Form and Content Procedural 1.

Name of accused and Offended Party

Section 7.Name of the accused. The complaint or information must state the name and surname of the accused or any appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known. If his name cannot be ascertained, he must be described under a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is unknown. If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by him or appears in some other manner to the court, such true name shall be inserted in the complaint or information and record. Section 12.Name of the offended party. The complaint or information must state the name and surname of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed, or any appellation or nickname by which such person has been or is known. If there is no better way of identifying him, he must be described under a fictitious name. (a) In offenses against property, if the name of the offended party is unknown, the property must be described with such particularity as to properly identify the offense charged. (b) If the true name of the person against whom or against whose properly the offense was committed is thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the court must cause the true name to be inserted in the complaint or information and the record. (c) If the offended party is a juridical person, it is sufficient to state its name, or any name or designation by which it is known or by which it may be identified, without need of averring that it is a juridical person or that it is organized in accordance with law.

PEOPLE v GUEVARRA 179 SCRA 740 PADILLA: December 4, 1989

NATURE Automatic Review

FACTS -On or about April 8, 1980, in Gapan, Nueva Ecija, several armed men namely Jaime Guevarra y Arcega, Poncing Abergas, Dan Tolentino, Baldo de Jesus, Roming Longhair, Boy Tae, Boy Pogi, Chotse Doe alias Bernabe Sulaybar y Hernandez, and Vergel Bustamante alias "Dan Saksak", entered the house of the sps Cruz and robbed them of P3000 and jewelry. Thereafter, Luisito Cruz was threatened by the men and forced to give the keys to his car by Vergel Bustamante. The members of the household were then made to enter a room and were tied. After the robbery, Priscilla Cruz was forcibly boarded in her own car by 5 of her kidnappers where she was held at knife and gunpoint. She was then told she was being held for ransom of P50k but they had to stop in San Rafael Bulucan to hire a truck because the car broke down. However, she was left at Valenzuela Bulacan as the men said the kidnapping did not materialize. The five men then boarded a taxi and the truck driver later took her home. On

the same night, Luisito reported the incident which led to the detention of Vergel Bustamante who was positively identified by Priscilla. -Bustamante denied the allegations and interposed the defense of alibi, claiming to be in Caloocan at the time of the crime. His defense was rejected considering the proximity of Gapan and Caloocan and since witnesses had positively identified him. -After a separate trial for Poncing Abergas and Vergel Bustamante alias "Dan Saksak," inasmuch as Dan Tolentino, who had previously entered of plea of "not guilty" could not be served with subpoenas, and the other accused were reported to have died, judgment was rendered finding the accused Vergel Bustamante alias "Dan Saksak" guilty of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention and sentenced to suffer the death penalty, and to indemnify the offended party, Mrs. Priscilla Cruz, in the amount of P5,000.00. The accused Poncing Abergas, upon the other hand, was acquitted of the charge. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUES 1. WON TC erred in ordering the amendment of the information to include Vergel Bustamante alias Dan Saksak despite lack of proof that the 2 are 1 and the same person. 2. WON there was no reinvestigation conducted to justify the filing of the amended information 3. WON the TC erred in convicting Bustamante upon the prosecution witnesses contradictory and improbable testimonies and the appellants extra-judicial confession 4. WON the accused can be convicted of kidnapping for ransom

HELD 1. NO. - The ff circumstances led the RTC judge of Nueva Ecija to believe that Vergel Bustamante and Dan Saksak are one and the same person as the accused is mentioned in each as Vergel Bustamante alias Dan Saksak: A subpoena issued by the MTC of Gapan; a Return of Service of one subpoena; an order issued by the Municipal Court of Gapan finding a prima facie case against the accused; and the letter of transmittal of the records of the cases to the RTC of Nueva Ecija stating Bustamante aka Dan Saksak was detained in the Manila City Jail. -In, any case, the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it is one affecting jurisdiction over the person and should have been raised before the trial court in a motion to quash the information. As the accused failed to do so, he is deemed to have waived his objection to the information and is assumed to be satisfied with its legality. 2. NO - The reinvestigation is evidenced by the certification of the Fiscal stating that there was reasonable ground to believe a crime had been committed and that the accused were informed of the complaint and given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. 3. NO - The said discrepancies in the testimonies were minor details which could not destroy the substance of said testimonies. As the highest degree of respect is accorded to the factual findings of the TC, the issue of the

credibility of the witnesses cannot be raised. Also, the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to support a finding of guilt even without the said extra-judicial confession. 4. NO -No element of ransom exists as no ransom note was presented in court. Neither was there a demand for money in exchange for Priscillas safe return. Besides, the Amended Information failed to allege that the kidnapping was for the purpose of extorting a ransom. The rule is that an accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that charged in the complaint or information. -Hence, Bustamante can only be convicted of kidnapping of a female under Article 267 with the aggravating circumstances of (a) the use of a motor vehicle and (b) the aid of armed men bringing the penalty up to the maximum. However, due to Article 3 Sec. 19 of the Constitution, the death penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua.

