FUERTE, Ma. Florence R.

2016-80074
Criminal Procedure
Atty. Salvador S. Panelo

People vs. Tuando

785 SCRA 103
February 24, 2016

Facts:
Raul Yamon Tuando (accused) offered softdrinks to AAA (victim), daughter of her
common law wife, BBB. Thereafter, AAA felt dizzy then Tuando pulled her inside the bedroom
and successfully had carnal knowledge with the 13-year-old girl. the accused continued raping her
whoever she comes home from school with threats to kill her family. Months later, BBB noticed
that AAA was not having her monthly menstrual period and based on her medical report, she was
pregnant. The victim revealed that he was raped by Tuando and BBB consequently brought her
daughter in a different house. When AAA visited her brothers in her old house, she was again
raped by Tuando without knowing that the latter was there. Thereafter, the victim filed a complaint
against the accused, however, he insisted that the sexual intercourse was consensual and committed
out of love. He also alleged that his right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
against him was violated because the crime of which he was convicted (qualified rape) was
different from the one he pleaded to and was charged with.

Issue:
Whether the accuseds right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation is violated
because of the different criminal information.

Held:
No. As embodied in Section 14(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, no person shall be
held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. Further, paragraph 2 of the same
section, it provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him. It is further provided under Sections 8 and 9 of
Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court that a complaint or information to be filed in court must
contain a designation given to the offense by the statute, besides the statement of the acts or
omissions constituting the same, and if there is no such designation, reference should be made to
the section or subsection of the statute punishing it and the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense.
In the case at bar, he was sufficiently informed of the crime he was accused of. This is clear
from the defense that he mounted, i.e., that the victim is his sweetheart and that they treated each
other as spouses. In short, Tuando was not denied of his constitutional right and was given every
opportunity to answer the accusation against him.

Ibaez vs. People

782 SCRA 291
January 27, 2016

1
Facts:
Rodolfo Liberia (victim) noticed some garbage in front of his house. As a result, he uttered
vernacular utterances which angered Emilio and Boyet Ibaez, who threw stones at the victims
forehead. Rodolfo went inside in his house and emerged again with piece of wood in his hand.
However, Ronald, Father of Emilio and Boyet held the victim and David, other sibling of the
accused, hit Rodolfo in the head. Then Boyet and Bobot simultaneously stabbed the victim in the
abdomen. On the other hand, the Ibaez refute the accusations and alleged that it was Rodolfo who
stabbed Ronald and Bobot. Other accused imposed alibi and denial as their defense.
Rodolfo filed a complaint against the Ibaez. Trial Court assigned Atty. Manzano and Atty
Colasito as their counsel de officio. However, Atty Manzano and Rodolfo failed to appear in the
hearing when witnesses completed their testimonies without any prior notice, which means that
his right to cross-examine the witnesses is deemed waived. Thereafter, Trial Court appointed Atty.
Sindingan (5th counsel de officio) who handled the cross-examination of other witnesses.
Petitioners insisted that they were denied of their right to counsel when Atty. Manzano
failed to appear on the said hearing and they were divested of the opportunity to cross-examine the
said two witnesses.
Issue:
Whether the petitioners were deprived of their constitutionally granted right to counsel.
Held:
No deprivation of right to counsel. In addition to the constitutional right if the accused to
be heard and counsel, Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Court decrees that:
SEC. 1. Rights of accused at the trial.In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be entitled to the following rights:
xxxx
(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the
proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. x x x
xxxx
On the other hand, Rule 116 of the same Rules makes it mandatory for the trial court to
designate a counsel de officio for the accused in the absence of private representation. An accused
without counsel is essentially deprived of a fair hearing which is tantamount to a grave denial of
due process.
However, in the case at bar, petitioners were duly represented by a counsel de officio all
throughout the proceedings except for one hearing because Atty. mansion and Rodolfo were
absent. As a result, mere opportunity to cross-examine and not the actual cross-examination is
deemed waived. The Court is not persuaded that the absence of the counsel de oficio in one of the
hearings of this case amounts to a denial of right to counsel. Nor does such absence warrant the
nullification of the entire trial court proceedings and the eventual invalidation of its ruling. There
is no showing that the several appointed counsel de oficio in any way neglected to perform their
duties to the appellant and to the trial court and that the defense had suffered in any substantial
sense therefrom.