COMPLAINT AND INFORMATION
CASE TITLE DATE FACTS
A. With whom, by whom, and against whom, filed
Petition for habeas corpus by Del
Rosario Sr.
Complaint was instituted by widow
of the deceased victim of a murder
case.
Del Rosario v Vda. de Mercado 1969
Accused says widow has no
personality to sue as she is not the
offended party, thus the arrest and
detention of the accused is illegal
Widow opposed.
Estafa case, allegedly committed by
Francisco by fraudulently crediting
(adding) to his account 600k from
credit card charges, where he works
as an Acquiring Chargeback
Supervisor of Bankard, thereby
Francisco v People 2009 causing damage to the latter.
. were deprived kf the use of money,
Francisco argues:
1. Bankard did not incur damage
2. Bankard has no personality to sue
because it was the credit card
company that suffered the damages
B. By whom Prosecuted
Bagatua wants to institute estafa
case against Pangilinan. Fiscal
dismissed the complaint due to lack
of merit.
Bagatua filed petition for Mandamus
to compel the Fiscal to file
Bagatua v Revilla 1958
information and prosecute the case.
Bernabe v Bolinas 1966 Complaint of homicide for the killing
of Sedesias filed by the chief of
police against del Castillo Jr. & Sr.
HELD
Widow has right to file a complaint
as an offended party.
Bankard has personality to file the
estafa case since it incurred
damages from Francisco’s
fraudulent acts.
They were made to pay
temporarily the account, thus they
and they were not able to recover
18k.
Dismissed the petition. The duty of
fiscals involve discretion because
although it is his duty to prosecute
persons who are guilty of a crime,
he is also bound to protect
innocent persons from groundless,
false, or malicious prosecution.
There was no semblance of abuse
perpetrated by the fiscals here.
Mandamus granted since there
was abuse of discretion on part of
prosecuting officer on refusing to
DOCTRINE NOTES
If the death of a spouse arose from a
criminal offense, the law
characterizes the surviving spouse as
an offended party.
Except in cases that cannot be
prosecuted de oficio (crimes against
chastity), a complaint filed by the
offended party is not necessary for
the institution of a criminal action.
The information filed by the
Prosecutor with the proper court is
sufficient.
The duty of prosecuting officers Compare in ruling to the
involve discretion, thus it cannot be next case.
controlled by mandamus unless
there has been a grave abuse of
discretion.
If fiscal is convinced that the
evidence is insufficient, he has the
perfect authority to dismiss the
complaint.
Remedy is not mandamus, but a
criminal or administrative charges
against the prosecuting officer. (if
offended party believes the dismissal
is malicious)
Mandamus will be granted if there In the above case, fiscal
was abuse of discretion on the part found no probable cause,
of the prosecuting officer in on thus he cannot be
 Widow of deceased wants to amend
information to murder not homicide,
fiscal files only homicide, thus
mandamus was filed by widow.
Homicide thru reckless imprudence.
Spouse and children of the deceased
wants to charge two persons. (driver
and passenger).
Fiscal filed only against one, based
on the confession made by that
People v Liggayu 1955 person. The complaint as against the
other was dismissed upon motion of
the fiscal.
Spouse and children of deceased
appealed from such motion of
dismissal arguing they did not
receive any notice.
Petition for Mandamus to compel
fiscal to prosecute the case.
Fiscal filed information of attempted
theft. Upon review of Sec. Justice,
reversed fiscal’s finding and ordered
to move for dismissal.
Sta. Rosa Mining Co. V Zabala 1987
Motion to dismiss was filed by fiscal
but court denied, the fiscal thus
manifested he would not prosecute
the case and disauthorized any
private prosecutor to appear
therein. HEHEHE
Fiscal filed information of estafa.
Accused petitioned for review with
Sec. Justice. Moved to defer
arraignment which was denied by
trial court. CA restrained judge from
Crespo v Mogul 1987
proceeding with arraignment.
Usec justice reversed the finding of
fiscal and ordered to move for
immediate dismissal. Fiscal moved
for dismissal which was denied.
Tan v Gallardo 1976 Solgen wants a new trial of the case,
he wants the judge to inhibit
because latter appears to be biased
and partial.
Private prosecutors intervened
through comments and are in
amend the information. Treachery
was attendant to the crime.
Fiscal has the direct control in
prosecution of criminal offenses.
No notice of the motion for
dismissal filed by the fiscal to the
offended party is necessary.
Mandamus granted.
The institution of criminal action is
to the sound discretion of the
investigating fiscal. However, after
the case had already been filed in
court, the court acquires
jurisdiction.
In this case court below denied
motion to dismiss on the ground
that there was a prima facie case
against the accused.
Thus, fiscal must proceed.
Trial court may refuse to grant
motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal
even upon instruction from the Sec
of Justice.
