1.

Preliminary Investigations
a. People v. Castillo
i. Facts
1. Cesar Sarino is one of the registered owners of a piece of land. The
property is leased to Pepito B. Aquino and Adriano G. Samoy who are
in turn subleasing it to several stallholders
2. Municipal Building Official of Bacoor, sent to the stallholders Notices of
Violation4 of the National Building Code on the grounds that the
structures they were occupying were erected without building permits
and occupied by them without the necessary certificates of occupancy
having been first secured
3. because of their repeated failure to comply with the National Building
Code and its implementing rules and regulations and the Business
Permit and Licensing Office Requirements, their stalls will be closed
down
4. Lessees Aquino and Samoy thereafter filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman a complaint against respondent Jessie B. Castillo, in his
capacity as Bacoor Municipal Mayor, respondent Mejia and two other
municipal officials for violation of Section 3(e) and (f) of Republic Act
No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
5. Respondents countered that Sarino’s complaint was anchored on the
same set of facts that had been the subject of OMB-1-00-0537 that was
dismissed by the Ombudsman
6. the Sandiganbayan declared that probable cause exists against
respondents for violation of Section 3(e). Accordingly, it directed the
issuance of the corresponding warrants of arrest and hold departure
orders against respondents
7. respondents voluntarily surrendered to the Sandiganbayan and posted
their respective bonds for their provisional liberty
ii. Issues and Ruling
1. The foregoing issues simply boil down to whether the Sandiganbayan
erred in overturning the Ombudsman’s determination of probable
cause resulting in the dismissal of the case against respondents
a. Petitioner contends that after the Sandiganbayan issued the
arrest warrants against respondents, the responsibility of making
a new determination of probable cause shifted back to the
Ombudsman as prosecutor when respondents moved for the
reinvestigation of the case and such motion was granted by the
court
b. The Ombudsman must then decide whether respondents shall
continue to be held for trial in light of any additional evidence
presented during reinvestigation. This responsibility, petitioner
submits, belongs to the Ombudsman alone and the court is
bereft of authority to overturn the former’s findings as the
judicial determination of probable cause is only for the purpose
of determining whether the arrest warrant should be issued.
c. Petitioner further argues that there are only two instances when
the court can intervene in the Ombudsman’s action – first, when
the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion; and
second, when the prosecution makes substantial amendments to
the information – both of which are wanting in the instant case
 d. There are two kinds of determination of probable cause:
executive and judicial. The executive determination of probable
cause is one made during preliminary investigation. It is a
function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is
given a broad discretion to determine whether probable cause
exists and to charge those whom he believes to have committed
the crime as defined by law and thus should be held for trial.
e. The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand,
is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of
arrest should be issued against the accused. The judge must
satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is
necessity for placing the accused under custody in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice
f. the public prosecutor exercises a wide latitude of discretion in
determining whether a criminal case should be filed in court, and
that courts must respect the exercise of such discretion when the
information filed against the person charged is valid on its face
g. the public prosecutors do not decide whether there is evidence
beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the person charged; they
merely determine whether there is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed
and that respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be
held for trial
b. People v. Yecyec
i. Facts
1. Pioneer Amaresa, Inc. (Pioneer) is a domestic corporation engaged in
the buying and selling of rubber. CalixtoB. Sison was the supervisor of
Pioneer’s rubber processing plant, who was tasked, among other
things, with the acquisition of rubber coagulum and rubber cup lumps
2. Considering that Pioneer did not have any storage facility in Talakag,
Bukidnon, Sison placed the newly-purchased rubber cup lumps inside
the fenced premises which he rented out as his residence
3. Sison was informed they wanted to verify if the rubber cup
lumps/coagulum he had bought earlier were the same as those that
wereearlier stolen from FARBECO. Upon inspection, the group
informed Sison that six (6) tons of the rubber lumps/coagulum that
Edon sold to him were the ones earlier stolen from FABRECO
4. When Sison asked if they had any written authority and/or Court order
authorizing them to take the rubber cup lumps from his house, Yecyec
answered in the negative.For said reason, Sison refused to accede to
their demands
5. Sison then left to fetch the police and barangay officials, leaving his
nephew, Edwin Galdo, to watch over his place in the meantime. Once
inside the fenced premises, Yecyec and his companions took the
rubber cup lumps and loaded them on to their truck
6. After conducting the requisite preliminary investigation,8 the MCTC
found probable cause to hold respondents liable for Robbery with
Intimidation of Personsthe MCTC opined that the respondents did not
have any right to forcibly take back the rubber cup lumps, especially
considering that they admitted that the actual ownership of the rubber
cup lumps was still to be determined by the proper court
 7.the RTC arrived at the conclusion that the evidence on record failed to
establish probable cause absent two (2) of the essential elements of
the crime of Theft and dismissed the case. The CA issued the assailed
decision affirming the dismissal of the charges against the respondents.
