Rule 110 PRSCTN of Offns

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition)<draft copy; pls.
check for errors>

Rule 110 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES Q: How are criminal cases or actions instituted? A: Section 1, Rule 110.
Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses
SECTION 1. Institution of criminal actions. Criminal actions shall be instituted as ollo!s" #a$ For o enses !here a %reliminar& in'esti(ation is re)uired %ursuant to section 1 o Rule 11*+ b& ilin( the com%laint !ith the %ro%er o icer or the %ur%ose o conductin( the re)uisite %reliminar& in'esti(ation. #b$ For all other o enses+ b& ilin( the com%laint or in ormation directl& !ith the ,unici%al Trial Courts and ,unici%al Circuit Trial Courts+ or the com%laint !ith the o ice o the %rosecutor. In ,anila and other chartered cities+ the com%laints shall be iled !ith the o ice o the %rosecutor unless other!ise %ro'ided in their charters. The institution o the criminal action shall interru%t the runnin( o the %eriod o %rescri%tion o the o ense char(ed unless other!ise %ro'ided in s%ecial la!s. #1a$ The language has been changed no? If you try to compare it with the old Rules, merong ma or changes, meron man ding pareho. The language is now simplier. Q: Is there a difference between commencement of criminal action and institution of criminal action? A: !es. "hen you say #commencement$, generally it is already in the court once it is filed in court. %ut #institution$ is earlier. "hen you file a complaint with the fiscal&s office, it is already an institution. Q: Is preliminary in'estigation re(uired in all criminal cases? %ecause there are some criminal cases which do not re(uire preliminary in'estigation. A: )enerally, all RT* cases re(uire preliminary in'estigation. %ut right now under the new rules, some cases triable by the +T* may also re(uire preliminary in'estigation. ,or e-ample in the RT*, more than . years, /ailangan may preliminary in'estigation yan. 0nder Section 1, from the moment you file a complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting a preliminary in'estigation, it is already institution. Q: "ho are these officers referred to? A: They are mentioned in Section 1, Rule 1112 SEC. *. O icers authori-ed to conduct %reliminar& in'esti(ations. The ollo!in( ma& conduct %reliminar& in'esti(ations" #a$ Pro'incial or Cit& Prosecutors and their assistants. #b$ /ud(es o the ,unici%al Trial Courts and ,unici%al Circuit Trial Courts. #c$ National and Re(ional State Prosecutors. and #d$ Other o icers as ma& be authori-ed b& la!. Their authorit& to conduct %reliminar& in'esti(ations shall include all crimes co(ni-able b& the %ro%er court in their res%ecti'e territorial 0urisdictions. #*a$ Q: How about those other offenses which 34 54T re(uire preliminary in'estigation? A: 0nder the new rules, yung below 6 years and 1 months ang penalty 7 they are triable by the +T*. 8If the penalty is 6 years, 1 months and 1 day, it re(uires preliminary in'estigation.9 Q: How do you institute them? :i/e slight physical in uries; A: !ou ha'e two 819 options2 1. ,ile a complaint with the prosecutor&s office in the city or pro'incial who will now file the case in court< or 1. =ung gusto mo, direct filing. !ou can file the complaint directly to the +T*. :i/e sa munisipyo, police man ang mag>file ba.
15
Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition)<draft copy; pls. check for errors>
Howe'er in 3a'ao *ity we do not see that because under the rules, in +etro +anila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall always be filed with the office of the prosecutor unless the charter of the city pro'ides otherwise. So again, the complaint can be filed either in the +T* in the pro'ince or office of the fiscal merely for preliminary in'estigation. 0nli/e in chartered cities na puro fiscals lang ang authori?ed to conduct preliminary in'estigation. ,or example2 +urder, the police can file a complaint for murder before the +T* of Sta. *ru?, 3a'ao del Sur. That is not for trial but only for preliminary in'estigation because the +T* of Sta. *ru? has no power to try a murder case. The institution o the criminal action shall interru%t the runnin( o the %eriod o %rescri%tion o the o ense char(ed unless other!ise %ro'ided in s%ecial la!s. 8last paragraph, Section 1, Rule 1109 QUESTION: 3oes the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor&s office interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period of the crime? In the old case of People vs. del osario 81@.69, S*2 5o. "hen a complaint is filed in the municipal court only for the purpose of preliminary in'estigation, it does not interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period. "hat interrupts is the filing of the complaint in court which has urisdiction to try the case. That is reiterated A years later in the case of People vs. !o"uia. The S* modified it in the case of People vs. Olarte where a complaint for murder is filed in the +T* for preliminary in'estigation. The issue is2 Is the running of the prescripti'e period interrupted? S*2 !es, abandoning the case of !o"uia and del osario. "hy? %ecause the Benal *ode says, the filing of the complaint interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period. Crticle @1 of the RB* does not distinguish whether the filing is for trial or merely for preliminary in'estigation. Howe'er the S* said here, the complaint is filed in court for preliminary in'estigation. If it is filed in the fiscal&s office also for preliminary in'estigation, Hindi Ddoes not interruptEFF #*ourt$ not #,iscal$. That is the original ruling. Howe'er in 1@GA in the case of #rancisco vs. !A, the S* made it total na2 the filing of the complaint whether in the +T* or the fiscal&s office for preliminary in'estigation is sufficient to interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period. Howe'er, in 1@GH when the rules were re'ised, the S* re ected the ruling in the #rancisco case2 the filing of the complaint in the fiscal&s office does not interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period. %ut in 1@GG, in> amend na naman ang rules2 the filing of the complaint in the fiscal&s office is sufficient to interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period. Cnd here comes the 1@@1 case of $aldivia vs. by the Summary Rules. e%es Sr. 8111 S*RC 1II9 which was a criminal case co'ered
1234I5I2 vs. RE6ES SR. 111 S*RC 1II F2CTS2 It was a 'iolation of a municipal ordinance. Arresto &enor lang yan e. ,>in>ile sa fiscal&s office. The fiscal is rela-ed because according to him2 the filing of the case with the fiscal&s office is sufficient to interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period. So, rela- siya; he too/ his time. ,>in>ile niya 8fiscal9 sa court after A months. Bag>file niya, motion to (uash2 'Prescri(ed)* ,iscal: '+indee) ,hen the case is filed -ith the fiscal.s office/ the runnin0 of prescriptive period is interrupted)* 7E342 !ou 8fiscal9 are wrong. The filing of this case before your office did not interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period. !ou should ha'e filed that on time before the court. RE2SON2 !ou loo/ at the first paragraph of Section 1 81@GG Rules 1: 'in cases not covered (% the ules of Summar% Procedure2* So, that rule only applies in cases not co'ered by the Summary Rules. %ut the case at bar is co'ered by the Summary Rules precisely because it is only arresto menor. Therefore, when the case is co'ered by the Rules of Summary Brocedure, the filing of the case with the
16
fiscal&s office does not interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period 8Jaldi'ia 's. Reyes, Kr, 111 S*RC 1II9. It should be the filing of the case before the court which will interrupt. So, /laro yan until the 1@@G case of REO4IC2 vs. COURT OF 2PPE23S *8* SCR2 9:, 3a'ide, Kr. 3. 4cho%)1 F2CTS2 The charge here was slight physical in uries through rec/less imprudence which is actually punishable by arresto menor. It was filed with the fiscal&s office within 1 months but it was filed in the court beyond 1 months. Cnd definitely, it is co'ered by the Summary Brocedure. In $aldivia case, the filing in the fiscal&s office interrupts the running of the prescripti'e period. NOTE2 Remember, the case of $aldivia in'ol'ed a 'iolation of an ordinance. 7E34" %ut in the case at bar, this is a felon% under the Benal *ode. D3ean I2 )inawan pa ng distinctionFE If it is a felony, the filing with the fiscal&s office is sufficient to interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period even if it is co'ered by the Summary Rules. %ut, if it is a light offense punished by a special law li/e an ordinance and therefore co'ered by the Summary Rules, then the filing in the fiscal&s office does not interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period. So I start to wonder2 Saan ba nanggaling Lyung distinction na Lyun? The S* cited Cct AA1. which is the law go'erning prescription of crimes punished by special laws. "hereas, Crticle @0 of the RB* refers to prescription of felonies under the Benal *ode. Cnd under Cct AA1., it is 'ery clear that the prescription period for the crime 8punished by a special law9 is interrupted only upon udicial proceeding 7 filing in the court. Cyun palaF C/ala /o the $aldivia case settled the rule after all. +eron pa palang eodica.
The S* said2 The re'ised rules of Summary Brocedure #cannot be ta/en to mean that the prescripti'e period is interrupted only by the filing of a complaint or information directly with said courts. It must be stressed that prescription in criminal cases is a matter of substanti'e law. Bursuant to Section H8H9, Crticle MIII of the *onstitution, this *ourt, in the e-ercise of its rule>ma/ing power, is not allowed to diminish, increase or modify substanti'e rights. Hence, in case of conflict between the Rule on Summary Brocedure promulgated by this *ourt and the Re'ised Benal *ode, the latter pre'ails.$ 8Reodica 's. *C, supra9 !anF "hen I was reading this case, I said, what happened to $aldivia case? "as it re'ersed? S*2 5oF 5oF "e ne'er re'ersed $aldivia. #5either does $aldivia control in this instance. It must be recalled that what was in'ol'ed therein was a 'iolation of a municipal ordinance< thus, the applicable law was not Crticle @1 of the Re'ised Benal *ode, but Cct. 5o. AA1., - - - - - 0nder, Section 1 thereof, the period of prescription is suspended only when udicial proceedings are instituted against the guilty party. Cccordingly, this *ourt held that the prescripti'e period was not interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the 4ffice of the Bro'incial Brosecutor, as such did not constitute a udicial proceeding< what could ha'e tolled the prescripti'e period there was only the filing of the information in the proper court. In the instant case, as the offenses in'ol'ed are co'ered by the Re'ised Benal *ode, Crticle @1 thereof and the rulings in #rancisco and !uaresma apply. Thus, the prescripti'e period for the (uasi offenses in (uestion was interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the fiscalNs office three days after the 'ehicular mishap and remained tolled pending the termination of this case. "e cannot, therefore, uphold petitionerNs defense of prescription of the offenses charged in the information in this case$ 8Reodica 's. *C, supra9. !anF Cnd I thin/ the Section H, Rule 1102 eodica case is now incorporated in the new rules. !ou read the last paragraph of
;The %rosecution or 'iolation o s%ecial la!s shall be (o'erned b& the %ro'ision thereo . #n$< It is an entirely new sentence. Tama man yan ba2 The prosecution for 'iolation of special laws shall be go'erned by the pro'ision thereof. I thin/ that&s the eodica case2 when it comes to prosecution for 'iolations of special law, you follow the special law.