The Solicitor General alone is
authorized to represent the State
or the Ppl . the interest of private
prosecutors are subordinate to that
of the State and they cannot be
allowed to take a stand
refusing to amend an information, compelled. In this case,
despite clear evidence as to the there was probable cause,
proper crime allegedly committed. and clear evidence of
treachery which the fiscal
failed to appreciate, thus
the abuse.
Prosecution shall be under the
direction and control of the fiscal
without being subject to the right of
intervention on the part of the
offended party. The right to appeal
from an order of dismissal based
upon the motion of the fiscal should
be denied to the offended party
because such right of appeal will
curtail or limit the control that the
fiscal exercises over the prosecution
of a criminal case.
After the case had already been filed Court acquires jurisdiction
in court, fiscals are not clothed with over the case upon the filing
power without the consent of the of information. From then
court, to dismiss or nolle prosequi on, the discretionary power
criminal actions actually instituted of prosecuting officers END,
and pending further proceedings. it is already on the
The power to dismiss criminal discretion of the court, upon
actions is vested solely in the court. proper motion of the
Fiscal can turnover the case to parties, to dismiss or
another fiscal or private prosecutor, whateverrrrrr.
if there is none, then no choice but
to proceed.
Once a complaint or information is Eto yung paborito n mam i-
filed in Court, any disposition of the cite pag may conflict sa
case as its dismissal or the conviction finding ng fiscal at DOJ tapos
or acquittal of the accused rests in nasa court na yung kaso.
the sound discretion of the court. Remember this case.
The role of the private prosecutors is
to represent the offended parties
with respect to the civil action for
the recovery of the civil liability
arising from the offense.
If they be allowed to take a stand
 different position, they are justifying
the questioned orders of the judge.
C. Form and constituent allegations – Relate to Rule 116, Sec. 9
Bolo blow in the face!! Destroyed
the left eye, penetrated and cut the
brain. Eew.
Information accuses the
perpetrators with attempted
US v Lim San 1910
assassination.
CAPTION – attempted assassination
BODY of INFORMATION – describe
the crime as frustrated assassination
Attempted or frustrated murder?
Starks was indicted for forgery.
He then filed a motion to dismiss the
indictment for failure to set forth the
alleged forged instrument in haec
verba. ----wataheck is this word?
US v Starks 1946
Accused was charged with four
separate informations of rape
alleging “taking advantage of his
superior strength over the person of
his 13 yr old daughter, by means of
force, violence, and intimidation and
with lewd design, did then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully and
People v Teves 1999
feloniously, have repeatd carnal
knowledge of Cherry Rose Q. Teves”
RTC imposed death.
US v Chan Toco 1908 Accused was charged of illegfally
smoking opium.
Defense, filed demurrer, as the
information does not allege “that
the use of opium was not prescribed
by a physician”, thus information
inconsistent with that of the
SolGen.
Body of information is controlling.
Technical name of the crime is
immaterial to the accused. For the
complete defense of an accused,
he need not know the name of the
crime.
Caption is surplusage.
Issues are framed by allegations
not by asserting names.
Denied! indictment or information
shall be plain, concise, and definite
written statement of the essential
facts constituting the offense
charged. Need not be set out in
haec verba. So long as it complies
with the tests, then it may
proceed.
Death penalty improper. Simple
rape only, not qualified rape.
Offender cannot be convicted of
qualified rape because he was not
properly informed that he is being
accused of qualified rape.
The information was found not to
state the acts constituting the
offense in such form as to enable
“a man of common understanding”
to know waht offense is intended
to be charged.
Age and relationship was not
sufficiently alleged, the stress is on
the generic aggravating
circumstance of superior strength.
There was no no need to negative
the information (to allege that such
smoking was not prescribed by a
doctor), the legislative intent was
to penalize smoking opium, but the
legislators chose to withdraw from
inconsistent with the SolGen, that
would be tantamount to giving them
the control and direction of the
criminal prosecution.
When the crime characterized by the Why technical name
caption of the information is immaterial to accused? He
different from that described in the needs only to know what
body of the same, the caption acts of him are complained
becomes immaterial and the facts of as violations of the law.
alleged in the body of the He needs only to be
information shall determine the apprised of his acts, he
crime of which the accused shall needs not to be
stand charged. knowledgeable of the
offense/s.
Two tests that an indictment must Important yung TESTS.
meet:
1. it must apprise defendant of Indictment is somewhat
specific offense with which he is similar to information of a
charged. crime? Or are they the
2. it must be sufficiently definite in wsame? I Was not able to
order that if the defendant is later figure that out.
charged with the same offense he
will be in a position to interpose a
plea of double jeopardy.
