Pinote v.
Ayco (2009)
Petition: Administrative matter for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave abuse of
Authority and Serious misconduct
Petitioner: STATE PROSECUTOR Rinccar Pinote
Respondent: JUDGE Roberto L. Ayco
Ponencia: Brion
DOCTRINE:
Violation of criminal laws is an affront to the People of the Philippines as a whole and not
merely to the person directly prejudiced, he being merely the complaining witness. It is
on this account that the presence of a public prosecutor in the trial of criminal cases is
necessary to protect vital state interests, foremost of which is its interest to vindicate the
rule of law, the bedrock of peace of the people.
PROVISION:
Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure reads:
Sec. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. - All criminal actions commenced by a
complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the
prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule or in the event of lack of public
prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the
Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecution Office to prosecute the case
subject to the approval of the Court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal
action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to the end of the
trial even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or
otherwise withdrawn.
FACTS:
Petitioner Special Prosecutor Pinote (SPECIAL PROSECUTOR) was the
special prosecutor or the case of People v. Vice Mayor Salvador Ramos, et al,
a case for violation of Section 3 pf PD 1866 in Br. 26 RTC of South Cotabato.
Respondent judge is the presiding judge (JUDGE AYCO).
On August 13 and 20, 2004, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR was undergoing
medical treatment at the Philippine Heart Center in Quezon City, hence, his
absence during the proceedings on the said dates.
o On the said dates, respondent JUDGE AYCO allowed the defense in
the case to present evidence consisting of testimony of 2 witnesses,
even in the absence of petitioner.
On the subsequent scheduled hearings on August 27, October 1, 15 and 29,
2004, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR refused to cross-examine the two defense
witnesses, despite being ordered by JUDGE AYCO, maintaining that the
proceedings conducted in his absence were void.
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR filed a Manifestation on Nov. 12, 2004
o restating why he was not present on Aug. 13 and 20
o reiterating that allowing the dense to present evidence in his absence
was erroneous and highly irregular
o He should not be coerced to cross-examine
o The testimonies of the two witnesses should be stricken off the record
JUDGE AYCO issued an Order on the same day. He considered the
Prosecution. He considered prosecution to have waived its right to cross
examine the witnesses.
Present Administrative complaint was filed by SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
against JUDGE AYCO
o JUDGE AYCO arguments:
complainant filed the complaint to save his face and cover up
for his incompetence and lackadaisical handling of the
prosecution
Special prosecutor was on request by the Provincial governor
to be relieved as prosecutor in the case by the Secretary of
Justice
Misleading and highly questionable that Special prosecutor
has undergone medical treatment.
No substantial prejudice was suffered by the prosecution for
complainant was permitted to cross examine the two
defense witnesses but he refused to do so.
Filed charges against Special Prosecutor for ontempt of Court
and Grave Misconduct and/or Conduct Unbecoming of a
Member of the Bar and as an Officer of the Court.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), citing Section 5, Rule 110 of the
Revised Rule on Crim. Pro. Found JUDGE AYCO to have breached said rule
and recommends him to be reprimanded.
ISSUE:
W/N JUDGE AYCO validly allowed the defense to present its evidence in the absence of
the Special Prosecutor - NO
RULING + RATIO:
SEE DOCTRINE
It is a clear transgression of the RULES which could not be rectified by
subsequently giving the prosecution a chance to cross-examine
If the Accused is entitled to Due process, so is the State.
o JUDGE AYCO’s intention to uphold the right of the accused to a
speedy disposition of the case cannot justify a breach of the RULES.
Special Prosecutor’s failure to inform the court of his inability to attend during
the Aug 13 and 20 hearings or to file an MR for his Orders does not absolve
JUDGE AYCO’s disregard for the rules.