Echoing the findings of the RTC that no probable cause exists to hold
the respondents liable for the crime of Theft
ii. Issue and Ruling
1. In essence, the sole issue for the consideration of the Court is whether
or not the RTC and the CA erred in dismissing the information against
the respondents for the crime of Theft for want of probable cause.
a. To determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those
believed to have committed the crime as defined by law, is a
function that belongs to the public prosecutor. It is an executive
function
b. The primary objective of a preliminary investigation is to free
respondent from the inconvenience, expense, ignominy and
stress of defending himself/herself in the course of a formal trial,
until the reasonable probability of his or her guilt in a more or
less summary proceeding by a competent office designated by
law for that purpose. Secondarily, such summary proceeding also
protects the state from the burden of the unnecessary expense
an effort in prosecuting alleged offenses and in holding trials
arising from false, frivolous or groundless charges
c. The determination of probable cause to hold a person for trial
must be distinguished from the determination of probable cause
to issue a warrant of arrest, which is a judicial function. The
judicial determination of probable cause, is one made by the
judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued
against the accused. The judge must satisfy himself that based on
the evidence submitted, there is a necessity to place the accused
under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.27 If
the judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to
issue the arrest warrant
d. It was clearly premature on the part of the RTC and the CA to
make a determinative finding prior to the parties' presentation of
their respective evidence that the respondents lacked the intent
to gain and acted in good faith considering that they merely
sought to recover the rubber cup lumps that they believed to be
theirs.
c. Pemberton v. De Lima
i. Facts
1. A complaint for murder was filed by the Philippine National Police-
Olongapo City Police Office and private respondent Marilou Laude y
Serdoncillo (Laude) against petitioner Joseph Scott Pemberton
2. Pemberton filed a Manifestation with Omnibus Motion: 1) to
Determine Probable Cause on the Basis of Evidence
3. The City Prosecutor of Olongapo City continued to evaluate the
evidence and conducted ocular inspections in connection with the
preliminary investigation.20 Through the Resolution dated December
15, 2014, it "found probable cause against [Pemberton] for the crime
 of murder."21 On the same day, an Information22 for murder was filed
against Pemberton before the Regional Trial Court
4. emberton filed this Petition for Certiorari with application for the ex-
parte issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction
ii. Issues and Rulings
1. First, whether respondent Secretary Leila M. De Lima committed grave
abuse of discretion in sustaining the finding of probable cause against
petitioner Joseph Scott Pemberton, thereby denying petitioner due
process of law
a. There is no basis to doubt that respondent De Lima judiciously
scrutinized the evidence on record. Based on respondent De
Lima's assessment, there was ample evidence submitted to
establish probable cause that petitioner murdered the victim
b. Petitioner had multiple opportunities to controvert the evidence
presented during the preliminary investigation. He was directed
to file a counter-affidavit, which was an opportunity to refute the
allegations against him. Petitioner was also given the opportunity
to seek reconsideration of the initial finding of probable cause
2. the validity of the preliminary investigation in any other venue is
rendered moot by the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the conduct
of arraignment
a. The filing of the information and the issuance by the trial court of
the respondent's warrant of arrest has already rendered this
Petition moot
b. There are two kinds of determination of probable cause:
executive and judicial. The executive determination of probable
cause is one made during preliminary investigation. It is a
function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is
given a broad discretion to determine whether probable cause
exists and to charge those whom he believes to have committed
the crime as defined by law and thus should be held for trial.
Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi-judicial authority to
determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed in cour
c. The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand,
is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of
arrest should be issued against the accused. The judge must
satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is
necessity for placing the accused under custody in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice. If the judge finds no probable cause,
the judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant
d. A preliminary investigation is "merely inquisitorial," and is only
conducted to aid the prosecutor in preparing the information. It
serves a two-fold purpose: first, to protect the innocent against
wrongful prosecutions; and second, to spare the state from using
its funds and resources in useless prosecutions
e. The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or
information is filed in Court, any disposition of the case as to its
dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the
sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the
direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even
 while the case is already in Court he [or she] cannot impose his
[or her] opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole
judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination
of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A
motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed
to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It
does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of
the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation
or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the
records of the investigation
f. Here, the trial court has already determined, independently of
any finding or recommendation by the First Panel or the Second
Panel, that probable cause exists for the issuance of the warrant
of arrest against respondent. Probable cause has been judicially
determined. Jurisdiction over the case, therefore, has transferred
to the trial court. A petition for certiorari questioning the validity
of the preliminary investigation in any other venue has been
rendered moot by the issuance of the warrant of arrest and the
conduct of arraignment
d. PDIC v. Casimiro
i. Facts
1. The instant case arose from a Joint-Affidavit4 dated June 18, 2010 filed
by petitioner Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) The
instant case arose from a Joint-Affidavit4 dated June 18, 2010 filed by
petitioner Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) as well as
violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, entitled the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
2. PDIC, acting as statutory receiver, took over the affairs of BDBI after
the BSP Monetary Board ordered its closure. PDIC, acting as statutory
receiver, took over the affairs of BDBI after the BSP Monetary Board
ordered its closure
3. such disbursements by including them in the other accounts of BDBI
until they were completely covered.9 To bolster her allegations, Gomez
attached copies of deposit slips and official receipts to show that such
deposits were indeed made to Apelo's bank accounts
4. the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal complaint for lack of probable
cause.14 The Ombudsman found that while it may be said that certain
amounts were indeed deposited to Apelo's bank account, there is no
proof that Apelo subsequently withdrew the same
ii. Issues and Ruling
1. The primordial issue raised for the Court's resolution is whether or not
the Omibudsman gravely abused its discretion in finding no probable
cause to indict private respondents of the crimes charged
a. Cu and Zate resorted to mere denials, while Apelo ignored the
complaint by not filing a counter-affidavit despite due notice,
thus, miserably failing to debunk the charges hurled against
them. Indubitably, the foregoing establishes probable cause
b. it was error on the part of the Ombudsman to simply discredit
Gomez's affidavit as inadmissible in evidence for being hearsay.
It is noteworthy to point out that owing to the initiatory nature
 of preliminary investigations, the technical rules of evidence
should not be applied in the course of its proceedings
c. the Court is convinced that there is probable cause to indict
private respondents of the crimes charged against them. Hence,
the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ordered the dismissal of
the criminal complaint against private respondents
e. Facilities inc. v Lopez
i. Facts
1. A MOA was entered between facilities inc and Lopez. The parties
executed a Contract to Sell over the subject lots and Contract of Lease
over the condominium units. These contracts, which Facilities referred
to as a "swap arrangement,"8 are embodied in the essential provisions
of the MOA
2. Facilities followed-up on PPDC's commitment to deliver the TCTs over
the subject lots. Despite repeated demands, PPDC failed to comply
with its contractual obligation and instead vacated the leased premises
without leaving any forwarding address
3. Later on, Facilities discovered that contrary to PPDC's representation,
the title over the subject lots was still registered in the name of a
certain Primo Erni
4. Facilities, through its President, Araneta III filed a Complaint-
Affidavit15 before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of
Mandaluyong City, alleging estafa
ii. Issues and Ruling
1. the core issue to be resolved in this case is whether there is probable
cause to indict Lopez for violation of Section 25, P.D. No. 957 and for
the crime of estafa
a. a preliminary investigation, is "an inquiry or proceeding to
determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial
b. The prosecutor's ruling is reviewable by the Secretary who, as
the final determinative authority on the matter, has the power to
reverse, modify or affirm the prosecutor's determination. As a
rule, the Secretary's findings are not subject to interference by
the courts, save only when he acts with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; or when he grossly
misapprehends facts
c. In this case, there is evidence showing that more likely than not
Lopez violated Section 25 of P.D. No. 957 and committed acts
constitutive of the crime of estafa
f. PCGC v. Gutierrez
i. Facts
1. The instant case arose from an Affidavit-Complaint6 dated July 15,
2003 filed by the PCGG - through Rene B. Gorospe, the Legal
Consultant in-charge of reviewing behest loan cases - against former
officers/directors of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) as
well as the stockholders of galleon
 2. the Ad Hoc Committee concluded that the loans/accommodations
obtained by Galleon from DBP possessed positive characteristics of
behest loans