A qualifying circumstance must be Problem with the
SPECIFICALLY PLEADED! wording/drafting of the
information. Accused must
be sufficiently informed of
the gravity or nature of the
crime he had been charged
with.
an exception in a statute by which a My interpretation of
certain particular are withdrawn doctrine:
from or excepted out of the enacting If a group or class of persons
clause defining a crime concerning a were excepted or carved out
class or species, constitutes no part from the coverage of the
of the definition of such crime. penal statute, it is not
 was insufficient to constitute an
offense.
Information for rape allegedly
commited “during the interval
between October 1910, to August
1912”
Accused filed a demurrer, that the
complaint is vague and ambiguous.
US v Dichao 1914 CFI dismissed the complaint and
sustained demurrer.
Accused of “driving while intoxicated
OR under the influence of
intoxicating liquor, drugs, OR
narcotics.”
Accused filed demurrer.
US v Stollings 1946
Gallego v Sandiganbayan 1982 Accused filed motion to quash
information based on either:
Facts alleged does not constitute an
offense (reasons why benefits are
bestowed or given to cartain
examinees was not alleged)
or
information charges more than one
offense.
Information charges violation of
section 3(e) of RA3019. Graft and
the operation of the statute a
limited class. (those under advice
and prescription of doctors)
It is more logical that the accused
prove that he smoked opium under
medication.
Complaint was insufficient.
Dismissal valid.
The time when the alleged crime
was committed is too indefinite
and certain. Birth of the child
allegedly resulting from the alleged
crime does not cure the defect in
the onformation.
Indictment violated constitutional
rights of the accused. (as to form of
the complaint/information)
The indictment sets forth FOUR
distinct statutory offenses, driving
while:
1. intoxicated
2. influence of iintoxicating liquors
3. influence of drugs
4. influence of narcotics
1.The argument that the
information is defective due to
failure to state the reasons why the
benefits bestowed are
unwarranted cannot be taken as
informations need only state the
ULTIMATE facts,;reasons therefore
could be proven in trial.
2. The information was not bad for
duplicity inasmuch as the acts
The allegations of an information
should be sufficiently explicit and
certain as to time in order to inform
the defendant of the date on which
the criminal act is alleged to have
been committed. Otherwise, he
would be deprived of the
opportunity to defend himself, if
exact date could not be fixed or
prosecutor cannot prove exact date,
he should allege in information that
the crime was committed “ON or
ABOUT” a date named.
An indictment charging the accused
with the commission of several
distinct offenses in the disjunctive,
does not meet constitutional
requirement. (single offense per
information dapat)
The use of words OR, made the
charge in disjunctive separate and
distinct offenses, thus violated the
requirement that the accused be
distinctly informed of the crime or
crimes for which he is to be tried.
Information only needs name of
parties, time, place, manner of
commission, and designation of the
offense. Reasons whatsoever are not
necessary, and failure to state such
does not render an information
defective. Reasons for the
commission can be proven during
trial.
necessary to allege in the
information, that the
accused does not fall under
the exception.
It is the duty of the accused
to prove that he is under the
exception.
Note, if there is variance in
the information re date, and
the actual commission of
crime, it is not tantamount
to acquittal, and judge must
order the information to be
amended.
Compare with ruling below.
Hehehe, yun lang narinig k
okay ma’am sorry, hina voice
niya eh.
My note:
Note the dissent, it is more
similar to the ruling to the
next case, the use of any
one creates an offense
(under the same statute),
and particularly where there
is no distinction as to
penalty, there is no real
prejudice to the defendant,
then the information is
good.
My note:
Compare number 2 with
above. I think this is
controlling since it is more
recent.
 Corrupt.
Accused was charged and convicted
of simple seduction.
Accused moved to quash the
information claiming that it alleged
multiple acts of simple seduction, in
People v Yap 1968
addition to the offense of criminal
abortion.
Fiscal willing to drop the word
abortion.
Robbery with homicide was charged.
There was discrepancy regarding the
allegation and proof of ownership of
the P100. Either from Juana or
Roman.
Allegation is that it was owned by
Roman, but the testimonies say that
US v Lahoylahoy 1918
it was owned by Juana.
Charge of highway robbery with
homicide. Convicted of robbery with
homicide.
People v Versoza 1998 Hold-up in a jeep, victim fought, was
shot in the head.
D. Amendment – Relate to Rule 120, Sec. 4; Rule 117, Sec. 7; Rule 119, Sec. 19
Arevalo v Nepomuceno 1936 Charged with murder.
Information says B armed with knife
then C armed with revolver.
Witness testified that B has revolver
and C has the knife.
Court ordered fiscal to amend info
charged were merely different
means of committing the same
offense, notwithstanding the fact
that they are prohibited by
separate sections of the statute.
Information does not violate the
prohibiton against duplicity of
offenses.
Charge is only one offense in
various counts. Accused runs the
risk of being found guilty of as
many seduction as the number of
sexual contacts between the
parties. Each sex is a consummated
offense.