DISPOSITION: Respondent Judge Roberto L. Ayco is hereby ordered to pay a fine
FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) with warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
People v. Piccio
732 SCRA 254 | August 6, 2014
Petitioner: People of the Philippines, Malayan Insurance Company, Inc.
and Helen Dee (private complainants-petitioners)
Respondents: Phillip Piccio, Mia Gatmaytan, Ma. Annabella Santos,
John Joseph Gutierrez, Jocelyn Upano, Jose Dizon, Rolando Pareja,
Wonina Bonifacio, Elvira Cruz, Cornelio Zafra, Vicente Ortuoste,
Victoria Jacinto, Juvenvio Pereche Jr., Ricardo Lorayes, Peter
Suchianco and Trennie Monsod
FACTS:
• August 25, 2005: a group called Parents Enabling Parents Coalition,
Inc. (PEPCI), posted on the website www.pepcoalition.com an article
entitled “Back to the Trenches: A Call to Arms, AY/HELEN Chose the
War Dance with Coalition”.
• October 18, 2005: Jessie John Gimenez, President of the Philippine
Integrated Advertising agency, advertising arm of the Yuchengco
Group of Companies, to which Malayan Insurance Company is a
corporate member – filed a complaint before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Makati City against PEPCI for libel. It was alleged that
the article was highly defamatory and libelous against the
Yuchengco family and the Yuchengco Group of Companies
(particularly Malayan Insurance and Helen Dee).
• The OCP found probable cause to indict 16 trustees, officers and/or
members of PEPCI for 13 counts of libel. It was then raffled to the
RTC of Makati City.
• May 23, 2007: RTC quashed the criminal information and dismissed
the case for lack of jurisdiction saying that the criminal information
failed to allege where the article was printed and first published or
where the offended parties reside.
• February 29, 2008: People of the Philippines, through private
prosecutors and with the conformity of public prosecutor Vermug,
filed a Notice of Appeal. Soon after, petitioners filed the Brief for the
Private Complainants-Appellants.
• Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal on the ground that the
brief filed by petitioners did not carry he conforme of the OSG and
that ordinary appeal was not the appropriate remedy.
• September 15, 2009: CA dismissed the appeal on the ground that
the OSG had not given its conformity to the said appeal.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not petitioners, being mere private complainants, may
appeal an order of the trial court dismissing a criminal case even
without the OSG’s conformity
HELD:
1. NO. The private complainants lacked the legal personality to appeal
the dismissal of the criminal case in question. It is well-settled that
the authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases
before the court and the CA is vested solely on the OSG which is the
law office of the Government whose specific powers and functions
include that of representing the Republic and/or the people before
any court in any action which affects the welfare of the people as the
ends of justice may require.
Jurisprudence also holds that if there is a dismissal of a criminal case
by the trial court or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is only the
OSG that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing
the People. The rationale is rooted in the principle that the party
affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the People and not
the petitioners who are merely complaining witnesses. For this
reason, the People are deemed as the real parties-in-interest in the
criminal case. Consequently, only the OSG can represent them in
criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in the SC.
The private party may file an appeal without the intervention of the
OSG only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned.
Petitioners, therefore, have no personality or legal standing to
interpose an appeal in a criminal proceeding. Since the OSG had
expressly withheld its conformity and endorsement, the CA correctly
dismissed the appeal. However, it must be clarified that the dismissal
is without prejudice to their filing of the appropriate action to preserve
their interests but only with respect to the civil aspect of the libel
case.
DISPOSITION:
The petition is DENIED.
PEOPLE%v.%DELA%CERNA%(October)2002)) •) September%15,%1998:)the)defense)presented)private)complainant)to)
G.R.%No.%1368994905% prove)that)she)voluntarily)executed)an)affidavit)of)desistance.))
Petitioner:% People)of)the)Philippines) o) The) affidavit) of) desistance) was) presented) as) evidence) by) the)
Respondent:) Ernesto)dela)Cerna) defense.))