17
SEC. *. The complaint or information The com%laint or in ormation shall be in !ritin(+ in the name o the Peo%le o the Phili%%ines and a(ainst all %ersons !ho a%%ear to be res%onsible or the o ense in'ol'ed #*a$ Q: How do you file a complaint? A: The complaint shall be in writing in the name of the Beople of the Bhilippines and against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense in'ol'ed. Q: "hat happens if the criminal complaint or information is filed in the name of the pri'ate complainant? A: Cccording to the S*, the complaint is defecti'e. It can be (uashed but it is only a formal defect. In case it proceeds to trial, it should be corrected but it is not really a fatal mista/e. It can be cured at any stage of the action by amending the information or e'en if it is not cured, there is a 'alid udgment, you are found guilty, it shall no be 'oided merely because the title is defecti'e. It will not in'alidate the proceedings. 5ow the law says, #against all who appear to be responsible.$ +eaning, it is the sworn duty of a policeman or fiscal to file a case against all who appear to be responsible. It does not say who are guilty. Q: How do you define complaint? A: Section A, Rule 1102 SEC. =. !omplaint defined. 2 com%laint is a s!orn !ritten statement char(in( a %erson !ith an o ense+ subscribed b& the o ended %art&+ an& %eace o icer+ or other %ublic o icer char(ed !ith the en orcement o the la! 'iolated. #=$ Q: Supposes a complaint is filed but it was not sworn to or signed, is it 'alid? A: The S* said, it is a formal defect. It can be cured. )enerally, the signature is not needed. Q: How do you define information? A: Section 6, Rule 1102 SEC. >. Information defined. 2n in ormation is an accusation in !ritin( char(in( a %erson !ith an o ense+ subscribed b& the %rosecutor and iled !ith the court. #>a$ Q: "ho are the people authori?ed to institute or commence criminal cases? A: The following2 1. 4ffended party< 1. Beace officer< A. Brosecutor< and 6. Bublic officer charged with the enforcement of the law. Q: How do you distinguish a complaint from information? A: The following are the distinctions2 1. Cs to -ho files the complaint or information C *4+B:CI5T is filed by the 8a9 offended party< 8b9 any peace officer< 8c9 prosecutor< 8d9 or any public officer charged with the enforcement of the law. 4n the other hand, an I5,4R+CTI45 is prepared and signed by the prosecutor. 1. Cs to purpose C *4+B:CI5T filed in court is either for preliminary in'estigation or for trial, but an I5,4R+CTI45 filed in court is only for trial. A. Cs to -here to file C *omplaint may be filed in court or in the office of the prosecutor, but an I5,4R+CTI45 is always filed in court.
18
6. C *4+B:CI5T can be filed in court, for trial or for mere preliminary in'estigation, or it can e'en be filed not in court but in the prosecutor&s office for preliminary in'estigation. %ut where an I5,4R+CTI45 is filed, it is always filed in court and always for trial. The complaint contemplated in Section 1 could be filed in the +T* for trial 8 e.0. physical in uries9, or it could be a complaint for murder in the +T*, not for trial but for preliminary in'estigation. The complaint filed in the fiscal&s office, city or pro'ince, is /nown in Spanish as # 4ENUNCI2$ which is filed for preliminary in'estigation as distinguished from the real complaint mentioned in Section A. In Section A, it is always filed by the offended party. Clthough in some cases li/e when the offended party died, it is the police who files the affida'it complaint before the prosecutor&s office for preliminary in'estigation. E?2,P3E2 Bedro was a 'ictim of robbery. *an he file a complaint for robbery? !OS. "hat if he died before he could file? Q: *an the family of Bedro file a complaint under Section A? A: 5o, because they are not the offended party. They should file a complaint in the fiscal. If you are tal/ing of a complaint filed under Section A, you must be the offended party. %ut a complaint filed with the fiscal, need not be by the offended party. 8O'arle 's. Sucaldito, 1H. S*RC G0G9 That is the distinction, and the fiscal has the authority to in'estigate any crime whether the one complaining is the 'ictim or not because the offended party is the Beople of the Bhilippines. SEC. @. ,ho must prosecute criminal actions . 2ll criminal actions commenced b& a com%laint or in ormation shall be %rosecuted under the direction and control o the %rosecutor. 7o!e'er+ in ,unici%al Trial Courts or ,unici%al Circuit Trial Courts !hen the %rosecutor assi(ned thereto or to the case is not a'ailable+ the o ended %art&+ an& %eace o icer+ or %ublic o icer char(ed !ith the en orcement o the la! 'iolated ma& %rosecute the case. This authorit& shall cease u%on actual inter'ention o the %rosecutor or u%on ele'ation o the case to the Re(ional Trial Court. The crimes o adulter& and concubina(e shall not be %rosecuted eAce%t u%on a com%laint iled b& the o ended s%ouse. The o ended %art& cannot institute criminal %rosecution !ithout includin( the (uilt& %arties+ i both are ali'e+ nor+ in an& case+ i the o ended %art& has consented to the o ense or %ardoned the o enders. The o enses o seduction+ abduction and acts o lasci'iousness shall not be %rosecuted u%on a com%laint iled b& the o ended %art& o her %arents+ (rand%arents or (uardian+ nor+ in an& case+ i the o ender has been eA%ressl& %ardoned b& an& o them. I the o ended %art& dies or becomes inca%acitated be ore she can ile the com%laint+ and she has no Bno!n %arents+ (rand%arents or (uardian+ the State shall initiate the criminal action in her behal . The o ended %art&+ e'en i a minor+ has the ri(ht to initiate the %rosecution o the o enses o seduction+ abduction and acts o lasci'iousness inde%endentl& o her %arents+ (rand%arents+ or (uardian+ unless she is incom%etent or inca%able o doin( so. Chere the o ended %art&+ !ho is a minor+ ails to ile the com%laint+ her %arents+ (rand%arents+ or (uardian ma& ile the same. The ri(ht to ile the action (ranted to %arents+ (rand%arents+ or (uardian shall be eAclusi'e o all other %ersons and shall be eAercised successi'el& in the order herein %ro'ided+ eAce%t as stated in the %recedin( %ara(ra%h. No criminal action or de amation !hich consists in the im%utation o an& o the o enses mentioned abo'e shall be brou(ht eAce%t at the instance o and u%on com%laint iled b& the o ended %art&. #@a$ The %rosecution or 'iolation o s%ecial la!s shall be (o'erned b& the %ro'ision thereo . #n$ Howe'er once the case is in court, the complaint or information filed shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. This shows the control of the go'ernment. This is one feature of the
19
In(uisitorial System of criminal procedure. The fiscal has the absolute control.
Q: *an the offended party hire his own lawyer to prosecute? A: !OS, the offended party can hire his own lawyer who is /nown as the pri'ate prosecutor. The personality of the pri'ate prosecutor is based on the pro'ision in the RB* that e'ery person criminally liable is also ci'illy liable. It is because of this ci'il liability that the offended party has an interest in the criminal case. O'en if the public prosecutor may turn o'er the acti'e conduct of the trial to the pri'ate prosecutor, he must be present during the proceedings because he is, by law, duty>bound to ta/e charge of the prosecution of the case until its termination. If the public prosecutor or fiscal and the pri'ate prosecutor do not agree on how to prosecute, the fiscal will pre'ail because the pri'ate prosecutor is under the direct control of the fiscal. Q: "hat happens if there are no fiscal in a municipality? A: Cccording to Section H, Rule 1102 #Howe'er, in +unicipal Trial *ourts or +unicipal *ircuit Trial *ourts when the prosecutor assigned thereto or to the case is not a'ailable, the offended part%, any peace officer, or pu(lic officer char0ed -ith the enforcement of the la- 'iolated may prosecute the case.$ This pro'ision that if there is no prosecutor, puwede sila, is ta/en from the ruling of the S* in the case of People vs. 5eriales, 1I S*RC 16. 0sually, in the absence of the fiscal, it is the police authorities who act as prosecutors. Howe'er, according to the S* in the 1@@1 case of PEOP3E vs. R2,OS *0: SCR2 1>> F2CTS2 The case is triable by the +T* of Ilocos 5orte. The offended party went to the fiscal and filed the information. 3uring the trial, the udge declared the fiscal in contempt of court as when the case was called for trial, the fiscal was not around. The fiscal answered in writing. "hen as/ed to e-plain why he refused to come to court despite the pre'ious order, he said his office is undermanned or understaffed. Thus he could not personally appear and prosecute. Ct any rate, the fiscal pointed out in his e-planation that the prosecution of the case can be handled by the offended party or any peace officer. ISSUE2 "ho should prosecute the case? The public prosecutor or any of the persons mentioned in Section H, Rule 110? 7E342 It is the public prosecutor who should prosecute the case because he already /new about the case. He was the one who in'estigated the case. Therefore, he should continue in the prosecution of the case in court. "hile it is true that the law allow the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer to prosecute a criminal case in places where there are no fiscals a'ailable, that is only the OP*OBTI45. The )O5ORC: R0:O is that the fiscal himself should handle the prosecution of the criminal case. It is his duty and moral obligation to prosecute the case after ha'ing conducted the in'estigation and, belie'ing that there is a case, filed an information in court. #The *ourt feels that in those cases where the prosecutors themsel'es ha'e filed the criminal charges, there is all the more reason for them to acti'ely inter'ene in their prosecution. Ha'ing presumably made the necessary in'estigation of these cases before filing the corresponding informations, they are the best position to handle their prosecution on the basis of their initial findings. If the prosecutor had not determined the prima facie guilt of the accused, he should not ha'e filed the information in the first place. Ct any rate, there is something not (uite correct in the prosecutor filing the information himself and then lea'ing the offended party in the lurch, as it were, by as/ing him to fend for himself in prosecuting the case. #The e-ception pro'ided in Section H must be strictly applied as the prosecution of crime is the responsibility of officers appointed and trained for that purpose. The 'iolation of the criminal laws is an affront to the Beople of the Bhilippines as a whole and not merely the person directly pre udiced, who is that the prosecution be handled by persons s/illed in this function instead of being entrusted to
20
pri'ate persons or public officers with little or no preparation for this responsibility. The e-ception should be allowed only when the conditions therefor as set forth in Section H, Rule 110 of the Rules on *riminal Brocedure ha'e been clearly established.$ Cccording to Section H, the criminal action shall be under the control and super'ision of the prosecutor. That is only applicable if you are tal/ing of the trial court. %ut if the criminal case is lifted in the *C or S* on appeal, wala /a nang pa/ialam. It should be the Solicitor )eneral who must represent the Beople of the Bhilippines. The ne-t paragraphs of Section H are somehow reiterated in Crticle 166, RB*, which is popularly /nown as BRIMCTO *RI+OS2 The crimes o adulter% and concu(ina0e shall not be %rosecuted eAce%t u%on a com%laint iled b& the o ended s%ouse. The o ended %art& cannot institute criminal %rosecution !ithout includin( the (uilt& %arties+ i both are ali'e+ nor+ in an& case+ i the o ended %art& has consented to the o ense or %ardoned the o enders. The o enses o seduction+ a(duction and acts of lasciviousness shall not be %rosecuted u%on a com%laint iled b& the o ended %art& o her %arents+ (rand%arents or (uardian+ nor+ in an& case+ i the o ender has been eA%ressl& %ardoned b& an& o them. I the o ended %art& dies or becomes inca%acitated be ore she can ile the com%laint+ and she has no Bno!n %arents+ (rand%arents or (uardian+ the State shall initiate the criminal action in her behal . Ta/e note that in the third paragraph, RCBO is already deleted. It is not a pri'ate crime anymore. It is already a crime against person because of the new law 7 RC GAHA, Cnti>Rape :aw of 1@@I 7 amending the RB*. 5ow, it can be prosecuted without the pri'ate complainant. Q: The S* said in one case that there is no such animal as Bri'ate *rimes because e'ery crime is against the State. %ut why do we call these pri'ate crimes > adulter%/ concu(ina0e/ seduction/ a(duction/ and acts of lasciviousness? A: It is because of all these re(uirements2 the complaint is duly prepared, signed and sworn to by the offended party. Cctually, the correct name of these crimes is *RI+OS "HI*H *C554T %O BR4SO*0TO3 3O 4,,I*I4. Q: "hat is the reason for the re(uirement that they shall be prosecuted upon complaint of the offended party? A: This re(uirement was imposed out of consideration for the offended party or her relati'es who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through with the scandal of a public trial. 8Sumilin 's. *,I, HI Bhil. 1@G< Beople 's. Santos, 101 Bhil. I@G9 In C30:TOR! or *45*0%I5C)O, the offended party is only the husband or the wife. The parents ha'e nothing to do with the adultery or concubinage. In adultery, it is not allowed that the husband files a complaint against his wife without including her paramour. 5or is it allowed that the husband files a case for adultery against his wife&s lo'er without including his wife. The law pro'ides, #--- the offended party cannot initiate criminal prosecution without including the guilty parties, if both are ali'e, ---$. The same rule applies in concubinage. In either case, consent or pardon by the offended party is a bar to criminal prosecution. *onsent indicates allowance. SO30*TI45, C%30*TI45, C*TS 4, :CS*IMI40S5OSS. If the 'ictim is already of C)O, the decision of filing or not filing the case belongs to her. Q: "hat happens if the offended party is a +I54R and does not want to file? A: The parents, grandparents, or guardian may file the complaint. Q: Suppose the minor is incompetent as in the case of insanity, who will file the complaint? A: Her parents, grandparents or guardian my institute the case.