Accused cannot be convicted of
robbery with homicide since there
is lack of conformity between the
allegation and the proof respecting
the ownership of the property. But
still convicted of homicide.
Same as doctrine.
*still relevant:
Names of accused are not
controlling, it is the familiarity with
the physical features particularly
those of the face, that is the best
way to identify a person.
Amendmen merely a matter of
form, it does not akter the
information nor affect the rights of
the accused, nor affect the liability
of the accused.
When an information charges the There is only one charge
defendant wit a specific crime set here, simple seduction in
forth in various counts, each of various counts.
which may constitute a distinct
offense, it may be allowed without
violating the prohibition against
duplicity of offenses.
In crimes against property, Bad decision. Just refer to
ownership must be alleged as a the rules of court re
matter essential to the property property.
description of the offense, if the
owner’s name cannot be In here ownership of the
ascertained, it may be alleged that it 100 bill was not sufficiently
is unknown. proven, but it is a fact that
the accused did
Money has no earmarks, and the forcibly/violently obtained
only way to identify or describe the money from either
money which was subject of a Juana or Roman, shouldn’t it
robbery, is by connecting it with the be sufficient to state that
individual who was robbed as its the owner of the money was
owner or possessor. The proof must unknown? I just heard
correspond as to the allegation of ma’am said this is not a
ownership or there can be no good case. This particular
conviction. (applicable lang sa decision is bad, but i think
money, different if ibang property) the doctrine is good.
In the interpretation of an
information, what controls is not the
designation but the description of
the offense.
Information may be amended after
arraignment if the amendment is
only of form and does not
substantially alter the information
nor the rights of the accused.
 otherwise, testimony will not be
considered.
Murder information says Casey
armed with knife and Felix armed
with firearm. Casey pleaded not
guilty.
Fiscal amended information to
People v Casey 1981
include Felix as co-accused.
Casey’s contention: he was not
arraigned in the amended
information thus trial is not legal.
Information for homicide against
Buhat.
Complainant filed review of fiscal’s
resolution in DOJ and moved for
deferment of arraignment.
Accused opposed deferment
invoking right to speedy trial.
Arraignment proceeded and trial
ensued.
DOJ ordered fiscal to amend
information to upgrade offense to
murder.
Buhat v CA 1996
Prosec filed motion for leave to
amend info but accused opposed, by
then the prosec had already
presented 2 witnesses.
RTC denied:
1. Crespo v Mogul (above)
2. conclusion of inquest prosec is
more persuasive than that of the
Sec. Of Justice
SolGen filed ceriorari
Fronda-Baggao v People 2007 Four informations for illegal
recruitment. Fiscal filed motion to
amend four informations so that
there would only be one info for
illegal recruitment in large scale.
Accused opposed:
1. ROC refers to amendment of only
one, not four offenses which cannot
be joined in one info
2. amendment of four to one graver
offense violates her substantial
Lack of arraignment in the
amended information does not
violate the right to be informed of
the charge against him. They do
not change the nature of crime
charged against Casey.
Information can be amended!
The addition of the phrase
“conspiring, confederating and
helping one another” doesn’t
change the nature of Buhat’s
participation as principal in killing.
Whether under the original or
amended information, Buhat
would have to defend himself as
the Prople makes a case against
him and secures for public
protection the punishment of
Buhat for stabbing to death, using
superior strength, a fellow citizen.
The amendment does not affect
the nature of the offense or
introduce new or material fact to
change the theory of prosecution.
The informations can be amended!
ROC shows that although it uses
the singular word complaint or
information, it does not mean that
two or more complaints or
informations cannot be amended
into only one Information.
No arraignment yet, thus there is
no violation of substantial right as
there is no plea given.
Test w/n amendment of substance Important yung test.
or form:
a) whether a defense under the
information as it originally stood
would be available after the
amendment is made
b) whether any evidence defendant
might have would be equally
applicable to the amended
information
Generally, changing the nature of This is an exception to the
crime charged from homicide to general rule. The
murder is proscribed as such is a amendment here is the
change of substance and not form, addition of allegation of
but in this case, the original “Conspiracy”
information already alleged the
qualifying circumstance of superior Note that even without the
strength attendant in the killing. amendment, accused can be
Even if caption is for homicide, convicted of murder,
accused can still be penalized for although caption of the
murder. charge is for homicide,
because of the allegation of
superior strength.
Before the accused enters his plea, a No arraignment yet, Two or
formal or substantial amendment of more informations can be
the complaint or information may be amended to form a single
made without leave of court. information.
After the entry of plea, only a formal
amendment may be made but with
leave of court and only if it does not
prejudice the rights of the accused.
After arraignment, a substantial
amendment is proscribed except if
rights the same is beneficial to the
accused.
TC denied motion of fiscal but
granted upon MFR.