) o) The)document)stated)that)Irene)has)decided)not)to)pursue)the)
DOCTRINE:% case)and)that)any)testimony)made)by)her)was)against)her)own)
A)survey)of)our)jurisprudence)reveals)that)the)court)attaches)no) volition)
persuasive)value)to)an)affidavit)of)desistance,)especially)when)executed) •) November% 29,% 1998:) the) trial% court) rendered) judgment) finding)
as)an)afterthought.) accusedKappellant)Ernesto)dela)Cerna)guilty%of)six%counts%of%rape%
This)Court)ruled)that)both%the)age)of)the)offended)party)and)her) •) On) appeal,) accusedKappellant) mainly) relies) on) the) affidavit) of)
relationship)with)the)accused)must)be)alleged)in)the)information)as)part)of) desistance) executed) by) private) complainant,) claiming) that) said)
the) constitutional) right) of) the) accused) to) be) informed) of) the) nature) and) affidavit)created)a)reasonable)doubt)as)to)his)guilt)
cause) of) the) accusation) against) him.) Failure) to) specifically) state) these) )
attendant)circumstances)of)minority)and)relationship)in)the)information)will) ISSUE:%
bar)the)imposition)of)the)death)penalty.) Whether)or)not)respondent)Ernesto)dela)Cerna)is)guilty.—YES.)
% )
FACTS:% RULING:%
•) Six% separate% complaints) were) filed) on) May) 16,) 1997) against) Affidavit%of%desistance%
accusedKappellant)charging)him)with)rape)committed)on:)) •) An) affidavit% of% desistance) is) a) sworn) statement,) executed) by) a)
complainant) in) a) criminal) or) administrative) case,) that) he) or) she) is)
January)15,)1989) August)25,)1996)
discontinuing)or)disavowing)the)action)filed)upon)his)or)her)complaint)
December)26,)1993) February)10,)1997)
March)3,)1996) March)5,)1997)
for)whatever)reason)he)or)she)may)cite.))
o) A)survey)of)our)jurisprudence)reveals)that)the)court)attaches)no)
•) The) crime) was) committed) by) means) of) force) and) intimidation) by)
persuasive)value)to)a)desistance,)especially)when)executed)as)
carrying)her)to)a)room)and)forcibly)lie)down)on)bed)and)removed)her)
an)afterthought.)
panty) and) short,) placed) himself) on) top) of) her,) then) have) carnal)
knowledge) •) Plainly,) all) the) affidavit) really) stated) was) that) she) had) decided) to)
withdraw)the)complaints)as)she)had)already)forgiven)her)father)and)
•) The)respondent)is)Irene)dela)Cerna’s)(victim))father)
she)wanted)peace)and)happiness)for)her)family.))
•) Upon)arraignment,)accusedKappellant)pleaded)not%guilty%
o) Rather) than) contradict,) this) affidavit) reinforces) complainant's)
•) Irene) recounted) her) experience) at) the) hands) of) her) father,) which) testimony) that) accusedKappellant) raped) her) on) several)
began)when)she)was)only)seven)(7))years)old)and)continued)until)she) occasions.)
was)fifteen)(15))years)old) )
•) Irene)described)appellant)as)a)mean)person.)She)was)afraid)to)tell) Before%the%effectivity%of%“The%Anti4Rape%Law%of%1997”%
anyone)about)the)rape)as)she)believed)appellant)is)capable)of)killing) •) It)is)worthy)to)note)that)the)rape)incidents)in)this)case)occurred)prior)
her)and)her)siblings) to)the)effectivity)of)RA%8353,%"The%Anti4Rape%Law%of%1997")which)
•) Irene) eventually) revealed) the) rapes) to) her) two) (2)) best) friends) in) took)effect)on)October%22,%1997)and)classified)the)crime)of)rape)as)a)
school)(Cheryl)Quano)and)Bernadette)Comita)) crime)against)persons)
•) Bernadette's) mother) talked) with) Irene) regarding) the) rape) incidents) •) Such)being)the)case,)we)shall)apply)the)old%law%(Art.%344%of%the%RPC))
after)which)the)former)brought)her)to)DSWD)at)the)City)Hall)where) and)treat)the)acts)of)rape)herein)committed)as)private)crimes.)
she)was)interviewed)by)a)social)worker)) o) The)provision)on)pardon)of)Art.)344)of)RPC)only)allows)pardon)
•) Dra.)Aster)Khusravibabadi)of)the)Cebu)City)Medical)Center)examined) prior)to)the)institution)of)criminal)action.))