2.

Designation of the offense

Section 8. Designation of the offense. The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. SEC. 40. Designation of offense charged. - For offenses that are punishable under the Revised Penal Code, the caption shall set forth the denomination of the offense and the specific article and paragraph of the statute violated. Where there is another charge or counter charge in the same case having one case number or in case of a consolidated resolution involving two or more criminal cases with two or more docket numbers, the caption shall also contain said information.

PEOPLE v PURISIMA 86 SCRA 542 MUNOZ-PALMA; November 20, 1978

NATURE Petitions for review (26 petitions consolidated) of the decisions of the Courts of First of Manila and Samar.

FACTS -The private respondents were all charged with illegal possession of deadly weapons (one (1) carving knife with a blade 1/2 inches and a wooden handle of 5-1/4 inches, or an overall length of 11-3/4 inches in the Information filed with J.Purisima; ice pick with an overall length of about 8 1/2 inches in the Information filed with J. Maceren; socyatan in the Information filed with J. Polo) in violation of PD 9, Par. 3. Informations were filed with respondent judges in their respective courts (2 Branches of CFI, then CFI Samar) but upon motion to quash filed by the several accused, the said judges dismissed the Informations on the common ground that the said Informations did not allege facts which constitute the offense penalized by PD 90 failed to state 1 of the 2 essential elements of the

crime punished (the carrying outside of the accused's residence of a bladed, pointed or blunt weapon is in furtherance or on the occasion of, connected with or related to subversion, insurrection, or rebellion, organized lawlessness or public disorder.) - In the 2 cases filed before the different branches of CFI Manila, the orders of dismissal were given before arraignment of the accused. In the criminal case before the CFI Samar the accused was arraigned but at the same time moved to quash the Information. In all the cases where the accused were under arrest, the three Judges ordered their immediate release unless held on other charges. -ON PD 9 THIS CASE INVOLVES THE INTERPRETATION AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE INTENT OF THIS P.D. The pertinent paragraphs of the said PD is its Whereas clause ("WHEREAS, subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos and public disorder mentioned in the aforesaid Proclamation No. 1081 are committed and abetted by the use of firearms, explosives and other deadly weapons) and par3 (It is unlawful to carry outside of residence any bladed, pointed or blunt weapon such as 'fan knife,' 'spear,' 'dagger,' 'bolo,' 'balisong,' 'barong,' 'kris,' or club, except where such articles are being used as necessary tools or implements to earn a livelihood and while being used in connection therewith; and any person found guilty thereof shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from five to ten years as a Military Court/Tribunal/Commission may direct.) -Petitioners Contention: (1) Par 3, PD 9 shows that the prohibited acts need not be related to the subversive activities; that the act proscribed is essentially malum prohibitum penalized for reasons of public policy; (3) that since it is malum prohibitum, the intention of the accused who commits it is immaterial; (4) that PD was enacted to eradicate lawless violence which characterized pre-martial law days; and (5) that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information.
:

ISSUE WON the Informations filed by the People sufficient in form and substance to constitute the offense of Illegal Possession of Deadly Weapon penalized under PD 9

HELD NO. The two elements of the offense covered by P.D. 9(3) must be alleged in the information in order that the latter may constitute a sufficiently valid charged. Ratio. The sufficiency of an Information is determined solely by the facts alleged therein. Where the facts are incomplete and do not convey the elements of the crime, the quashing of the accusation is in order. - It is a constitutional right of any person who stands charged in a criminal prosecution to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Reasoning. The offense carries two elements: first, the carrying outside one's residence of any bladed, blunt, or pointed weapon, etc. not used as a necessary tool or implement for a livelihood; and second that the act of carrying the weapon was either in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder. There are other statutes (SECTION 26 OF ACT NO. 1780, ORDINANCE NO. 3820 OF THE CITY OF MANILA) which may be charged against the accused for their acts to constitute a crime. It is the second element which removes the act of carrying a deadly weapon , if concealed,