3. the Ombudsman found no probable cause against private respondents
and, accordingly, dismissed the criminal complaint against them.34 It
found that the pieces of evidence attached to the case records were
not sufficient to establish probable cause against the individual
respondents, considering that the documents presented by the PCGG
consisted mostly of executive summaries and technical reports, which
are hearsay, self-serving, and of little probative value
ii. Issues and Ruling
1. whether or not the OMB gravely abused its discretion in finding no
probable cause to indict respondents of violating Sections 3 (e) and (g)
of RA 3019
a. In view of the accusations that they were involved in the grant of
behest loans, Roque, Zalamea, Tengco, and Castell merely denied
liability by maintaining that they had no participation in such
grant. Suffice it to say that these are matters of defense that are
better ventilated during the trial proper. On the other hand,
Ferry, Zosa, Cuenca, Tinio, and Sison miserably failed to debunk
the charges against them by not filing their respective counter-
affidavits despite due notice. Indubitably, the foregoing
establishes probable cause to believe that individual respondents
may have indeed committed acts constituting the crimes charged
against them
b. an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not
reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant," so long as
the magistrate is "informed of some of the underlying
circumstances" supporting the affiant's conclusions and his belief
that any informant involved "whose identity need not be
disclosed..." was "credible" or his information "reliable
c. In sum, the Court is convinced that there is probable cause to
indict individual respondents of violating Sections 3 (e) and (g) of
RA 3019. Hence, the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
dismissing the criminal complaint against them
g. Claridad v. Esteban
i. Facts
1. The petitioner is the mother of the late Cheasare Armani "Chase" Callo
Claridad, whose lifeless but bloodied body was discovered between
vehicles parked at the carport of a residential house. Allegedly, Chase
had been last seen alive with respondent Philip Ronald P. Esteban
(Philip) less than an hour before the discovery of his lifeless body
2. The OCP observed that there was lack of evidence, motive, and
circumstantial evidence sufficient to charge Philip with homicide, much
less murder; that the circumstantial evidence could not link Philip to
the crime
3. he Secretary of Justice stated that the confluence of lack of an
eyewitness, lack of motive, insufficient circumstantial evidence, and
the doubt as to the proper identification of Philip by the witnesses
 resulted in the lack of probable cause to charge Philip and Teodora
with the crime alleged. Ca also dismissed the petition
ii. Issues and Ruling
1. Whether the CA committed a reversible error in upholding the decision
of the Secretary of Justice finding that there was no probable cause to
charge Philip and Teodora with murder for the killing of Chase
a. The review is denied and the decision of the CA is upheld
b. Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the courts have no
right to directly decide matters over which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the Executive Branch of the
Government, or to substitute their own judgments for that of the
Executive Branch, represented in this case by the Department of
Justice. The settled policy is that the courts will not interfere with
the executive determination of probable cause for the purpose
of filing an information, in the absence of grave abuse of
discretion
c. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient, therefore, if: (a) there is
more than one circumstance, (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived have been proven, and (c) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
d. It is clear from the foregoing disquisitions of the CA that the
Secretary of Justice reasonably reached the conclusion that the
dismissal by the OCP of Quezon City of the complaint for murder
had been based on the lack of competent evidence to support a
finding of probable cause against the respondents. Accordingly,
such finding of probable cause by the Executive Department,
through the Secretary of Justice, could not be undone by the CA,
in the absence of a clear showing that the Secretary of Justice
had gravely abused his discretion
h. Estrada v. office of the Ombudsman
i. Facts
1. The Ombudsman served on Sen. Estrada copies of the two criminal
complaints for plunder against him
2. Sen. Estrada filed his “Request to be Furnished with Copies of Counter-
Affidavits of the Other Respondents, Affidavits of New Witnesses and
Other Filings
3. The Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution which found probable cause
to indict Sen. Estrada and his co-respondents with plunder and
violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA No. 3019. Sen. Estrada filed a Motion for
Reconsideration praying for the issuance of a new resolution dismissing
the charges against him
ii. Issues and ruling
1. WON due process was violated
a. Estrada claims that the denial of his Request for the counter-
affidavits of his co-respondents violates his constitutional right to
due process. Sen. Estrada, however, fails to specify a law or rule
which states that it is a compulsory requirement of due process
in a preliminary investigation that the Ombudsman furnish a
respondent with the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents
 b. What the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman
require is for the Ombudsman to furnish the respondent with a
copy of the complaint and the supporting affidavits and
documents at the time the order to submit the counter-affidavit
is issued to the respondent
c. Clearly, what Section 4(b) refers to are affidavits of the
complainant and his witnesses, not the affidavits of the co-
respondents. Obviously, the counter-affidavits of the co-
respondents are not part of the supporting affidavits of the
complainant. No grave abuse of discretion can thus be attributed
to the Ombudsman for the issuance of the 27 March 2014 Order
which denied Sen. Estrada’s Request
d. In preliminary investigations, the same public officer may be the
investigator and hearing officer at the same time, or the fact-
finder, investigator and hearing officer may be under the control
and supervision of the same public officer, like the Ombudsman
or Secretary of Justice. This explains why Ang Tibay, as amplified
in GSIS, does not apply to preliminary investigations. To now
declare that the guidelines in Ang Tibay, as amplified in GSIS, are
fundamental and essential requirements in preliminary
investigations will render all past and present preliminary
investigations invalid for violation of constitutional due process.