the) victim) on) March) 21,) 1997) and) found) "old) healed) hymenal) May)16,)1997) Private)complainant)filed)her)complaint)
lacerations)at)5:00)and)6:00)o'clock)positions,)and)the)introitus)admits) October)22,)1997) The)AntiKRape)Law)took)effect)
two)fingers)with)ease) March)25,)1998) Private)complainant)testified)
•) AccusedKappellant)opted)not)to)testify)invoking)his)constitutional)right) July)3,)1998) Affidavit)of)desistance)was)executed)
to)remain)silent)
•) Clearly,) the) pardon) extended) by) the) victim) to) her) father) was) made)
after)the)institution)of)the)criminal)action)
o) Reason:)the)true)aggrieved)party)in)a)criminal)prosecution)is)the)
People) of) the) Philippines) whose) collective) sense) of) morality,)
decency)and)justice)has)been)outraged)
) prosecutor.) However,) in) Municipal) Trial) Courts) or) Municipal) Circuit) Trial) Courts) when) the)
Penalty%
•) Conformably,) it) is) a) wellKestablished) procedure) that) an) appeal) in) a)
criminal) proceeding) throws) the) whole) case) open) for) review) and) it)
becomes) the) duty) of) the) appellate) court) to) correct) an) error) in) the)
appealed)judgment,)whether)this)is)assigned)as)an)error)or)not.)
•) In)the)case)at)bar,)two)of)the)six)instances)of)rape)K)on)January)15,)
1989)and)December)26,)1993)—)occurred)before)the)effectivity)of)RA)
7659) (Death) Penalty) Law)) which) took) effect) only) on) December) 31,)
1993.))
•) As)correctly)held)by)the)trial)court,)the)imposable)penalty)is)reclusion+
perpetua)for)each)of)these)two)crimes)of)rape.)
o) However,)with)respect)to)the)four)other)incidents)of)rape)which)
were)committed)after)the)effectivity)of)RA)7659)and)in)each)of)
which)the)trial)court)imposed)the)extreme)penalty)of)death,)an)
exhaustive)discussion)is)called)for.)
) grandparents,)or)guardian,)unless)she)is)incompetent)or)incapable)of)doing)so.)Where)the)
Allegation%of%age%and%relationship%
•) This) Court) ruled) that) both% the) age) of) the) offended) party) and) her)
relationship)with)the)accused)must)be)alleged)in)the)information)as)
part) of) the) constitutional) right) of) the) accused) to) be) informed) of) the)
nature)and)cause)of)the)accusation)against)him.))
o) Failure) to) specifically) state) these) attendant) circumstances) of)
minority)and)relationship)in)the)information)will)bar)the)imposition)
of)the)death)penalty.)
•) In)the)instant)case,)the)trial)court,)pursuant)to)Section%11%of%RA%7659,)
imposed) the) penalty) of) death) on) accusedKappellant) Ernesto) dela)
Cerna) after) taking) into) account) the) minority) of) Irene) as) well) as) the)
relationship)
o) However,)jurisprudence)requires)that)the)victim's)minority)must%
not%only%be%specifically%alleged%in%the%information%but%must%
likewise% be% established% beyond% reasonable% doubt) during)
trial.)
•) Irene)merely)stated)during)her)direct)examination)that)she)was)born)
on)August)26,)1982.))
o) We)find)Irene's)casual)testimony)as)to)her)age)insufficient.)
)
In) sum,) the) Court) upholds) the) decision) of) the) trial) court) convicting)
accusedKappellant)of)the)crime)of)rape)in)the)latter)four)instances)but)must)
reduce) the) penalty) of) death) to) reclusion+ perpetua) on) account) of) the)
prosecution's)failure)to)satisfactorily)prove)the)qualifying)circumstance)of)
minority)of)the)victim.)