outside of the scope of the statute or the city ordinance mentioned above. In other words, a simple act of carrying any of the weapons described in the presidential decree is not a criminal offense in itself. What makes the act criminal or punishable under the decree is the motivation behind it. Without that motivation, the act fans within the purview of the city ordinance or some statute when the circumstances so warrant. -ON SUFFICIENCY OF THE INFORMATION: for a complaint or information to be sufficient it must, inter alia, state the designation of the offense by the statute, and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. This is essential to avoid surprise on the accused and to afford him the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly. It is necessary that the particular law violated be specified as there exists a substantial difference between the statute and city ordinance on the one hand and P.D. 9 (3) on the other regarding the circumstances of the commission of the crime and the penalty imposed for the offense. (PD 9 punishes the offender with 5-10 yrs imprisonment; Sec26, Act 1780 with a fine of P500 or by imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or both; Ordinance 3820 with a fine of not more than P200 or imprisonment for not more than 1 month or both). But since it was specified in the Informations that the accused were charged with violation of Par3, PD 9, it was necessary for the Court to elucidate the elements of the said PD to differentiate it from other statutes (see above) the rest of the discussion was on the intent of the PD: to justify their decision that Par3 should be interpreted with the Whereas clause. - there exists a valid presumption that undesirable consequences were never intended by a legislative measure, and that a construction of which the statute is fairly susceptable is favored, which will avoid all objectionable, mischievous, indefensible, wrongful, evil, and injurious consequences. It is to be presumed that when P.D. 9 was promulgated by the President of the Republic there was no intent to work a hardship or an oppressive result, a possible abuse of authority or act of oppression, arming one person with a weapon to impose hardship on another, and so on. Penal statutes are to be construed strictly against the state and liberally in favor of an accused. -ON OTHER REMEDIES OF THE PEOPLE: Under Rule 117, Sec 7 and Rule 110, Sec 13, Information may be amended or ordered by the court to be amended. Or, the People could have filed a complaint either under Sec 26 of Act 1780 or under Manila City Ordinance 3820 since most of the cases were dismissed prior to arraignment of the accused and on a motion to quash. Dispositive. WHEREFORE, We DENY these 26 Petitions for Review and We AFFIRM the Orders of respondent Judges dismissing or quashing the Information concerned, subject however to Our observations made in the preceding pages 23 to 25 of this Decision regarding the right of the State or Petitioner herein to file either an amended Information under Presidential Decree No. 9, paragraph 3, or a new one under other existing statute or city ordinance as the facts may warrant. Without costs. SO ORDERED.

People V. Buayaban, 2003 Facts: Appellants Paulino Buayaban, Pedro Tumulak, Marciano Toacao, Yoyong Buayaban and Larry Betache, all armed, entered the house of Dioscoro Abonales, killed the latter by shooting him in the neck then forcibly took the sum of P30,000 from the victims wife. They also got the wallet of Rolando Verdida, the future son -in-law of the victim, containing P10,000 which was the money prepared by Roland o for his wedding to the victims daughter. After the robbery, they all fled. But, while escaping, they encountered Artemio Abonales, the father of the victim, who was responding to investigate the gunshots he heard. They all stopped momentarily and Paulino in fact tried but failed to shoot Artemio. Thereafter, all the accused continued their escape.

In the information, the People erroneously charged the accused with robbery in band with homicide. There is no such crime in the Revised Penal Code. The felony is properly called robbery with homicide. If robbery with

homicide is committed by a band, the indictable offense would still be denominated as robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, but the circumstance that it was committed by a band would be appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance. Issue: Can the ordinary aggravating circumstance of band in the commission of the crime be appreciated when it is not properly alleged in the information? Held: No. We cannot treat the ordinary aggravating circumstance of band because it was not alleged in the body of the information. Though it is an ordinary aggravating circumstance, the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure require that even generic aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the Information. With regard to its Section 9, the use of the word must indicates that the requirement is mandatory and therefore, the failure to comply with Sec. 9, Rule 110, means that generic aggravating circumstances, although proven at the trial, cannot be appreciated against the accused if such circumstances are not stated in the information. It is a cardinal rule that rules of criminal procedure are given retroactive application insofar as they benefit the accused. Oni- accused still held guilty, but without the aggravating circumstance.

People V. Delim, 2003 FACTS OF THE CASE: It is due to the automatic review of the decision of the RTC Branch 46 (Urdaneta City) finding the appellants, guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing them to death for the murder of Modesto Bantas. Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. The appellants and victim are related for modesto is an adopted son of their father. On January 23,1999 Marlon, Robert and Ronald Delim charged into the house and poked a gun at modesto and herded him outside the house. Leon and Manuel Delim both armed stayed put and made sure that randy and rita stayed put. Modesto's lifeless body was then found on January 25, 1999. Marlon, Ronald, and Leon used denial and alibi as their evidence against the charge. *alibis are the weakest of all defenses since it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove ISSUES OF THE CASE: Is conspiracy and treachery present in this case to ensure that murder can be the crime? Yes there is: CONSPIRACY- is determined when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven with the same quantum of evidence as the felony itself, more specifically by proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not essential that there be proof as to the existence of a previous agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient if, at the time of commission of the crime, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its executed. appellants acted in unison when they abducted Modesto. So their acts were synchronized and executed with precision evincing a preconceived plan to kill Modesto

There is no:

TREACHERY- there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. For it to be appreciated prosecution needs to prove: a. employment of means of execution which gives the person no opportunity to defend himself b. the means of execution is deliberately and consciously adopted in the appellants case there are no evidence to the particulars on how Modesto was assaulted and killed and this in fact does mean that treachery cannot be proven since it cannot be presumed that modesto was defenseless during the time that he was being attacked and shot at by the appellants. Sheer numbers by the appellants when they attacked modesto does not constitute proof that the three took advantage of their numerical superiority and their handguns when Modesto was shot and stabbed. HELD: APPELLANTS ARE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE FELONY OF HOMICIDE (THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTS WERE MODIFIED TO LOWER THE CRIME FROM MURDER TO HOMICIDE)