You are on page 1of 10

People vs Tumambing G.R. No.



The city prosecutor charged the accused Jenny Tumambing

(Tumambing) with rape.

DK, the complainant, testified that at around 2:00 a.m. on June 26,
2004 she went to sleep, leaving the lights on, at her cousins rented room.
She was startled when somebody entered the room after she had turned
off the lights. The intruder, a man, poked a knife at DK and threatened to
kill her if she made any noise. He removed DKs clothes and undressed
himself. He then succeeded in ravishing her. When the man was about to
leave, DK turned the light on and she saw his face. DK recognized him as
the same person who passed by her cousins room several times in the
afternoon of the previous day, June 25, 2004. Later, she identified the
accused Jenny Tumambing as her rapist.

The RTC found Tumambing guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the

crime charged

Tumambing appealed the decision to the CA but it only affirmed the

previous ruling of the RTC, hence this petition.


Won the accused was properly identified


A successful prosecution of a criminal action largely depends on

proof of two things: the identification of the author of the crime and his
actual commission of the same. An ample proof that a crime has been
committed has no use if the prosecution is unable to convincingly prove the
offenders identity. The constitutional presumption of innocence that an
accused enjoys is not demolished by an identification that is full of
In the case at bar the testimonies of the complainant and the
testimonies of the neutral party which complainant affirmed is not
consistent in rightfully identifying the accused. There were several
instances wherein the complainant was asked to pin point the person who
raped her and it did not point out the accused, only in open court did she
pin point that the accused is Tumambing. With such serious doubts
regarding the true identity of DKs rapist, the Court cannot affirm the
conviction of accused Tumambing.

People vs Narvaez G.R. No. L-39799


Charged with homicide, the herein appellant, on May 13, 1933, was
convicted of said crime and sentenced by the Court of First Instance of

In the barrio of Pitlan of the municipality of Cabuyao, Province of

Laguna, the appellant inflicted on Benito de Silva three wounds, because
he was provoked to do so by the insulting words of the deceased, which
resulted in the stabbing of the accused to the deceased. The appellant
makes a motion to appeal the decision of the CFI of laguna invoking many
grounds and one of which is that the court erred in not declaring that the
defendant's true name is Primo Narvaes instead of Pedro Narvaes.


WON the CA and the CFI erred in naming the accused


The court finds that the appellant's true name is Pedro Narvaes, not
Primo Narvaes as can be seen from the different evidences presented.

But, when the appellant was arraigned under the name of Pedro
Narvaes, which is the name appearing in the information, he merely
entered his plea of "not guilty" under the said name. It was on that occasion
that he should have for the first time raised the question of his identity, by
filing a demurrer based on the court's lack of jurisdiction over his person,
inasmuch as he was then considered as Pedro Narvaes, not Primo

Not having filed the said demurrer, it must necessarily be understood

that he renounced it and therefore he is now estopped from raising, or
insisting to raise, the same question, not only in this appeal but even in the
trial. Therefore, whether the said question be considered from one angle or
another, at all events, the conclusion must be the same, that is, that the
trial court did not err in considering the appellant as Pedro Narvaes, not as
Primo Narvaes.

People vs Abad Santos G.R. No. L-447


Respondent Joseph Arcache has been accused of the crime of

treason before the People's Court,

In counts two (2) and three (3) contained in the information,

specifying the different kinds of properties alleged to have been sold by him
to the Japanese imperial forces, in the City of Manila, during the enemy
occupation, was also added the phrase "and other similar equipments"; that
on March 8, 1946, said respondent was duly arraigned before the
respondent judges of the People's Court, and entered a plea of not guilty.

Counsel for respondent Joseph Arcache verbally petitioned the

respondent judges that the prosecution should make more specific said
phrase "and other similar equipments" set forth in counts two (2) and three
(3) of the information or have it stricken therefrom, unless the prosecution
should furnish a bill of particulars specifying what those "other similar
equipments" were; that the special prosecutor objected to said petition, on
the ground that it was out of time, since respondent Joseph Arcache had
already entered a plea of not guilty to the charge; that on the same date,
April 8, 1946, considering that the allegation objected to was too broad and
too indefinite to enable the accused to properly defend himself. The trial
court affirmed the motion of the accused counsel and required the
prosecutor ample time to prepare a bill of particulars.