)
RELVANT%PROVISIONS:)Section%5%and%16%of%Rule%110%
Section%5.)Who+must+prosecute+criminal+actions.)—)All)criminal)actions)commenced)by)a)
complaint) or) information) shall) be) prosecuted) under) the) direction) and) control) of) the)
prosecutor)assigned)thereto)or)to)the)case)is)not)available,)the)offended)party,)any)peace)
officer,)or)public)officer)charged)with)the)enforcement)of)the)law)violated)may)prosecute)the)
case.)This)authority)cease)upon)actual)intervention)of)the)prosecutor)or)upon)elevation)of)the)
(This+Section+was+repealed+by+A.M.+No.+02>2>07>SC+effective+May+1,+2002)
case)to)the)Regional)Trial)Court.))))))) )
)
The)crimes)of)adultery)and)concubinage)shall)not)be)prosecuted)except)upon)a)
complaint) filed) by) the) offended) spouse.) The) offended) party) cannot) institute) criminal)
prosecution)without)including)the)guilty)parties,)if)both)alive,)nor,)in)any)case,)if)the)offended)
party)has)consented)to)the)offense)or)pardoned)the)offenders.)
)
The) offenses) of) seduction,) abduction) and) acts) of) lasciviousness) shall) not) be)
prosecuted)except)upon)a)complaint)filed)by)the)offended)party)or)her)parents,)grandparents)
or)guardian,)nor,)in)any)case,)if)the)offender)has)been)expressly)pardoned)by)any)of)them.)If)
the)offended)party)dies)or)becomes)incapacitated)before)she)can)file)the)complaint,)and)she)
has)no)known)parents,)grandparents)or)guardian,)the)State)shall)initiate)the)criminal)action)
in)her)behalf.)
)
The)offended)party,)even)if)a)minor,)has)the)right)to)initiate)the)prosecution)of)the)
offenses) of) seduction,) abduction) and) acts) of) lasciviousness) independently) of) her) parents,)
offended) party,) who) is) a) minor,) fails) to) file) the) complaint,) her) parents,) grandparents,) or)
guardian)may)file)the)same.)The)right)to)file)the)action)granted)to)parents,)grandparents)or)
guardian)shall)be)exclusive)of)all)other)persons)and)shall)be)exercised)successively)in)the)
order)herein)provided,)except)as)stated)in)the)preceding)paragraph.)
No)criminal)action)for)defamation)which)consists)in)the)imputation)of)the)offenses)mentioned)
above)shall)be)brought)except)at)the)instance)of)and)upon)complaint)filed)by)the)offended)
party.)(5a))
)
The)prosecution)for)violation)of)special)laws)shall)be)governed)by)the)provisions)
thereof.)(n))
%
Section%16.)Intervention+of+the+offended+party+in+criminal+action.)—)Where)the)civil)action)for)
recovery)of)civil)liability)is)instituted)in)the)criminal)action)pursuant)to)Rule)111,)the)offended)
party)may)intervene)by)counsel)in)the)prosecution)of)the)offense.)(16a))
)
)
)
People vs. Go
G.R. Number 201644 | 736 SCRA 501 | September 24, 2014 | Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Petition: Certiorari
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Jose C. Go and Aida C. Dela Rosa
Sections 5 & 16, Rule 110, Rules of Court; Who Must Prosecute
DOCTRINE
While the failure to implead an indispensable party is not per se a ground
for the dismissal of an action, considering that said party may still be added
by order of the court, on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any
stage of the action and/or such times as are just, it remains essential – as
it is jurisdictional – that any indispensable party be impleaded in the
proceedings before the court renders judgment. Absence of such
indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and
void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even
as to those present
Rules of Court Provisions
Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal action. - All criminal actions either commenced by
complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public
prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack
of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of
the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to
the approval of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private
prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to end of the trial even in the absence
of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn.
The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended party cannot institute criminal
prosecution without including the guilty parties, if both are alive, nor, in any case, if the
offended party has consented to the offense or pardoned the offenders.
The offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted
upon a complaint filed by the offended party of her parents, grandparents or guardian, nor,
in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by any of them. If the offended
party dies or becomes incapacitated before she can file the complaint, and she has no
known parents, grandparents or guardian, the State shall initiate the criminal action in her
behalf.