21
Q: Suppose the minor has no /nown parents, grandparents, or guardian? A: The State shall initiate the criminal action in her behalf under the principle of Parens Patriae. Q: "hat happens when an information for adultery or concubinage is filed without a complaint? Is it a urisdictional effect? A: Cccording to some rulings, it is a urisdictional defect. The S* held that compliance in Crticle A66 and counterpart 8as well as other crimes against chastity9 is urisdictional, and not merely a formal, re(uirement. "hile in point of strict law the urisdiction of the court o'er the offense is 'ested in it by the Kudiciary :aw, the re(uirement for a sworn written complaint is ust as urisdictional mandate since it is that complaint which starts the prosecutory proceeding and without which the court cannot e-ercise its urisdiction to try the case. 8Beople 's. +andea, .0 Bhil. AI1< Beople 's. Surbano, AI S*RC H.H< Beople 's. %abasa, @I S*RC .I1< Bilapil 's. Ibay> Somera, 1I6 S*RC .HA9 %ut there is a SO*453 MIO"2 !ou can (uestion the filing but it is not urisdictional. It is a condition precedent but not urisdictional because if you say urisdiction, they are 'ested by the udiciary law. There is nothing in the udiciary law which can spea/ about complaint filed in court by the offended party. 8Beople 's. Ostrebella 81@G.9< Beople 's. Saniaga 81@GG9< Beople 's. %ugtong 81@G@9< Beople 's. Tarul 81@G@9< Beople 's. *abodac 81@@19< Beople 's. :eoparde 81@@19< Beople 's. Hilario 81@@A9 PROD3E,2 Suppose a 'ictim of a pri'ate crime in a municipality prepared a complaint, swore to it, and ,I:O3 IT I5 THO +T* ,4R BRO:I+I5CR! I5MOSTI)CTI45. DRemember that in pro'inces, there are two 819 possibilities if you want to file a case in the RT*2 819 file a complaint in the +T* for preliminary in'estigation, or 819 file a complaint with the pro'incial fiscal&s office also for preliminary in'estigation. 0nli/e in the cities we only file with the fiscal because only one is allowed to conduct preliminary in'estigation in chartered cities.E Cfter the preliminary in'estigation, the udge said there is a probable cause and therefore, forwarded the case to the pro'incial fiscal. The fiscal filed the information in the RT*. Q: *an the RT* try the case when there is no complaint by the offended party in the RT*? A: The S* said !OS. The complaint filed in the +T* for preliminary in'estigation will already ser'e the purpose. There is no need for another complaint to be prepared and signed by the 'ictim to be filed with the RT*. PROD3E,2 Suppose the offended party of a pri'ate crime in a municipality, instead of filing the complaint in the +T*, she filed it in the office of the pro'incial fiscal or prosecutor. Q: "ill the case prosper? A: The S* said 54. The case must be dismissed because the complaint contemplated by the law, signed and sworn to by the 'ictim, is a complaint ,I:O3 I5 *40RT, not a complaint filed in the fiscal&s office. Q: "hat should be the correct procedure? A: Cfter preliminary in'estigation, the fiscal should prepare a complaint and should prepare an information signed by him and the 'ictim. 0nli/e where the complaint filed in the +T* for preliminary in'estigation, there is no need for another complaint to be filed in the RT*. %ut if the complaint 4denuncia1 is filed in the fiscal&s office, the rule is2 it will not ser'e as the basis for a criminal prosecution. In connection with this principle is the leading case of PEOP3E vs. I32R4E 1*@ SCR2 11 F2CTS2 This is a case for adultery originated in the *ity of Iloilo. C man caught his wife in an act of adultery. The ne-t thing he did was to e-ecute an affida'it>complaint, which he filed in the office of the *ity Brosecutor of Iloilo *ity. In his affida'it he said, #I&m formally charging my wife and P and would re(uest this affida'it be considered as a formal complaint against them.$ "hile the case was pending before the fiscal for in'estigation, he died. So the ,iscal as/ed how he can file an information in court when there is no complaint because the rule is, the complaint filed with the fiscal&s office is not the complaint contemplated by law< there must be a complaint filed signed by the offended party. %ut in this case, the complainant was already dead. Clthough there was an affida'it>complaint. The fiscal /new that and so he prepared an information for adultery charging the wife and her
22
paramour. In the information he stated2 #The undersigned *ity ,iscal upon sworn statement originally filed by the offended party, -ero- copies of which are hereto attached as anne-es C and % ;---$ So what he did was to incorporate the affida'it of the deceased offended husband in the information. 5ow, the wife and the paramour mo'ed to (uash the information alleging lac/ of urisdiction upon the offense charged because under Crticle A66 of the RB*, the re(uirement for the complaint of adultery was not complied with citing the case of Beople 's. Santos, 101 Bhil. I@G, where it was held that the complaint filed in the fiscal&s office for a pri'ate crime is not the complaint contemplated by law. 4n that basis, RT* Kudge Ilarde dismissed the case. The prosecution went to the S* on certiorari. 7E342 The respondent trial court is wrong. The order of dismissal is hereby set aside and is directed to proceed with the trial of the case. #It must be borne in mind, howe'er, that this legal re(uirement was imposed out of consideration for the aggrie'ed party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial. Thus, the law lea'es it to the option of the aggrie'ed spouse to see/ udicial redress for the affront committed by the erring spouse. Cnd this, to 4ur mind, should be the o'erriding consideration in determining the issue of whether or not the condition precedent prescribed by said Crticle A66 has been complied with. ,or needless to state, this *ourt should be guided by the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law.$ #In the case at bar, the desire of the offended party to bring his wife and her alleged paramour to ustice is only too e'ident. Such determination of purpose on his part is amply demonstrated in the dispatch DspeedE by which he filed his complaint with the fiscal&s office Dbecause he filed the complaint the day after the crime happenedE. The strong and e(ui'ocal statement contained in the affida'it filed with the ,iscalNs 4ffice that #I am formally charging my wife of the crime of adultery and would re(uest that this affida'it be considered as a formal complaint against them$ 7 is a clear show of such intent.$ #The ruling in People vs. Santos is not applicable to the case at bar. In that case, the sworn statement was not considered the complaint contemplated by Crticle A66 of the Re'ised Benal *ode because it was a mere narration of how the crime was committed. "hereas, in the case at bar, in the affida'it>complaint submitted by the offended husband, he not only narrated the facts and circumstances constituting the crime of adultery, but he also e-plicitly and categorically charged pri'ate respondents with the said offense 7 #I&m charging my wife and her paramour with adultery.$ #+oreo'er, in Santos, the S* noted that the information filed by the fiscal commenced with the statement Lthe undersigned fiscal accuses so and so,& the offended party not ha'ing been mentioned at all as one of the accusers. %ut in the present case, it is as if the husband filed the case.$ #The affida'it of the husband here contains all the elements of a 'alid complaint under Section H, Rule I10 of the Rules of *ourt. "hat is more, said complaint>affida'it was attached to the information as an integral part thereof, and duly filed with the court. Therefore, the affida'it complaint became the basis of the complaint re(uired by Section H.$ So it became sort of an e-ception to the general rule that the affida'it>complaint in the fiscal&s office is not the one contemplated by law. "hile I was reading this case, I noticed that the fiscal was 'ery imaginati'e on what he is going to do, /asi alam niya ang rules eh. That fiscal is now Solicitor )eneral )al'e?. Cnd I was surprised why the husband drafted the affida'it that way. +aybe he /new he was dying. :ater, they found out that the husband was a lawyer. Cnd do not be shoc/ed, the paramour was also a lawyerF So that was a 'ery interesting case. The ruling was reiterated in the 1@@1 case of PEOP6E vs. 3A O6 8Kune 1@, 1@@19. 6ast para0raph/ Section 7/ ule 889: No criminal action or defamation !hich consists in the im%utation o an& o the o enses mentioned abo'e shall be brou(ht eAce%t at the instance o and u%on com%laint iled b& the o ended %art&. The fifth paragraph of Section H is ta/en from Crticle A.0 of the RB*. Crticle A.0 refers to the crime of li(el or slander. Q: Is the crime of defamation D slander is when you defame somebody orally< li(el is when the defamation is in writingE a pri'ate crime? A: 54.