This will mean remanding for reinvestigation all criminal cases
now pending in all courts throughout the country.
2. Sufficiency of Information
a. Reyes v. People
i. Facts
1. An Information, dated June 5, 2006, was filed on September 26, 2006
before the R TC against Reyes designating the crime as one for
violation of Section 5( e ), paragraph 2 of R.A. No. 9262 VAWC
2. Reyes filed a Motion to Quash6 the Information anchored on the
ground that the allegations set forth therein do not constitute the
crime of violation of Section 5(e), par. 2 of R.A. No. 9262. He
contended that "abandoning without financial support," which is
different from deprivation or denial of financial support, is not
criminalized under R.A. No. 9262.
3. AAA and Reyes were married on May 15, 1969. Four children were
born out of this union, or whom only three are living, and who are all
now of legal ages. Reyes was seldom at home since he used to render
military service as a Philippine Air Force pilot, and later he worked as a
commercial pilot for the Philippine Airlines. At the time the complaint
for violation of the VA WC was filed against him, Reyes was employed
as a pilot based in Angola, Africa tasked to deliver relief goods by air.
Sometime in 2005, AAA learned that Reyes got married to a certain
Marilou Osias Ramboanga who had borne him four children and with
whom he is living with up to the present.
4. He admitted that he no longer provides AAA with financial support
since July 2006 because he was disappointed with her for instituting a
criminal case for Bigamy against him which he considered as an act of
ingratitude. In 2007, he stopped flying as a pilot after he was
 prevented from leaving the Philippines by virtue of a Hold Departure
Order issued against him at the instance of AAA
5. The RTC found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses: AAA, her
attending physician, Dr. Rey Caesar R. Anunciacion and the victim's
daughter, to be credible and sufficient. It ruled that the evidence
proffered by the prosecution has adequately established all the
elements of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. Ca echoed the
same conclusion
6. Petitioner insists that the Information, dated June 5, 2006, failed to
allege any of the acts punishable under either Section 5( e ), par. 2 or
Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. He contends that the defective criminal
Information should have been quashed at the first instance by the RTC
because it effectively deprived him of his right to due process
ii. Issues and Ruling
1. WON due process was violated by a defective information
a. Petition is devoid of merit
b. Reyes is essentially averring that the recital of facts therein do
not constitute the offense charged
c. the complaint or information is sufficient if it states the names of
the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute;
the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;
the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the
commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was
committed. It is imperative that an indictment fully states the
elements of the specific offense alleged to have been committed.