The offended party, even if a minor, has the right to initiate the prosecution of the
offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness independently of her parents,
grandparents, or guardian, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so. Where the
offended party, who is a minor, fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents, or
guardian may file the same. The right to file the action granted to parents, grandparents, or
guardian shall be exclusive of all other persons and shall be exercised successively in the
order herein provided, except as stated in the preceding paragraph.
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of any of the offenses
mentioned above shall be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint filed by
the offended party.
The prosecution for violation of special laws shall be governed by the provision thereof.
Sec. 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. – Where the civil action for
recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the
offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.
FACTS
On September 28, 2000, seven informations were filed against various
individuals, including respondents, for allegedly committing estafa by
falsification of commercial documents
o Accused allegedly defrauded Orient Commercial Banking
Corporation of the amount of P159,000,000.00
o Criminal complaint instituted by the Philippine Deposit Insurance
Corporation (PDIC)
After many postponements, accused were arraigned on November 13,
2001
Numerous postponements and cancellations caused by the prosecution
marred the hearings; ultimately, prosecution was not able to complete its
presentation of evidence
o Hearing even reached almost five years
o Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, on December 11, 2007, for
failure to prosecute and for violation of their right to speedy trial
Court Proceedings / Procedural History
o RTC: Ultimately, against the accused
At first, dismissed the case against the accused for violating
their right to speedy trial
When prosecution moved for reconsideration, RTC granted
it in the interest of justice (criminal cases reinstated)
Motion for reconsideration from accused denied
o CA: in favor of accused
A copy of the petition for certiorari was served only on private
complainant and not the People of the Philippines (through
the OSG)
OSG was not even impleaded as party to the case
CA reversed RTC Decision on its September 28, 2011
Decision, saying that right to speedy trial and right against
double jeopardy of accused were violated
No order to implead the People
On reconsideration, through an April 17, 2012 Resolution,
CA denied
o PDIC transmitted copies of the CA Decision to the OSG
OSG filed the petition for certiorari with the SC, imputing
grave abuse of discretion on CA, that the People was neither
impleaded nor served a copy of said petition, thereby
violating its right to due process of law
ISSUE
1. W/N the People, through the OSG, should have been impleaded in the
case – YES
RULING & RATIO
Page 1 of 2
1. The People, through the OSG, should have been impleaded first
a. Court: The certiorari petition before the CA should not have been
acted upon by the CA without the People, as represented by the
OSG, having first been impleaded; this stems from the recognition
that the People is an indispensable party to the proceedings
b. Vda de Manguerra v Risos
i. Respondents failed to implead the People. Because of
this, the petition was defective. As provided in Section 5,
Rule 110, Rules of Court, “all criminal actions are
prosecuted under the direction and control of the public
prosecutor.” Therefore, it behooved petitioners to implead
the People of the Philippines, through the OSG, as
respondent in the CA case to enable the People to
comment on the petition.
c. While the failure to implead an indispensable party is not per se a
ground for the dismissal of an action, considering that said party
may still be added by order of the court, on motion of the party or
on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times
as are just, it remains essential – as it is jurisdictional – that any
indispensable party be impleaded in the proceedings before the
court renders judgment. Absence of such indispensable party
renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want
of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to
those present
d. Lotte Philippines Co, Inc v Dela Cruz
i. An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom
no final determination can be had of an action, and who
shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. The
joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory… without
the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or
proceeding, judgment of a court cannot attain real
finality…
e. Court: The CA proceeded to render judgment (September 28,
2011 Decision and April 17, 2012 Resolution) without
indispensable party (People of the Philippines, through the OSG)
having been impleaded; Decision and Resolution should be set
aside for not impleading an indispensable party to the case

DISPOSITION
Petition granted
o CA September 28, 2011 Decision and April 17, 2012 Resolution set
aside
Case remanded to CA, and CA ordered to implead the People of the
Philippines, through the OSG

Page 2 of 2
People vs. Bayabos
G.R. No. 171222| Feb. 18, 2015 | Sereno, J.