23
Q: *an a case of slander be filed in court without a complaint signed and sworn to by the offended party? A: Cs a )O5ORC: R0:O, !OS, OP*OBT when the defamation imputes to the offended party the commission of any of the crimes mentioned abo'e. +eaning, it imputes to the offended party the commission of a pri'ate offense li/e adulter%/ concu(ina0e/ a(duction/ seduction/ acts of lasciviousness 8C*CSC9. In this case, the criminal action shall be brought at the instance of and upon a complaint filed by the offended party. Q: Is the accusation #man0:aa0a- n0 asa-a n0 ma% asa-a)$ an imputation of adultery? A: 5o. It is a mere implication of a 'ice or defect, not an imputation of adultery. The phrase was translated as #seducer of the husbands of other woman.$ It implies that the person to whom it is addressed is a ,:IRT, a TO+BTROSS, or one who indulges in inciting another&s husband. 8)on?ales 's. Crcilla, 5o'ember 1G, 1@@19 The last paragraph states that #The prosecution for 'iolation of special laws shall be go'erned by the pro'ision thereof.$ The best e-ample is the case of eodica vs. !A, which we already discussed, that prescription for 'iolation of a special law is not go'erned by the RB* but by special law. The ruling was emphasi?ed in the 1@@. case of 33ENES vs. 4IC4IC2N /ul& =1+ 188E 7E342 #The institution of the complaint in the prosecutor&s office shall interrupt the period of prescription of the offense charged under Section 1, Rule 110. The rule, howe'er, is entirely different under Cct 5o. AA1., as amended, whose Section 1 e-plicitly pro'ides that the period of prescription shall be interrupted by the institution of udicial proceedings, i.e., the filing of the complaint or information with the court.$ Therefore, the filing of the complaint in the fiscal&s office does not interrupt the running of the prescripti'e period. That is only true in felonies under the RB*. %ut when in comes to special laws, we follow the special law. Q: "hen is a complaint or information sufficient? A: Read Section ., Rule 110 SEC. E. Sufficienc% of complaint or information. 2 com%laint or in ormation is su icient i it states the name o the accused. the desi(nation o the o ense (i'en b& the statute. the acts or omissions com%lained o as constitutin( the o ense. the name o the o ended %art&. the a%%roAimate date o the commission o the o ense. and the %lace !here the o ense !as committed. Chen an o ense is committed b& more than one %erson+ all o them shall be included in the com%laint or in ormation. #Ea$ Q: Suppose the information is defecti'e, /ulang>/ulang ba, there are some essential facts re(uired by law which are not stated. *an it be cured during the trial? A: !OS. Cny defect in the complaint or information may be cured by e'idence introduced by the prosecution, OP*OBT2 1. when the defect is urisdictional 8Beople 's. Cbad Santos, I. Bhil. I669< or 1. when the complaint or information does not charge any offense. 8Beople 's. Custria, @6 Bhil. G@I9 SEC. :. Name of the accused. The com%laint or in ormation must state the name and surname o the accused or an& a%%ellation or nicBname b& !hich he has been or is Bno!n. I his name cannot be ascertained+ he must be described under a ictitious name !ith a statement that his true name is unBno!n. I the true name o the accused is therea ter disclosed b& him or a%%ears in some other manner to the court+ such true name shall be inserted in the com%laint or in ormation and record. #:a$
24
Q: 4ne of the re(uirements under Section I is that the name of the accused must be stated in the information. Oh /ung nag/amali /a? Is that fatal? "hat is the effect of an erroneous name gi'en to the accused in the complaint or information? A: The defect is not fatal. The error will not produce any ad'erse effect because what is important is the identity of the person of the accused, not his name . 8Beople 's. Ramos, GH Bhil. .GA9 =ung nag/amali, eh di palitanF ;pro(lema (a %un< +a)= This reminds me of the #ortun brothers 7 the >elia a?as incident during the impeachment trial. SEC. 9. >esi0nation of the offense. The com%laint or in ormation shall state the desi(nation o the o ense (i'en b& the statute+ a'er the acts or omissions constitutin( the o ense+ and s%eci & its )uali &in( and aggravating circumstances. I there is no desi(nation o the o ense+ re erence shall be made to the section or subsection o the statute %unishin( it. #9a$ SEC. 8. !ause of the accusation The acts or omissions com%lained o as constitutin( the o ense and the )uali &in( and a((ra'atin( circumstances must be stated in ordinar& and concise lan(ua(e and not necessaril& in the lan(ua(e used in the statute but in terms su icient to enable a %erson o common understandin( to Bno! !hat o ense is bein( char(ed as !ell as its )uali &in( and a((ra'atin( circumstance and or the court to %ronounce 0ud(ment. #8a$ There is one ma or change here. The law now specifically emphasi?es under Section G and Section @ that you do not only mention the crime. !ou must also specify the aggra'ating and the (ualifying circumstance. "hat is new here is the 'a00ravatin0.* The old rule is, there is no need of specifying the aggra'ating circumstances because anyway, they are not elements of the crime. They are only circumstances that affect the criminal liability and if the aggra'ating circumstances are pro'en, they can still be applied against the accused. The new law now says you do not only specify the (ualifying, you also mention the aggra'ating. 5ow, how does it affect the old urisprudence? Q: +y (uestion is this, based on my own interpretation of Sections G and @, Pro(lem: the information does not allege the aggra'ating circumstances. In the course of the trial, the prosecution starts pro'ing. 0nder the new rule, the defense can ob ect to any e'idence to pro'e the aggra'ating circumstance because the same is not mentioned in the information. %ut I will go further2 an aggra'ating circumstance is not alleged in the information and the prosecution starts pro'ing and there was no ob ection on the part of the defense. 5ow, can the court in imposing the penalty, consider the aggra'ating circumstance? A: +y personal 'iew is !OS because of the wai'er for failure to ob ect, in the same manner that an aggra'ating circumstance not alleged may still be considered as such. +y only interpretation of this pro'ision is that if this is not alleged in the complaint or information and the prosecution starts pro'ing it, the defense can ob ect and that ob ection must be sustained. %ut if there is no ob ection, the old rule can still be applied because of estoppel or wai'er. "ell, that is my personal 'iew on that matter. I do not /now whether my 'iew is correct or not. %ut I belie'e my 'iew is correct because anyway e'en the udges here in 3a'ao are as/ing for my 'iew. I recei'e calls from time to time from these people. ;ehem)= Q: :et&s go to Section @. Suppose the offense says, #criminal case for murder$ but in the body of the information there is no allegation of a (ualifying circumstance. "hat does the fiscal charge, +urder or Homicide? A: H4+I*I3O. The S* held that the designation of the offense is not an essential element of a complaint or information, because, at most that is a mere conclusion of the fiscal. "hat is controlling is the recital of facts appearing in the body of the complaint or information. 8Beople 's. Cgito, Cpril 1G, 1@HG< Beople 's. *osare, @H Bhil. .H.9 %ut there are some OP*OBTI45S li/e what happened in the case of U.S. vs. TIC1ON
25
*@ Phil. E:
F2CTS2 C complaint was filed by the woman stating that #while the offended party was inside her house at night and all the doors were loc/ed and all the windows were closed, the accused surreptitiously entered the house and approached the offended party who was asleep, raised her s/irt and at that 'ery moment the woman wo/e up and resisted.$ DThis can be an attempted rape but the element of the crime was not fully accomplished because of an act or accident other than her own resistance.E %ut sabi ng caption, #for trespass to dwelling$ 7 pwede man din. 7E342 Sabi mo, #trespass$. 4=, eh di trespassF So the caption pre'ails. "hen the facts appearing in the complaint or information are so stated that they are capable of two or more interpretations, then the designation of the offense in the caption controls. Ta/e note that under the new rape law, RC I.H@, there are some circumstances which if present call for the mandatory death penalty. In the case of PEOP3E vs. ,2N7U6O4+ /R. ,a& *0+ 1889 7E342 "hen you charge somebody with a heinous crime such as rape, the information must ma/e reference to the new law. If not, it will only be translated as an ordinary aggra'ating circumstance because the information was charged after the effecti'ity of the heinous crime law. #,inally, a few words on the lac/ of care de'oted to the preparation of the information filed before the trial court. The 4ffice of the Bro'incial Brosecutor had in its possession e'idence that the crime was committed by a father against his 1I>year old daughter after the effecti'ity of R.C. 5o. I.H@, hence the imposable penalty was death. It was then necessary to ma/e reference to the amendatory law to charge the proper offense that carried the mandatory imposition of capital punishment.$ #Brosecutors are thus admonished to e-ercise utmost care and diligence in the preparation of complaints or informations to a'ert legal repercussions which may pro'e pre udicial to the interest of the State and pri'ate offended parties.$ Q: Cccording to Section @, the elements of the crime must be recited in the complaint or information. +ust the e-act language of the law be used? A: 54. !ou can use other words pro'ided it would con'ey the same idea or thought. E?2,P3E2 THO,T. The information does not contain the allegation #intent to gain$ which is an element of the crime of theft. The S* said it is not re(uired because those words are presumed from the information that the accused appropriated to himself the things belonging to the offended party. 80.S. 's. Clabot, AG Bhil. .@G9 E?2,P3E2 R4%%OR! "ITH ,4R*O 0B45 THI5)S. There was no allegation that the accused entered the house of the 'ictim with the use of force upon things but the information alleges that the accused entered the house of the 'ictim by passing through a hole in the ceiling, an opening not intended for entrance. Cno yan? The S* said that is tantamount to use of force upon things. 8Beople 's. :are?a, IA Bhil. .HG9 E?2,P3E2 +0R3OR. There was no allegation of treachery 4alevosia1 but the information says that when the accused /illed the 'ictim, the latter was not in the position to defend himself. The S* said they mean the same thing. In fact, it became clearer. 8Beople 's. )ustahan, 6I Bhil. AI.9 Cnother interesting case of treacher% is the case of PEOP3E vs. 2DU6EN *1= SCR2 @E8 #188*$ F2CTS2 The accused here /illed two 819 children, one was aged . years and the other was 1A years old. He stabbed them. The information charges the accused with the /illing the 1 minors. There
26
is no statement that there was treachery. Cll that the information says is that the accused /illed the 1 #minors.$ ISSUE2 "as there a murder? 7E342 !OS. "hen the accused /illed the minors, that is e(ui'alent of /illing by treachery and therefore (ualifies the /illing to murder. #It has, time and again, been held that the /illing of minor children who, by reason of their tender years, could not be e-pected to put up a defense is considered attended with treachery e'en if the manner of attac/ was not shown. The allegation in the Information that the 'ictims are both minors is to be considered compliance with the fundamental rule that the (ualifying circumstances should be alleged in the information.$ #It is commonly understood in practice that when the 'ictim in physical in uries, homicide, or murder cases is a child of tender years, he is described in the information as a minor. +inority in such a case should not be e(uated with its statutory meaning Q that is, below eighteen 81G9 years old. It is used not so much as to state the age of the 'ictim 8otherwise, the charging fiscal would ha'e simply placed the e-act ages9 rather, it is more of a description of the state of helplessness of the young 'ictim.$ Q: *45SBIRC*!. Ket and Bao are charged for murder pero ang sinasabi sa information, it was Ket who /illed the 'ictim. 5ow, in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. "ould that sufficiently charge Bao? A: 54. =ailangan mong i>describe ang conspiracy para matamaan si Bao. =laruhin mo yung conspiracy, otherwise if the allegation of conspiracy is not shown against Bao, then, there is no crime of conspiracy. This is the guideline laid down by the S* in the 1@@G case of PEOP3E vs. FUIT3ONG *8* SCR2 *E0 7E342 #0nli/e the omission of an ordinary recital of fact which, if not e-cepted from or ob ected to during trial, may be corrected or supplied by competent proof, an allegation, howe'er, of conspiracy, or one that would impute criminal liability to an accused for the act of another or others, is indispensable in order to hold such person, regardless of the nature and e-tent of his own participation, e(ually guilty with the other or others in the commission of the crime. Merily, an accused must /now from the information whether he faces a criminal responsibility not only for his acts but also for the acts of his co>accused as well.$ +eaning, if you are charging me for what my companion did, you better be clear that there is conspiracy para ma>apply yung doctrine na @the act of one is the act of all.. #The opinion of the trial court to the effect that conspiracy may be inferred from the allegation of abuse of superior strength and with the aid of armed men is difficult to accept. the information must state that the accused ha'e confederated to commit the crime or that there has been a community of design, a unity of purpose or an agreement to commit the felony among the accused. *onspiracy must be alleged, not ust inferred, in the information on which basis an accused can aptly enter his plea, a matter that is not to be confused with or li/ened to the ade(uacy of e'idence that may be re(uired to pro'e it.$ !ou can pro'e conspiracy by direct e'idence. %ut /ahirap niyan uy unless you were there listening. In criminal law, when two or more persons act together in unison to attain the same criminal ob ecti'e, then conspiracy can be inferred. +eaning, you can use that as e'idence to con'ict a person but for purposes of filing the case, you must e-pressly allege it. Therefore, for purposes of charging 7 express. ,or purposes of pro'ing 7 implied. !anF This is precisely because directly pro'ing it, is difficult. The manner of charging is different from the manner of pro'ing. 8Beople 's. Ruitlong, supra9 E?2,P3E2 3IRO*T CSSC0:T. The S* said it is not enough for the information to say that the 'ictim is a person in authority. The charge for such offense must be so framed as to clearly allege the functions of the person
