.Solon(47Phil.,443,448),itwasintimatedthat'"Whethersaidmotionwasmade beforeorafterthearraignment,isofsomeimportanceforthereasonthatifitwasnotmade beforethearraingmentorbeforethepleaofthedefendantswasentered,itwouldindicatethat theyhavewaivedtheirrighttoapreliminaryexamination,andforthatreasonthecourtaquo wouldhavebeenjustifiedindenyingthesaidmotion."Afterhismotioncontestingthejurisdiction ofthetrialcourtwasdenied,theappellantshouldhavebroughttheappropriateproceedingsto compelthetrialcourttogranthimanotherpre liminaryinvestigation,thisrightbeingasubstantial one.Instead,theappellantfoldedhisarmsandwentforwardwiththetrial,atwhichthe prosecutionpresentedwitnesseswhobroughtintestimony,withoutanyobjectiononthepartof theappellant,establishingthefactthattheappellantwastheonewhoorderedthemakingofthe ironbrandinquestion.[Peoplevs.Magpale,70Phil.,176(1940)]

PeoplevMercado CRIMINALLAWTHEFTOFLARGECATTLEJURISDICTION.TheCourtofFirstInstanceof Pampangaheldthatitwaswithoutjurisdictiontohearanddecidetwocriminalcasespending beforeitfortheftoflargecattle,onthegroundthatsaidoffensestookplaceandwerecommitted inthemunicipalityofGapan,ProvinceofNuevaEcija,althoughthestolenanimalswere thereafterbroughtbytheaccusedtoCandaba,ProvinceofPampanga,wheretheywerefoundin hispossession.Held:Thattheonlycourtpossessingjurisdictionoverthecasesagainstthe accusedforthesaidtheftsisnotthatofPampanga,butthatofNuevaEcija,inwhichtheyshould havebeenandmustbeinstituted.[Peoplevs.Mercado.,65Phil.665(1938)]