d. The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the
averments in a complaint or information is whether the facts
alleged therein, if hypothetically admitted, constitute the
elements of the offense
e. the Court finds that the afore quoted Information contains the
recital of facts necessary to constitute the crime charged. The
June 5, 2006 Information stated in no uncertain terms that: (1)
the offended party, AAA, is the wife of the offender Reyes; (2)
AAA sustained mental and emotional anguish; and (3) such
anguish is inflicted by offender Reyes when he deliberately and
unlawfully denied AAA with financial support
b. People v. Delfin
i. Facts
1. On the night of 27 September 2000, one Emilio Enriquez (Emilio)—a
51-year-old fisherman from Navotas City—was killed after being
gunned down at a store just across his home
2. Suspected of killing Emilio was the appellant. On 13 March 2001, the
appellant was formally charged with the murder of Emilio before the
Regional Trial Court
3. the RTC rendered a Decision9 finding appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of murder
4. CA echoed the decision
ii. Issues and Ruling
1. We sustain the validity of the information under which the appellant
was tried, and convicted, notwithstanding the variance in the date of
 the commission of the crime as alleged inthe information and as
established during the trial
2. A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the
accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts
or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of
the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the
offense; and the place where the offense was committed
3. Since the date of commission of the offense is not required with
exactitude, the allegation in an information of a date of commission
different from the one eventually established during the trial would
not, as a rule, be considered as an error fatal to prosecution
4. Since the date of commission of the offense is not required with
exactitude, the allegation in an information of a date of commission
different from the one eventually established during the trial would
not, as a rule, be considered as an error fatal to prosecution
3. Variance Doctrine
a. Pp v. Adajar
i. Facts issues and ruling
1. In four (4) separate Informations, Adajar was charged with four (4)
counts of rape
2. He insisted that the alleged incidents could not have happened
because there were other people residing in AAA's house, namely, her
two (2) grandmothers, her three (3) siblings, BBB, and BBB's boyfriend,
Mark
3. The RTC found that AAA had consistently, positively, and categorically
identified Adajar as her abuser and that her testimony was direct,
candid, and replete with details of the rape
4. The CA affirmed but modified holding that in one instance he merely
held the private part But pursuant to the Variance doctrine, he can still
be held liable for the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness
5. But pursuant to the Variance doctrine, he can still be held liable for the
lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness
6. the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included
in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in
the offense proved
7. an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when
the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those
constituting the latter.
8. Adajar can be convicted of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness,
which was the offense charged, because it is included in the sexual
assault, the offense proved. In effect, therefore, he is being held liable
for the offense as precisely charged in the Information. Hence, it
cannot be claimed that there was a violation of his constitutional right
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
4. Duplicitous Information
a. Pendoy v. CA
i. Facts
1. Pendoy was indicted for the crime of Rape in an Infonnation3 dated
April 7, 2006, filed before the Regional Trial Court
2. Evidence for the prosecution tends to show that AAA was the
househelp of petitioner Pendoy, his wife and three children
 3. the RTC convicted Pendoy of the crime of Qualified Seduction. The RTC
ratiocinated that while it is morally convinced that the penis of
Pendoy at least touched the pudenda of AAA, there is, however, no
showing that accused employed force, violence or intimidation in the
commission of the sexual molestation and, hence, Pendoy cannot be
held criminally liable for rape
4. Pendoy argued that his conviction of the crime of qualified seduction
was erroneous because the recital of facts in the Information does not
constitute said crime. He claimed that he is entitled to an acquittal
inasmuch as his conviction violated his constitutional right to due
process, particularly his right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him
5. the CA held that since Pendoy is definitely charged with rape, he
cannot be convicted of qualified seduction because the charge of rape
does not include qualified seduction
ii. Issues and Ruling
1. WON guilty or rape
a. He maintains that the prosecution failed to establish that force,
threat or intimidation was exerted upon AAA in the alleged
commission of the sexual congress with the latter, and this is also
in consonance with the findings of the RTC. Pendoy argues that
the CA erred in giving credence to the testimony of AAA which he
alleged to have been riddled with inconsistencies and
improbabilities tending to cast serious doubt on the veracity of
her charge
b. We sustain the conviction of Pendoy. The appeal is devoid of
merit
c. The Information, read as a whole, has sufficiently informed
Pendoy that he is being charged with these two offenses. It is
true that Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure requires that "a complaint or information must charge
only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single
punishment for various offenses." Failure to comply with this
rule is a ground for quashing the duplicitous complaint or
information and the accused may raise the same in a motion to
quash before he enters his plea, otherwise, the defect is deemed
waived
5. Amendment or substitution
a. Mayor Jong v. Pamular
i. Facts
1. the above-named accused, did then and there, with malice
aforethought and with deliberate intent to take the life of ANGELITO
ESPINOSA
2. Petitioners question the inclusion of Corpus and the insertion of the
phrase "conspiring and confederating together" in the amended
information. They contend that Rule 110, Section 14 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits substantial amendment of
information that is prejudicial to the rights of the accused after his or
her arraignment
3. Before an accused enters his or her plea, either formal or substantial
amendment of the complaint or information may be made without
 leave of court. After an entry of plea, only a formal amendment can be
made provided it is with leave of court and it does not prejudice the
rights of the accused.160 After arraignment, there can be no
substantial amendment except if it is beneficial to the accused.161
4. Since only petitioner Samonte has been arraigned, only he can invoke
this rule. Petitioner Corpus cannot invoke this argument because he
has not yet been arraigned.