27
assaulted, so as to show that he comes under the definition of person in authority. 8Beople 's. *arpi?o, G0 Bhil. 1A69 4f course, I belie'e that if the position is ob'ious, the court will ta/e udicial notice of that. There is no need to describe. %ut if it comes to some position which are not really common, the information must recite the functions. E?2,P3E2 TROCS45. Cn information for treason is insufficient if it merely alleges generally that the accused had adhered to the enemy, gi'ing her aid and comfort. The charge must be specific by stating what is termed as o'ert act of gi'ing aid and comfort to the enemy. 8)uinto 's. Melu?, II Bhil. I@G9 E?2,P3E2 :I%O:. In charging libel, the prosecution must single out the libelous statements and (uote ver(atim in the complaint or information. 8Beople 's. %ustos, H@ Bhil. AIH9 "e will go to another issue regarding HC%IT0C: 3O:I5R0O5*!. The case is PEOP3E vs. 5ENUS E= Phil. >=@ F2CTS2 The *ity ,iscal of +anila file with the *,I of +anila an information charging the accused with the crime of robbery in an inhabited house. The information alleges, among others,$ that the accused is a habitual delin(uent, he ha'ing been pre'iously con'icted by final udgement rendered by a competent court, once for the crime of attempted robbery in an inhabited house and once for theft, the date of his last con'iction being 5o'ember 16, 1@A6. 5ote2 There is habitual delin(uency when, for a period of ten 8109 years, from the date of his last con'iction or release for a crime of serious or less serious physical in uries, robbery, theft, estafa and falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes, a third time or oftener. ISSUE2 "as there a sufficient allegation of habitual delin(uency? 7E342 54. #Habitual delin(uency, can not be ta/en into account in the present case because of the insufficiency of the allegation on this point in the city fiscalNs information. "hile the information specifies the particular offense 8attempted robbery in an inhabited house9 for which the defendant> appellant was alleged to ha'e pre'iously been con'icted and also the date of the last con'iction for theft which occurred prior to the date of the commission of the offense now charged. %ut this does not ma/e the information sufficient in law for it fails to specify the date of the con'iction of the accused for the crime of attempted robbery. ,or all we /now, the two pre'ious con'ictions for attempted robbery in an inhabited house and theft may ha'e ta/en place on the same date 85o'ember 16, 1@A69 or on two different dates so close together as to warrant the court in considering the two con'ictions as only one for the purposes of the application of the habitual delin(uency law.$ #0pon the other hand, it may happen that a person accused of ro(o, hurto, estafa or falsificacion may ha'e been con'icted of any of said offenses after the commission of the crime with which he is charged. "e ha'e already held that pre'ious con'ictions in order to be considered for the purpose of imposing the additional penalty for habitual delin(uency, must precede the commission of the crime charged. 4ther instances may be mentioned but those gi'en suffice to demonstrate the necessity of charging the e-istence of habitual delin(uency with sufficient clearness and certainty to enable the courts to properly apply the pro'isions of our law on the sub ect.$ #It is therefore urged upon prosecuting attorneys that in the prosecution of cases of this nature, they should not content themsel'es with a general a'erment of habitual delin(uency but should specify the dates2 1. of the commission of the pre'ious crimes, 1. of the last con'iction or release, and A. of the other pre'ious con'ictions or release of the accused. # #Informations filed in these cases should be sufficiently clear and specific to a'oid the improper imposition of the additional penalty on a plea of guilty to a general allegation of habitual delin(uency, no less than the fre(uency with which hardened criminals escape the imposition of the deser'ed additional penalty pro'ided for by law.$
28
Q: +ust e-cepting clauses be alleged in a complaint or information? A: It 3OBO53S. If the e-cepting clause forms part of the definition of the offense, it must be alleged< but if it is a matter of defense, it need not be alleged in a complaint or information. 80.S. 's. *han Toco, 11 Bhil. 1.19 Sometimes it is hard to distinguish what is an element of a crime, and what is a matter of defense as stated in a law. The e-cepti'e clauses such as #provided further$, and #provided furthermore$ are 'ery confusing. Sometime you get lost. Cno ba itong # provided further$? Is this part of the crime or is it a part of the defense? *onfusing baF :i/e in the old case of U.S. vs. PO,PE62 =1 Phil. *>@ F2CTS2 The municipal go'ernment passed an ordinance which re(uires all able>bodied male residence of the municipality between the ages of 1G and AH to assist in peace and order campaign in the municipality by rendering ser'ices. The accused 'iolated the ordinance. So he was charged. The information says he is a resident of the municipality, he is male, he is able>bodied and he refuses to render ser'ice to the go'ernment. Cccording to the accused, the information is defecti'e, it does not reconcile all the elements because it does not state how old he was. %ut according to the prosecutor, #5oF I do not ha'e to allege your age. It is for you to pro'e that you are below 1G or more than AHF$ ISSUE2 "hether or not the clause in the ordinance pertaining to the age range of 1G to AH is part of the crime, because if it is part of the crime, then it must be alleged. 7E342 The S* ruled that the age re(uirement is an element of the crime and therefore must be alleged. ,ailure to allege it is fatal because he may belong to the e-empt age in which case the prosecution may not prosper. :et us try to compare that in the case of U.S. vs. 62O SI, A1 Bhil. A01 F2CTS2 The accused was charged with 'iolation of the opium law. The opium law was the predecessor, the great grandfather of the 3angerous 3rugs Cct. That was the old law which prohibits the use and smo/ing of opium without the prescription of a licensed practicing physician. The accused argued that there is no crime committed because the information did not allege that the accused has no prescription from a duly licensed or a practicing physician. %ut the prosecution contended that it is for the accused to pro'e that he has a prescription. The element of the crime is only smo/ing opium. 7E342 The S* said, the prosecution is correct. It is not part of the crime, it is a matter of defense. The crime is smo/ing opium, periodF %ut if you say you ha'e prescription, then you pro'e it. That is sometimes the difficult areas in the law. !ou don&t /now whether it is part of a crime or ust a part of your defense. There are things that we ha'e to determine. This is part of our study of Section @. Q: :i/e for e-ample, yung I::O)C: B4SSOSSI45 4, ,IROCR+S. 3o you ha'e to allege that the firearm is not licensed? A: The S* said !OS, that is part of the crime. Q: %ut in 3C5)OR40S 3R0)S C*T, iba man. If you are in possession of opium, mari uana or whate'er, you are liable if without authority of law. 5ow, who will pro'e the authority of law? Is that part of the definition of the crime? A: The S* said 54. It is for you to pro'e that you are authori?ed. The crime is the possession or use of mari uana. That you are authori?ed to possess or smo/e is a matter of defense. 5ow let&s go to the ne-t section. !ou must allege the place of the commission of the crime. !ou must also allege the date of the commission of the crime.
29
SEC. 10. Place of commission of the offense. The com%laint or in ormation is su icient i it can be understood rom its alle(ations that the o ense !as committed or some o its essential in(redients occurred at some %lace !ithin the 0urisdiction o the court+ unless the %articular %lace !here it !as committed constitutes an essential element o the o ense char(ed or is necessar& or its identi ication. #10a$ Q: "hen you say place, do you ha'e to be 'ery specific as to the place where the crime was committed? !ou must describe the /alsada, the street? A: 54. Cs a matter of fact, if you loo/ at the information, it ust says, you committed the crime in 3a'ao *ity without e'en stating what barangay or barrio. So, the place of the commission of the crime maybe stated generally. "hat is only important is it is within the territorial urisdiction OP*OBTI45 when the place of the commission of the crime constitutes an essential element of the crime charged. !anF !ou must be specific. O-amples2 E?2,P3E2 TROSBCSS T4 3"O::I5). !ou must specify that the crime was committed by entering into the dwelling of somebody. !ou cannot ust say that he committed it in 3a'ao *ity. !ou must say na pumaso/ siya sa bahay na ito. Or E?2,P3E. R4%%OR! I5 C5 I5HC%ITO3 H40SO, B0%:I* %0I:3I5) 4R O3I,I*O 3OM4TO3 T4 "4RSHIB. !ou must state the particular house. =ailangan specific /a diyan. SEC. 11. >ate of commission of the offense. H It is not necessar& to state in the com%laint or in ormation the %recise date the o ense !as committed eAce%t !hen it is a material in(redient o the o ense. The o ense ma& be alle(ed to ha'e been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date o its commission. #11a$ Q: How about yung date? Is it necessary that it should be 'ery accurate? A: 54. "hat is important is that the information alleges that the crime was committed #on or about$ a certain date. Q: The information said that Kudy committed homicide on Kanuary 10. 3uring the trial, pinalabas na 3ecember 10 pala 7 one month earlier. Is that harmless or fatal? A: It is still co'ered by the phrase #on or about.$ C 'ariance of a few months between the time set out in the indictment and that established by the e'idence during the trial has been held not to constitute an error so serious as to warrant re'ersal of a con'iction solely on that score alone. 8Rocaberte 's. Beople, 1@A S*RC 1@19 %ut when you say 3ecember 1000 and then the crime pala was committed in 1@@H, ay sobra na yanF That is too much. ,i'e 8H9 years is no longer co'ered by #on or about.$ That is already 'iolati'e of Section 11. C 'ariance of se'eral years, or the statement of the time of the commission of the offense which is so general as to span a number of years has been held to be fatally defecti'e. 8Rocaberte 's. Beople, 1@A S*RC 1@19 Q: Cnd what is the remedy in that case? A: The remedy against an indictment that fails to allege the time of the commission of the offense with sufficient definiteness is a motion for a bill of particulars 8Rocaberte 's. Beople, 1@A S*RC 1@19. 3o not dismiss the information. That was commented by the S* in the recent case of People vs. Aarcia, 5o'ember ., 1@@I 81G1 S*RC 6.A9. I ha'e to admit that the rules now try to ma/e a gap between the date of the commission of the crime as alleged in the information and the actual date of commission to be not so far. !ou loo/ at Section 112 'xxx The offense ma%(e alle0e or committed on a date as near as possi(le to the actual date of its commission.* That phrase 'as near as possi(le* is not found in the 1@GH rules.