Petition: Review on Certiorari
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: LTSG. Dominador Batabos and the Sandiganbayan
Complaint and Information (sec. 2-4;6-13 of Rule 110 Rules of Court)
^change to relevant Chapter; Civil Code provision
DOCTRINE
• Plain reference to a technical term – in this case, hazing – is insufficient
and incomplete, as it is but a characterization of the acts allegedly
committed and thus a mere conclusion of law.
• The information must include, inter alia, both “the designation of the
offense given by the statute” and “the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense.”
Important Laws
Sec. 6 of Rule 110 of Rules of Court
• The information must include, inter alia, both “the designation of the
offense given by the statute” and “the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense.”
Anti-Hazing Law
FACTS
• Fernando Balidoy (Balidoy) was admitted as a probationary midshipman
at the Philippine Merchant Marine Academy (PMMA).
o In order to reach active status, all new entrants were required to
successfully complete the mandatory “Indoctrination and Orientation
Period.”
• Balidoy died as a result of the said activity.
• After NBI investigation, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Zambales
issued a Resolution finding probable cause to charge the principals to
(Alvarez et al) the crime of hazing.
o They were charged before the RTC of Iba, Zambales.
• The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor also endorsed to the Deputy
Ombudsman for the Military the finding of probable cause to charge a
number of school authorities (Bayabos et al) as accomplices to the crime
of hazing.
• Charges were then filed against these people before the Sandiganbayan,
by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (Accomplices to hazing).
o Bayabos et al filed a Motion to Quash the Information, arguing that
it did not contain all the essential elements of the offense.
o They argued that there was no allegation in the information that the
purported acts had been made a prerequisite for the admission to
the PMMA
o The Special Prosecutor insisted that the Information alleged the
material facts that would sufficiently establish the presence of the
essential ingredients of the crime of accomplice to hazing.
• The Sandiganbayan quashed the information against Bayabos et al,
reasoning that the Information charged no offense, and that the
allegations therein were mere conclusions of law.
• The Office of the Ombudsman, through the Special Prosecutor, filed with
this Court a Petition assailing the Sandiganbayan Resolution.
ISSUES
1. W/N the Information filed against Bayabos et al contains all the material
averments for the prosecution of the crime of accomplice to hazing under
the Anti-Hazing Law. – No.
RULING & RATIO
1. The Motion to Quash submitted by Bayabos et al must be granted, as
the Information does not include all the material facts constituting the
crime of accomplice to hazing.
a. Bayabos et al and Sandiganyan: The information did not contain
all the essential elements of the crime.
2. Supreme Court agreed with the above contention.
3. The indictment merely states that psychological pain and physical
injuries were inflicted on the victim.
a. There is no allegation that the purported acts were employed as
a prerequisite for admission or entry into the organization.
Failure to aver this crucial ingredient would prevent the
successful prosecution of the criminal responsibility of the
accused, either as principal or as accomplice, for the crime of
hazing.
b. Plain reference to a technical term – in this case, hazing – is
insufficient and incomplete, as it is but a characterization of the
acts allegedly committed and thus a mere conclusion of law.
i. Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, expressly
states that the information must include, inter alia, both
“the designation of the offense given by the statute” and
“the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense.”
4. The Special Prosecutor’s belated argument in his Petition before this
Court that the successful completion of the indoctrination and orientation
program was used as a prerequisite for continued admission to the
academy – i.e., attainment of active midshipman status – does not cure
this defect in the Information.
Page 1 of 2
5. Thus, the Information must be quashed, as the ultimate facts it presents
do not constitute the crime of accomplice to hazing.
Additional Ruling of the Court (Not so important but just in case)
• The SC rejects the Special Prosecutor’s claim that the Sandiganbayan
should just have ordered the filing of another information or the
correction of the defect by amendment, instead of dismissing the case
outright.
o Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, provides that if a motion
to quash is based on the ground that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense, the court shall give the prosecution a chance
correct the defect by amendment.
o However, the provision also states that if the prosecution fails to
make the amendment, the motion shall be granted. Here, we point
out that the Special Prosecutor insisted in his Comment on the
Motion to Quash that there was no defect in the Information.
o Neither has he filed a new information after the motion was
sustained, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 117.