Instead of submitting a bill of particulars, the special prosecutor filed a

motion for reconsideration of said order of the court, on the ground that it
was contrary to law and that the court had acted in excess of its jurisdiction
and/or with abuse thereof, which motion for reconsideration was denied on
April 10, 1946, on the ground that the alleged defect in the information
could be cured by amendment, which might be properly ordered, in the
interest of justice, so that the accused might be clearly informed of the
charges against him, and thus avoid any possible surprise, without
necessity on the part of the accused to plead anew to the amended


Won the special prosecutor can validly question the orders of the court


Considering that the two orders complained of are legal and valid,
and that they were issued by the respondent judges, in the exercise of
sound judicial discretion, for the protection of the rights and interests of
respondent Joseph Arcache, the petition for certiorari filed in this case is,
therefore, hereby denied and dismissed.

It is to be expected that the defense will object to any question, which

is not based upon the allegations made in the complaint or information; but
this does not preclude the possibility that immaterial evidence might be
admitted, although not supported by such allegations, due to inadvertence
on the part of the defense. And inasmuch as in criminal cases not only the
liberty but even the life of the accused may be at stake, it is always wise
and proper that the accused should be fully apprised of the true charges
against them, and thus avoid all and any possible surprise, which might be
detrimental to their rights and interests; and ambiguous phrases should not,
therefore, be permitted in criminal complaints or informations; and if any
such phrase has been included therein, on motion of the defense, before
the commencement of the trial, the court should order either its elimination
as surplusage or the filing of the necessary specification, which is but an
amendment in mere matters of form.

Us vs Go Chamco L-6861-65


The prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, Mr. W. H. Bishop,

presented a separate complaint in the Court of First Instance against each
of the said defendants, charging each of them with the crime of perjury. By
agreement between the respective attorneys in the court below, the five
cases were consolidated and tried together, by the Honorable Charles S.
Lobingier, judge.

After hearing the evidence, each of the defendants was found guilty
of the crime charged in the complaint, and sentenced to be imprisoned for
a period of six months and to pay a fine of P500, and each was disqualified
from holding any public office or giving testimony in any court in the
Philippine Islands, until said sentence should be reversed. The defendants
appealed the case contending that the lower court erred in overruling the
demurrer to each of the complaints presented by the prosecuting attorney
for the city of Manila.


Won the information filed was not sufficient and did not amount to the crime


The court deemed the information as sufficient and it amounted to a


In numerous cases this court has announced the doctrine that a

complaint will be sufficient if it describes the offense in the language of the
statute whenever the statute contains all of the essential elements
constituting the particular offense.

It is not necessary, however, to follow the language of the statute in

the complaint, if the complaint sufficiently describes the crime defined by
the law.

An examination of the complaint above quoted clearly shows that all

of the essential elements of the crime described in said section 3 (Act No.
697) are included. The facts stated in the complaint are stated with
sufficient clearness therein and certainty so that those who are charged
with the crime therein described, if ordinary understanding, could have no
difficulty in fully comprehending the exact offense with which they are

People vs Navarro L-38453-54


Respondent Catuday was charged in the Municipal Court of Makati,

Rizal, with the crime of light threat allegedly committed against Henry

Almost a year later, or on February 3, 1969, and while the light threat
case was still pending, he was charged in the same court, with a different
offense, frustrated theft, allegedly committed against the Commonwealth
Foods, Inc. In two separate decisions rendered on September 10, 1969,
the Municipal Court convicted him of the two charges. He appealed both
decisions to the Court of First Instance.

Judge Navarro rendered one decision, acquitting Catuday of both

charges for lack of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The provincial fiscal filed several motions for reconsideration on the

judgment made by judge Navarro but was denied by him hence an appeal
to the higher courts was done.