30
The 45:! OP*OBTI45 is ust li/e in the Section 10, 05:OSS the date of the commission of the crime is an essential element of the crime. :i/e for e-ample2 E?2,P3E2 MI4:CTI45 4, O:O*TI45 *43O, drin/ing li(uor during election day. !ou must be specific /ung anong araw yun. Hindi pwedeng #on or about election day.$ Hindi pwede yanF If you dran/ li(uor before, wala mang crime. If you drin/ li(uor after, wala mang crime baF E?2,P3E. I5,C5TI*I3O. It is committed by /illing a child less than A days old or less than I1 hours. If the infant is e-actly A days old, it is no longer infanticide. So the information must be 'ery specific that the child was born on this day, on this time and the /illing was done on this day, on this time. SEC. 1*. Name of the offended part%. The com%laint or in ormation must state the name and surname o the %erson a(ainst !hom or a(ainst !hose %ro%ert& the o ense !as committed+ or an& a%%ellation or nicBname b& !hich such %erson has been or is Bno!n. I there is no better !a& o identi &in( him+ he must be described under a ictitious name. #a$ In o enses a(ainst %ro%ert&+ i the name o the o ended %art& is unBno!n+ the %ro%ert& must be described !ith such %articularit& as to %ro%erl& identi & the o ense char(ed. #b$ I the true name o the %erson a(ainst !hom or a(ainst !hose %ro%ert& the o ense !as committed is therea ter disclosed or ascertained+ the court must cause such true name to be inserted in the com%laint or in ormation and the record. #c$ I the o ended %art& is a 0uridical %erson+ it is su icient to state its name+ or an& name or desi(nation b& !hich it is Bno!n or b& !hich it ma& be identi ied+ !ithout need o a'errin( that it is a 0uridical %erson or that it is or(ani-ed in accordance !ith la!. #1*a$ :et&s go to the ne-t rule 7 name of the offended party. !ou must allege also who is the 'ictim. "e are tal/ing here about the 'ictim 7 the pri'ate offended party. Q: "hy is it that the name of the offended party must be alleged in the information? A: #irst, the general rule is that, aside from the Beople of the Bhilippines, there is a pri'ate 'ictim. Second, so that we will /now to whom the court will award the ci'il liability. Q: Is there a possibility by which the name of the offended party is not mentioned in the information but the same is still 'alid? A: !OS. Baragraph DaE, in a crime a0ainst propert%. If you do not /now who is the 'ictim of theft or robbery, it is enough that you describe the property in the information. E?2,P3E2 C thief, nahuli and he was found in possession of stolen goods and he admitted he stole. =anino? 'E-an Bo. 5asta 0i:snatch Bo man lan0 ito.* *an the police file a case? !OS. !ou ust describe the property in the information e'en if we don&t /now the owner because you commit theft when you ta/e personal property belonging to another with intent to gain. "hat is important is that, it belongs to another. PEOP3E vs. CFI OF FUE1ON DR. @ *08 SCR2 :0> F2CTS2 The accused was charged with timber smuggling or illegal cutting of logs from public forest under B3 5o. A10. Cyan, wala talagang pri'ate offended party diyan. The only offended party is the go'ernment. %ut the information does not mention that the offended party is the State. The accused challenged the information on this ground. 7E342 O'en if the State is not mentioned, the information is 54T defecti'e. "hy? !ou loo/ at the caption of the case 7 #Beople of the Bhilippines$. That is actually the offended party. Q: "hat happens if there was an erroneous naming of the offended party? A: In the case of
31
PEOP3E vs. UD2 @@ Bhil 1A6
F2CTS2 Mid?, on a certain date, was alleged to ha'e uttered publicly slanderous words against Kessamyn. So Kessamyn is the 'ictim of the slander. Clam niyo during the trial, it turned out that the 'ictim pala was :yle, not Kessamyn. %ut e'erything is the same 7 the date and place of the commission, the defamatory words 7 pare>parehoF 4nly, there was an erroneous designation of the offended party. ISSUE2 *an the court con'ict Mid? for the crime of slander? 7E342 54. Clthough the words are the same, the slander against :yle is a separate offense. +eaning, you are charging a different offense from the crime pro'en. !ou cannot con'ict a person of a crime not properly charged. #C mista/e in putting in the information the name of the offended party is a material matter which necessarily affects the identification of the act charged. The case should be dismissed for 'ariance between the allegations of the information and the proof.$ Howe'er, there were exceptions in the past li/e where the accused, who is not a doctor, was charged of illegal practice of medicine. The information stated that the offended party is Baul. Bag>trial, hindi pala si Baul. Si Inay pala dapat ang 'ictim. The S* said the accused can be con'icted. "hy? The crime is illegal practice of medicine regardless of whether the 'ictim is Baul or Inay. 83iel 's. +artine?, I. Bhil. 1IA9 !anF It is different from the case of U(a. SEC. 1=. >uplicit% of the offense. 2 com%laint or in ormation must char(e onl& one o ense+ eAce%t !hen the la! %rescribes a sin(le %unishment or 'arious o enses. #1=a$ The complaint or information must charge only one offense. It cannot charge 1 or more offenses. If it does, it is called duplicitous complaint or information. Q: "hat is the remedy there? A: Cctually, you can file a +otion to Ruash under Section A DfE, Rule 11I. %ut the defect is wai'able because if you do not file a +otion to Ruash, the trial can proceed and if you are found guilty for committing 1 or more crimes, then there will be 1 or more penalties 8Section 6, Rule 1109. 3apat diyan, one information, one crime. That is the )O5ORC: R0:O. This seems to go against the rule in ci'il procedure about oinder of causes of action. In one complaint you can oin 1 or more causes of action, although you can also file 1 or more cases. Cno&ng tawag diyan? Koinder of parties or oinder of causes of action. There is no such thing as oinder of crimes in criminal procedure. E?2,P3E2 The Batric/ got a gun, went out of the street, then met three people. %inaril niya2 %angF %angF %angF Tatlong tao patayF. 5ow, he commits three 8A9 crimes of homicide. Q: *an I file one information accusing Batric/ of A homicide committed on that day? A: 54. That is duplicitous. There must three 8A9 informations, one for each 'ictim. Q: %ut that is troublesome. The e'idence or the witnesses are identical. "hat is the remed%? A: !ou file a +otion to *onsolidate your trial 7 oint trial for the A criminal cases. That is the remedy, but not 1 information charging A acts of homicide unless the other party does not (uestion the duplicitous character of the information. OP*OBTI45. The rule prohibiting duplicitous complaints or informations pro'ides for e-ceptions2 #O-cept when the law prescribes a single punishment for 'arious offenses.$ "hen the law pro'ides only one penalty for 1 or more offenses then Section 1A is not 'iolated. Examples:
32
E?2,P3E2 *4+B:OP *RI+OS 7 when a single act produces 1 or more gra'e or less felonies or when one offense is a necessary means to commit another. Cctually, parang duplicitous yun eh /ung tingnan mo because you are accusing somebody of 1 homicides based on 1 single act. %ut that is only an e-ception. There is one penalty anyway. E?2,P3E2 SBO*IC: *4+B:OP *RI+OS. Robbery with homicide or Rape with Homicide. That is not duplicitous. There is one penalty there. E?2,P3E2 3O:IT4 *45TI50C34. The accused stole 1 rooster owned by 1 different people. Cctually, there are 1 acts of ta/ing but in the eyes of the law, there is only one crime. The accused was moti'ated by single criminal resolution. E?2,P3E2 %abang was charged of the crime of RO%O::I45. Rebellion 7 she too/ up arms against the go'ernment, /illed soldiers, burned go'ernment properties. '>uplicitous %an) Cadami:dami n%an o)* 54. That is not duplicitous because based of the a(sorption doctrine 7 the common crimes are not to be treated as separate crimes but are already absorbed in the rebellion. The S* said there is no crime such as rebellion comple-ed with murder or homicide. %ut why do you ha'e to recite all these things? That is merely a recital of the manner of the crime of rebellion. That is not a 'iolation of Section 1A. PEOP3E vs. DUEN5I2/E >: Phil. @=E F2CTS2 There was a special law penali?ing in once section the crime of illegal practice of medicine C53 illegally ad'ertising oneself as a doctor. The penalty of H>year imprisonment shall be imposed on a person who, not being a physician, practice medicine or ad'ertise himself as a physician. There is only one penalty for these acts. The information alleges2 #That the accused is charged of 'iolating that law because he practiced medicine, or I5 THO C:TOR5CTIMO, he ad'ertised himself as a doctor when in fact, he is not.$ ISSUE2 Is the information duplicitous? 7E342 54. "hen the information merely recites in the alternati'e or otherwise the different ways of committing the offense li/e the information charges the accused for illegal practice of medicine and with illegally ad'ertising himself as a physician, there is only one crime because these are only alternati'e ways of committing the crime. The rule is different when the accused is charged of 'iolating 1 different sections of the same law with distinct penalties which, if charged in a single information, would render it duplicitous. 8Beople 's. ,errer, 101 Bhil. 1A69 SEC. 1>. Amendment or su(stitution. 2 com%laint or in ormation ma& be amended+ in orm or in substance+ !ithout lea'e o court and !hen it can be done !ithout causin( %re0udice to the ri(hts o the accused. 7o!e'er+ an& amendment be ore %lea+ !hich do!n(rades the nature o the o ense char(ed in or eAcludes an& accused rom the com%laint or in ormation+ can be made onl& u%on motion b& the %rosecutor+ !ith notice to the o ended %art& and !ith lea'e o court. The court shall state its reasons in resol'in( the motion and co%ies o its order shall be urnished all %arties+ es%eciall& the o ended %art&. #n$ I it a%%ears at an&time be ore 0ud(ment that a mistaBe has been made in char(in( the %ro%er o ense+ the court shall dismiss the ori(inal com%laint or in ormation u%on the ilin( o a ne! one char(in( the %ro%er o ense in accordance !ith section 18+ Rule 118+ %ro'ided the accused shall not be %laced in double 0eo%ard&. The court ma& re)uire the !itnesses to (i'e bail or their a%%earance at the trial. #1>a$ In ci'il procedure, formal amendment 7 no problem. It can be allowed at any stage. Su(stantial amendment, for as long as there is still no responsi'e pleading, the plaintiff can amend his complaint anytime. 4nce a responsi'e pleading is filed, substantial amendment is allowed but with lea'e of court.
33
In criminal procedure the rule is2 for as long as the accused has not yet entered his plea 7 wala pang arraignment, the accused has not yet pleaded guilty or not guilty 7 the information can be amended either in substance or in form. Q: "hat happens if the accused has alread% entered his plea? *an the information still be amended by the prosecution? A: Cs to ,4R+ 7 !es, as a matter of udicial discretion. =ailangan merong permission. Cs to S0%STC5*O 7 5e'erF %awalF 100S prohibited. Q: How do you determine whether the amendment is formal or substantial? Sometimes madali, sometimes mahirap. =ung wrong spelling lang, talagang formal yan. A: Cccording to the S* based on certain cases, the following are considered su(stantial and therefore cannot be allowed after plea2 1. if the amendment changes the manner of the commission of the offense< 8Beople 's. Julueta, G@ Bhil. IH19 1. if it changes the name of the offended party< 8Beople 's. 0ba, @@ Bhil. 1A69 A. if it changes the date of the commission of the offense< 8Beople 's. 4pemia, @G Bhil. .@G9 :et&s say, from the year 1000 to H years bac/wards. Hindi pwedeng maging formal yan. 6. when the purpose of amendment is to ma/e the information charge an offense when the original information does not charge an offense< 8"ong 's. !atco, @@ Bhil. I@19 or H. when it changes the fact or ground of responsibility alleged in the original information. 8Beople 's. :abatete, HI 4.). .IGA9 Example2 from accomplice, gagawin /ang principal. The same is not formal. Q: How do you determine whether the amendment is as to form or substance? A: Cn amendment which merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the original information, and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for con'iction for the crime charged is an amendment to form that can be made at anytime. 8Beople 's. +ontenegro, 1H@ S*RC 1A.9 Q: The amendment is substantial if the amendment will pre udice the rights of the accused. How do you determine whether the rights of the accused are pre udiced? A: The test as to when the rights of an accused are pre udiced by the amendment of a complaint or information is when a defense under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no longer be a'ailable after the amendment is made, and when any e'idence the accused might ha'e, would be inapplicable to the complaint or information as amended. 8Beople 's. +ontenegro, 1H@ S*RC 1A.9 +eaning, e'idence which could help you in the first place will no longer help you after the amendment 7 that is pre udicial. DU72T vs. COURT OF 2PPE23S *E@ SCR2 :01, 3ecember 1I, 1@@. F2CTS2 3anilo %uhat was charged with homicide in an information which alleged that the accused /illed the 'ictim using superior stren0th. D3apat diyan murder eh because of superior strengthE Cccused %uhat pleaded not guilty. Cfter that the prosecution sought to amend the information by upgrading the crime charged from homicide to the more serious crime of murder. ISSUE2 Is the amendment S0%STC5TIC: or ,4R+C:? 7E342 It is ,4R+C: because the allegation of superior stren0th is already there. In other words, from the 'ery start, it was really meant to be murder. +abuti sana /ung dinagdag lang yung superior strength. It is already there all along. #The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the pro'ision of the law alleged to ha'e been 'iolated, they
34
being conclusions of law which in no way affect the legal aspects of the information, but from the actual recital of facts as alleged in the body of the information.$ #Betitioner in the case at bench maintains that, ha'ing already pleaded #not guilty$ to the crime of homicide, the amendment of the crime charged in the information from homicide to murder is a substantial amendment pre udicial to his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him. He utterly fails to dispute, howe'er, that the original information did allege that petitioner stabbed his 'ictim #using superior strength$. Cnd this particular allegation (ualifies a /illing to murder, regardless of how such a /illing is technically designated in the information filed by the public prosecutor.$ +eaning, in the case of 5uhat the prosecutor belie'es originally that it is homicide, but it is murder pala all along. "e are not adding anything new. =aya nga when I read it, I thin/ there&s something wrong here with this /ind of ruling. Kust imagine, na>capital crime /a, tapos formal amendment lang? !ou /now my personal 'iew in the case of 5uhat, it should be treated only as homicide with the aggra'ating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. %ut that was what the S* said eh. "ala tayong magawa. 7o!e'er+ an& amendment be ore %lea+ !hich do!n(rades the nature o the o ense char(ed in or eAcludes an& accused rom the com%laint or in ormation+ can be made onl& u%on motion b& the %rosecutor+ !ith notice to the o ended %art& and !ith lea'e o court. The court shall state its reasons in resol'in( the motion and co%ies o its order shall be urnished all %arties+ es%eciall& the o ended %art&. #n 94second para0raph/ Section 8D/ ule 8891 The second paragraph of Section 16 is new. Ta/e note in the case of 5uhat, from homicide to murder. Ito naman, bali/tad. :et&s say before arraignment, sabi ng ,iscal2 #Te/a muna, di pala murder, homicide lang pala,$ So, gi>downgrade baF 5ow, if prosecutor will do that, he must notify the offended party, at least the family, so that he can be heard before the trial court allows. So this time, the amendment is not a matter of right. Cgain, when you amend a complaint or information to downgrade the nature of the offense or when the amendment is to e-clude an accused from the complaint or information, of course, it can only be done by motion of the prosecutor, notice to the offended party, and decree of court. That is a new pro'ision. I it a%%ears at an&time be ore 0ud(ment that a mistaBe has been made in char(in( the %ro%er o ense+ the court shall dismiss the ori(inal com%laint or in ormation u%on the ilin( o a ne! one char(in( the %ro%er o ense in accordance !ith section 18+ Rule 118+ %ro'ided the accused shall not be %laced in double 0eo%ard&. The court ma& re)uire the !itnesses to (i'e bail or their a%%earance at the trial. 46ast para0raph/ Section 8D/ ule 8891 :et&s go to basic. Q: Cfter the trial, the crime pro'en is different from the crime charge. Howe'er, the former is included in the latter. "ill you dismiss the case? A: 54, ust con'ict the accused for the crime pro'en since the crime pro'en is included in the crime charged. E?2,P3E2 Kenny was charged with murder. Cfter trial, the prosecution pro'ed homicide. "hat will the court do? 3ismiss the complaint for murder? 54. Kenny should be con'icted for homicide because all the element of homicide are also included in the crime of murder. 8Rule 11@9 Howe'er, that is not what Section 16 contemplates. "hat is contemplated by Section 16 is, the offense pro'en is completely different from the crime charged and therefore the accused cannot be con'icted for the crime pro'en because the crime pro'en is not included in the crime charged. Q: So what should the court do?
35
A: The court should dismiss the complaint or information upon the filing of a new information by the prosecution. Bro'ided, the principle of double eopardy is not applicable. Remember the case of U(a, where Mid? was charged with oral defamation for uttering slanderous remar/s against Kessamyn on a particular date and time. %ut during the trial, it turned out that the slander was committed against :yle. 5ow, can Mid? be con'icted for the crime of slander against :yle, when the information says the crime was against Kessamyn? 54. Clthough the crime pro'en is the same, howe'er the erroneous designation of the offended party deals with entirely another crime committed against a different person. Q: "hat should the court do in that case? A: ,ollowing Section 16, the fiscal should file a new information almost e-actly the same as the old one, now the offended party is :yle. The court will now dismiss the original charge which is entirely different. Q: "hat do you call that? A: S0%STIT0TI45 of complaint or information. Q: 5ow, how do you distinguish su(stitution of information from amendment of information? C2 The case of TEE72NIEE /R. vs. ,24262G *0: SCR2 1=> F2CTS2 This case was about the murder of +aureen Hultman. She was shot but did not die immediately. So the crime charged was frustrated murder. %ut while the case was pending, Hultman died. Therefore, the fiscal filed a new information for consummated murder. ISSUE2 3istinguish amendment of information from substitution of information? DThis would be clearer when we reach Rule 111 on Breliminary In'estigationE 7E342 The first paragraph pro'ides the rules for amendment of the information or complaint, while the second paragraph refers to the substitution of the information or complaint. It may accordingly be posited that both amendment and substitution of the information may be made before or after the defendant pleads, but they differ in the following respects2 1. C+O53+O5T may in'ol'e either formal or substantial changes, while S0%STIT0TI45 necessarily in'ol'es a substantial change from the original charge< 1. C+O53+O5T before plea has been entered can be effected without lea'e of court, but S0%STIT0TI45 of information must be with lea'e of court as the original information has to be dismissed< A. "here the C+O53+O5T is only as to form, there is no need for another preliminary in'estigation and the reta/ing of the plea of the accused< in S0%STIT0TI45 of information, another preliminary in'estigation is entailed and the accused has to plead anew to the new information< and 6. Cn C+O53O3 information refers to the same offense charged in the original information or to an offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the original charge, hence substantial amendments to the information after the plea has been ta/en cannot be made o'er the ob ection of the accused, for if the original information would be withdrawn, the accused could, in'o/e double eopardy. 4n the other hand, S0%STIT0TI45 re(uires or presupposes that the new information in'ol'es a different offense which does not include or is not necessarily included in the original charge, hence the accused cannot claim double eopardy. In amendment, you are not changing the crime. The crime is the same. Therefore, after the accused has pleaded, you cannot change the information anymore. That is why substantial amendments can ne'er be allowed after the plea. If this rule is 'iolated, he will be placed in double eopardy because you are charging him for the
36
same offense or an offense necessarily included in the original charge.
4n the other hand, su(stitution presupposes that the new information or complaint in'ol'es a different offense which is not necessarily included in the in the original charge. Therefore, the accused cannot claim double eopardy. How can you in'o/e double eopardy in substitution when the new charge is completely different from the original charge? I remember this was a 1@@1 decision. 3uring the 1@@6 %ar e-ams, this was one of the (uestions that entered into my mind. 5ahulaan /o na lalabas ito eh. 8ehemF92 distinguish amendment from substitution. Kust remember the case of TeehanBee 3r. vs. &ada%a0. I thin/ that (uestion was only A points. Clright. SEC. 1@. Place -here action is to (e instituted . #a$ Sub0ect to eAistin( la!s+ the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court o the munici%alit& or territor& !here the o ense !as committed or !here an& o its essential in(redients occurred. #b$ Chere an o ense is committed in a train+ aircra t+ or other %ublic or %ri'ate 'ehicle in the course o its tri%+ the criminal action shall be instituted and tried int eh court o an& munici%alit& or territor& !here such train+ aircra t+ or other 'ehicle %assed durin( its tri%+ includin( the %lace o its de%arture and arri'al. #c$ Chere an o ense is committed on board a 'essel in the course o its 'o&a(e+ the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court o the irst %ort o entr& or o an& munici%alit& or territor& !here the 'essel %assed durin( such 'o&a(e+ sub0ect to the (enerall& acce%ted %rinci%les o international la!. #d$ Crimes committed outside the Phili%%ines but %unishable under 2rticle * o the Re'ised Penal Code shall be co(ni-able b& the court !here the criminal action is irst iled. #1@a$ In ci'il case we call this venue. In criminal procedure, 'enue is also urisdiction. It refers to territorial urisdiction. So if you file a criminal case in the wrong place, the accused could (uestion the urisdiction of the court o'er the offense. This is one difference between ci'il and criminal procedure. #a$ Sub0ect to eAistin( la!s+ the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court o the munici%alit& or territor& !here the o ense !as committed or !here an& o its essential in(redients occurred. 8Section 1H, Rule 1109 The word municipalit% here includes cities because it could be a city. +unicipality definitely refers to a crime triable by the +T*. The word territor% refers to a crime triable by the RT* because of the pro'ision of Section 1G, %B 11@ that e'ery RT* has its own territory o'er which it resides, for purposes of 'enue in ci'il cases and urisdiction in criminal cases where the offense was committed or where any of the essential ingredients occurred. Q: "hy does the law prescribes that the case be filed or tried in the place where the crime was committed? A: The following are the reasons2 1. The interest of the public re(uires that, to secure the best results and effects in the punishment of crimes, it is necessary to prosecute and punish the criminal in the 'ery place, as near as may be where he committed his crime 8+RR *o. 's. Ctty. )eneral, 10 Bhil. H1A9< 1. Cs to the interest of the accused, it would cause him great incon'enience in loo/ing for witnesses and other e'idence in another place. 8%eltran 's. Ramos, @. Bhil. 16@9 The law says, the criminal case will be tried, -here? 1. where the offense was committed< or 1. where any of the essential ingredients occurred. ,+E E T+E O##ENSE ,AS !O&&ITTE> This refers to what you call local offense. "hat do you mean by a local offense? It is an offense, which is fully
37
consummated in one place. +eaning, all the elements of the crime happened in that place. ,+E E ANE O# T+E ESSENTIA6 INA E>IENTS O!!U E>
This refers to what te-t writers call the continuin0 offense 7 where the elements occurred in 1 or more places 7 one element occurs here, the other in another place. So either one can try the case. The 'enue in this case is the choice of the prosecution. Cnd mind you, the word #continuin0 offense$ should not be confused with the concept in criminal law 7 the so> called continuous crime under Crticle 6G also /nown as #delicto continuado.$ 3alawang /laseng continuing crime, eh. 4ne of the relati'es of comple- crime is # delicto continuado$ 7 where a person performs a series of acts but all emanating from one criminal resolution 7 but the issue to be resol'ed is2 how many crimes were committed by the accused? !un ang tanong dun. Ito namang #continuin0 offense$, the (uestion here is2 in which court of what place will the crime be tried? !anF Q: How do you define a continuing offense or transitory crime? A: It is a crime where the elements occur in se'eral places. E?2,P3E2 =I35CBBI5) or C%30*TI45. The accused /idnapped Oltor in 3a'ao *ity and brought the Oltor in *otabato and hidden there. Same thing with abduction2 =aren was abducted in 3a'ao *ity and brought in *otabato. Q: "here should the case of /idnapping or abduction as the case may be, be filed? A: It could be filed in 3a'ao where the 'ictim was ta/en or abducted, or in *otabato were the 'ictim was brought. Q: %rod Bito too/ your 'ehicle here in 3a'ao and brought it to *otabato. "here should the crime of (ualified theft be tried? 3a'ao or *otabato? Is that a continuing offense or not? A: 3a'ao. It is a local offense. ,rom the moment the car was ta/en in 3a'ao, the crime has already been consummated. It is not an indispensable re(uisite of theft that the thief carry, more or less far away, the thing ta/en by him from its owner. 83uran 's. Tan, GH Bhil. 6I.9 Theft is committed by ta/ing personal things. Ta/ing is instant. ,rom the moment it came to y our possession, tapos naF :et&s go to the issue of ,O5*I5) 7 you buy stolen property. If you ha'e /nown it is stolen, you are liable. %ut ta/e note2 there can be no fencing if there is no robbery or theft. ,encing presupposes there is robbery or theft. Q: Inday stole a property in 3igos. It was brought here and +aritess bought it here in 3a'ao. +aritess is now charged with fencing. 4f course +aritess can be charged here in 3a'ao *ity because she bought it here. %ut can the crime of fencing be also filed in 3igos where the theft was committed on the theory that2 how can there be fencing unless there was theft? Therefore e'erything can go bac/ to the place where the original crime was committed. Is that correct? A: It is 54T correct because fencing is not a continuing crime. It is a local offense. It is different from the crime of theft or robbery. %oth crimes are two different crime. The law on fencing does not re(uire the accused to ha'e participated in the criminal design to commit, or to ha'e been in any wise in'ol'ed in the commission of, the crime of robbery or theft. 5either is the crime of robbery or theft made to depend on an act of fencing in order that it can be consummated. True, the ob ect property in fencing must ha'e been pre'iously ta/en by means of either robbery of theft but the place where the robbery or theft occurs is inconse(uential. It may not be suggested, for instance, that, in the crime of bigamy which presupposes a prior subsisting marriage of an accused, the case should thereby be triable li/ewise at the place where the prior marriage has been contracted. 8Beople 's. 3e )u?man, 4ctober H, 1@@A9 Q: OSTC,C or +C:MORSCTI45. The company&s head office is in +a/ati. =enneth is the representati'e of the company assigned in 3a'ao. He collects payments from customers in 3a'ao and he is supposed to remit all his collections to +a/ati. =enneth did not remit his collections to +a/ati. "here should the case of estafa be brought? 3a'ao or +a/ati?