Petitioner claims that the threat case was never tried in the lower
court so the charge therein should not have been dismissed on the ground
of lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Respondents, on the other hand,
claim that there was joint trial of the threat case and the theft case, and
since the prosecution failed to present evidence respecting the alleged
threat, the case was properly dismissed on the stated ground.


WON the light threats case was tried.


It has been held, however, that a mistake in the caption of an

indictment in designating the correct name of the offense is not a fatal
defect, for it is the sufficiency of the averments of the charging part that is
the gist of the accusation. It is almost the universal rule that the caption of a
pleading is not controlling but what is embodied therein. More, the office of
a caption is to declare the purpose of the acts, and if the matter mentioned
in the caption is not contained in the body of the act, it is merely
surplusage, and does not affect the matters set forth in the act itself.
Captions are purely formal, and may be amended.

Despite the captions of some of the portions of the transcript of

stenographic notes, an examination thereof reveals that the light threat
case was never tried at all.

The following portions of the transcript of stenographic notes expose

clearly that what was singularly tried was the theft case

People vs SAMILLANO G.R. No. L-31375


The case presents the pathetic and distressing spectacle of a

fourteen-year old girl who swore that she was raped by her mother's
paramour, her quasi-stepfather. The mother and quasi-stepfather denied
the rape. The girl's paternal uncle, siding with her, revealed that she and
her mother had requested him to assist them in filing the complaint for
rape. After hearing the conflicting contentions, the trial court concluded that
rape was committed.

The Accused appealed the decision of the trial court on the grounds
that the said court did not give credence to his testimony given.


WON he accuseds appeal be given due course


After a searching study of the evidence, particularly the complaint and

the testimony of Dioleta, who was already fifteen and half years when she
testified, we are of the opinion that Conrado Samillano committed qualified
seduction and not rape.

It is not the designation of the offense in the complaint or information

that is controlling. What are decisive are the allegations therein which
directly appraise the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him

Dioleta's testimony proves that the appellant committed the crime of

qualified seduction. A judicious evaluation of the conflicting declarations of
the witnesses leads to the conclusion that the sexual intercourse between
Dioleta and Conrado Samillano was apparently voluntary. It was not
marked by tenacious resistance and clamorous protestation on her part.
The accused took advantage of his moral dominance over the girl, not to
mention her dependence on him for her subsistence. She was presumably
a virgin

Matrido vs People G.R. No. 179061


Petitioner received amortization payment from one Amante dela

Torre in the amount of P22, 470.66, but petitioner remitted only P4,470.66
to private complainant as reflected in the treasury departments.
Petitioner paid private complainant the total amount of P162,000,
drawing private complainant to desist from pursuing some related
complaints. A few other cases including I.S. No. 2000-I-32381 pushed
through, however, since the amount did not sufficiently cover petitioners
admitted liability of P400,000.

City Prosecution Office of Makati dismissed the Complaint for estafa

for insufficiency of evidence but found probable cause to indict petitioner for
qualified theft. On arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty.[9]
After trial, Branch 56 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, by
Decision of December 13, 2004 which was promulgated on April 28, 2005,
convicted petitioner of qualified theft.


WON the appellate court gravely erred in affirming the decision of the trial
court convicting the petitioner of the crime of qualified theft despite the fact
that the prosecution tried to prove during the trial the crime of estafa thus
denying the petitioner the right to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation against her


The petition fails.

It is settled that it is the allegations in the Information that determine

the nature of the offense, not the technical name given by the public
prosecutor in the preamble of the Information. From a legal point of view,
and in a very real sense, it is of no concern to the accused what is the
technical name of the crime of which he stands charged. It in no way aids
him in a defense on the merits. That to which his attention should be
directed, and in which he, above all things else, should be most interested,
are the facts alleged. The real question is not did he commit a crime given
in the law some technical and specific name, but did he perform the acts
alleged in the body of the information in the manner therein set forth.