38
A: Oither of the two. The crime is continuing. It shall be instituted in the place where the misappropriation was committed O in the place where the accused was to render his accounting. 80.S. 's. +esina, 61 Bhil. .I9 :et&s go to %405*I5) *HO*=S law. "here should the criminal case for 'iolation of bouncing chec/s law be filed? Sometimes, fiscals get confused. !ou owe me, you are in +anila, then you issue a chec/ in +anila and sent it to 3a'ao. Then I will deposit the chec/ in 3a'ao. 4f course the ban/ will forward it to +anila for clearance. The +anila ban/ dishonored it /ay walang pondo. "here is the 'enue for such crime? That is what happened in the case of PEOP3E vs. GOROSPE /anuar& *0+ 1899 8reiterated in 6ee vs. !A D1@@HE9 F2CTS2 The accused is from %ulacan. He was a dealer of San +iguel products and he is under the control of the *entral :u?on Regional 4ffice of San +iguel *orporation 8S+*9 which is in San ,ernando, Bampanga. So a representati'e of S+* went to %ulucan, collected from him, he issued chec/s which were drawn in %ulucan. The chec/s were recei'ed by the representati'e of S+* and went to the Head 4ffice in Bampanga and turned>o'er it. The Bampanga office of S+* deposited the chec/s with its depositary ban/ in San ,ernando, Bampanga. The chec/s were sent to %ulacan for clearing. TalbogF "ith this, series of cases were filed. Some cases were estafa. Some were for 'iolation of %B 11. The accused challenged it because all these cases were filed in San ,ernando, Bampanga eh. Cccording to him, the cases should be filed in %ulacan. Remember, the chec/s were %ulucan chec/s and it was dishonored also in %ulacan. He said, #I did not deli'er it in San ,ernando. I ga'e it to your representati'e. So the chec/ was deli'ered to a representati'e. So the deli'ery was made in %ulacan. Thus the Bampanga court has no urisdiction.$ ISSUE2 Is the contention of the accused correct? 7E342 54F +aliF Cctually, the crime is continuin0 because the crime continues up to the deli'ery of the chec/ to the *entral :u?on 4ffice of S+* in Bampanga. 0nder the 5egotiable Instruments :aw, the deli'ery of the chec/ must be made to a person who ta/es it as a holder or bearer of the instrument. The chec/s are intended to be deli'ered in the Head 4ffice because it is the deli'ery in Bampanga which ma/es the payee the bearer or the holder 7 not the employer who went to %ulacan. So tinamaan ang Bampanga court. In effect, it is a continuing crime. In respect of the %ouncing *hec/s case, #it is li/ewise true that /nowledge on the part of the ma/er or drawer of the chec/ of the insufficiency of his funds, which is an essential ingredient of the offense is by itself a continuing e'entuality, whether the accused be within one territory or another. Cccordingly, urisdiction to ta/e cogni?ance of the offense also lies in the Regional Trial *ourt of Bampanga.$ +eaning, where'er the chec/s go, the /nowledge of insufficiency is a continuing element. Q: "here shall the criminal action for ,C:SI,I*CTI45 of a pri'ate document be filed? A: It shall be filed in the place where the document was falsified, regardless of whether it was or was not put to the illegal use for which it was intended. 80.S. 's. %arretto, A. Bhil. 1069 Q: )enie e-ecuted a false affida'it in +anila. It was sent to 3a'ao to be used in a certain proceeding or case. "here is the 'enue of the BORK0R!? A: It should be filed in the place where the false e'idence was submitted and 54T in the place where the false affida'it was subscribed and sworn to. 80.S. 's. *aTete, A0 Bhil. AI19 :et&s go to some OP*OBTI45S2 Q: Cre there instances where the crime is committed in this place but the trial can be filed in another place, other than the place where the crime was committed? A: !OS, if the law says so because of the opening clause of paragraph 8a9 of Section 1H which says, 'su(?ect to existin0 la-s.* +eaning, this is the applicable rule unless other e-isting law says otherwise.
39
Q: )i'e instances where the crime maybe committed in one place but the law pro'ided for a different 'enue of trial. A: The following2 1. 6i(el 7 under Crticle A.0 of RB*, it is to be filed where the libelous matter was printed or first published, or where the in ured party resides or where he holds office< 1. Sandi0an(a%an 6a- 7 cases falling under the urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan are tried in designated places< A. Section 7 4D1/ Article FIII/ 8GHI !onstitution 7 The S* may order a change of 'enue or place of trial to a'oid a miscarriage of ustice as what happened in the case of SancheJ and +isuari. Those are the e-ceptions. Cll the rest co'ers other cases Baragraph 8d9 refers to crimes committed on board a Bhilippine ship or airplane abroad. It is triable in the Bhilippines. "here in the Bhilippines? 7 where the criminal action is first filed. =ung saan, mamili ang prosecution /ung saan i>file. SEC. 1E. Intervention of the offended part% in criminal action . Chere the ci'il action or reco'er& o ci'il liabilit& is instituted in the criminal action %ursuant to Rule 111+ the o ended %art& ma& inter'ene b& counsel in the %rosecution o the o ense. #1Ea$ 4f course, the prosecution is under the control of the fiscal but the law says, the pri'ate offended party can inter'ene through counsel. That is what you call the appearance of the pri'ate prosecutor. Q: "hen is it allowed? A: The following are the re(uirements2 1. if there is ci'il liability arising from the crime because the purpose of the pri'ate prosecutor is to protect the ci'il liability of the offended party< 1. there is no wai'er. The offended party should not wai'e the ci'il liability< A. the offended party should not ha'e reser'ed to file a separate ci'il action because once you ha'e made a reser'ation, wala na. !ou cannot anymore hire a pri'ate prosecutor< 6. the ci'il action has not been pre'iously instituted because if the ci'il action is already filed, you cannot inter'ene in the criminal case. Q: "hat are the rights of the offended party in a criminal action? A: The following2 1. to ta/e part in the prosecution of the offense< 1. to reco'er ci'il liability from the accused arising from the crime< and A. to appeal from any udgment or order ad'ersely affecting his claim to such ci'il liability. 8Beople 's. Mele?, II Bhil. 101.9 Q: )i'e the limitations to the offended party&s right of inter'ention in a criminal action. A: The following2 1. such inter'ention shall be under the direction and control of the fiscal 8Section H9< 1. such inter'ention shall only be for the purpose of enforcing the accused&s ci'il liability arising from the crime. 8Beople 's. Mele?, supra9 4ne of the interesting case decided based on Section 1. is the 1@GI case of D2N23 vs. T24EO+ /R. 1@E SCR2 =*@ F2CTS2 This is a case for 'iolation of %B 11. The offended party hired a pri'ate prosecutor to prosecute the case. The accused challenged the appearance of the pri'ate prosecutor on the ground that %B 11 does not pro'ide for any ci'il liability and therefore there is no ci'il liability. So the trial court dis(ualified the pri'ate prosecutor. The offended party went to the S*.
40
ISSUE2 Is a pri'ate prosecutor allowed to inter'ene in a %B 11 case?
7E342 !OS. C pri'ate prosecutor is allowed to inter'ene in a %B 11 case because there is a ci'il liability in %B 11 e'en if the law silent about it. 5ormally lawyers would say that ci'il liability in a criminal case arises from the crime< because of the crime, there is ci'il liability. Cccording to the S*2 "R45)FF It is not the crime which is the source of the ci'il liability. It is the damage that the accused caused to the 'ictimF #The generally accepted notion that the ci'il liability actually arises from the crime a misconception or fallacy. ;&as%adon0 malalim an0 discussion n0 S! dito= #"hile an act or omission is felonious because it is punishable by law, it gi'es rise to ci'il liability not so much because it is a crime but because it caused damage to another. Miewing things pragmatically, we can readily see that what gi'es rise to the ci'il liability is really the obligation and the moral duty of e'eryone to repair or ma/e whole the damage caused to another by reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, whether or not the same be punishable by law. In other words, criminal liability will gi'e rise to ci'il liability only if the same felonious act or omission results in damage or in ury to another and is the direct and pro-imate cause thereof. 3amage or in ury to another is e'idently the foundation of the ci'il action. Such is not the case in criminal actions for, to be criminally liable, it is enough that the act or omission complained of is punishable, regardless of whether or not it also causes material damage to another. Crticle 10 of the 5ew *i'il *ode pro'ides2 'Ever% person -ho/ contrar% to la-/ -illfull% or ne0li0entl% causes dama0e to another/ shall indemnif% the latter for the same.* #Regardless, therefore, of whether or not a special law so pro'ides, indemnification of the offended party may be had on account of the damage, loss or in ury directly suffered as a conse(uence of the wrongful act of another. The indemnity which a person is sentenced to pay forms an integral part of the penalty imposed by law for the commission of a crime. O'ery crime gi'es rise to a penal or criminal action for the punishment of the guilty party, and also to ci'il action for the restitution of the thing, repair of the damage, and indemnification for the losses.$ The ruling in 5anal seems not to i'e with Crticle 11HI of the 5ew *i'il *ode. 0nder Crticle 11HI, the following are the sources of obligations2 1. laws< 1. contracts< A. (uasi>contracts< 6. (uasi>delicts< 7. acts or omissions punisha(le (% la-. Cccording to Crticle 11HI, a crime punishable by law is a source of obligation. %ut in the case of 5anal, the S* says 54, it is not the act or omission but the damage or in ury resulting from such act or omission. That is how to reconcile these two ideas. Q: "e will go bac/ to the issue in 5anal 7 is there ci'il liability in %B 11 cases? A: !OS because the offended party cannot get bac/ his money. If there is damage, there is ci'il liability e'en if the law is silent. Huwag mo na lang hanapin ang pro'ision ng ci'il liability. ,or as long as there is damage, there is ci'il liability. !aaannF
41

Rule 110 PRSCTN of Offns

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 110 PRSCTN of Offns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition)<draft copy; pls.

check for errors>

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses

You might also like