RADM Virginio R. Aris, President of PMMA with [Salary Grade (SG)
LTSG. Dominador D. BAYABOS, Commandant of the Cadets;
st
Manny G. Ferrer, 1 Batallion Officer; LTJG. Ronald G. Magsino,
nd
Officer; LTJG. Kruzaldo G. Mabborang, 2 Battalion Officer; LTJG.
Gerry P. Doctor, Batl. Mast.; ENS. Dominador B. Operio, Jr.,
Company Officer; and ENS. Dennis S. Velasco, Mess Officer, all
officers, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
committing the offense in relation to office and while in the
of their duties as such public officers being the school authorities
faculty members did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
consent or have actual knowledge of the hazing perpetrated by the
principal accused, all First Class Midshipmen, against probationary
midshipman FERNANDO BALIDOy, JR. during the school’s
Indoctrination and Orientation; and, fail to take any action to prevent
occurrence of the hazing and the infliction of psychological and
physical injuries against said FERNANDO BALIDOy, JR. thereby
causing the instantaneous death of the latter, to the damage and
prejudice of the heirs of said FERNANDO BALIDOy, JR.

• This does not mean, however, that the Special Prosecutor is now
precluded from filing another information. Section 6, Rule 117,
specifically states that an order sustaining a motion to quash would not
bar another prosecution. That is, of course, unless respondents are able
to prove that the criminal action or liability has been extinguished, or that
double jeopardy has already attached.

DISPOSITION
• EREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 171222 is
hereby DENIED and the petition for certiorari in G.R. No.
174786, DISMISSED. The dismissal of the case in Sandiganbayan
Resolutions dated 27 January 2006 and 3 August 2006 in Criminal Case
No. 28339 are thus AFFIRMED.

NOTES
• The Information against the accused:
nd rd
o That during the period from the 2 of May 2001 up to the 3 of May
2001, inside the campus of the Philippine Merchant Marine
(PMMA), in the Municipality of San Narciso, Province of Zambales,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court
Page 2 of 2
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
G.R. No. 129472 | 455 SCRA 360 | April 12, 2005 | Chico-Nazario, J.
Petition: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals
Petitioners: Marcelo Lasoy and Felix Banisa
Respondents: Hon. Monina A. Zenarosa, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 76,
Quezon City and the People of the Philippines (People, in short)
Rule 110 – Prosecution of Offenses; Complaint and Information
(Sections 2-4; 6-13)
DOCTRINE
• An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the statutory
designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof.
In other words, if the offense is stated in such a way that a person of ordinary
intelligence may immediately know what is meant, and the court can decide the
matter according to law, the inevitable conclusion is that the information is valid.
It is not necessary to follow the language of the statute in the information.
The information will be sufficient if it describes the crime defined by law.
Relevant Provision: Rules of Court
Section 4. Information defined.—An information is an accusation in writing
charging a person with an offense subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the court.
Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information.—A complaint or
information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of
the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting
the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the
commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed.
FACTS
• Overview of the issue: After an information has been filed and the accused
had been arraigned, pleaded guilty and were convicted and after they had
applied for probation, may the information be amended and the accused
arraigned anew on the ground that the information was allegedly
altered/tampered with (difference of “grams” with “kilos”?
• JULY 3, 1996: Information filed by Asst. City Prosecutor Evelyn
Dimaculangan-Querijero accused (petitioners) Marcelo Lasoy and Felix
Banisa were charged as having done the ff. (as in the information):
o ON/ABOUT JULY 2, 1996 in Quezon City
o The above-named accused, conspiring together, illegally sold,
dispensed, delivered, transported/distributed 42.410 grams of dried
marijuana fruiting tops, a prohibited drug.
• The case was raffled to Br. 103, RTC of Quezon City, presided by Judge
Jaime Salazar Jr.
• JULY 16, 1996: On the said date, upon arraignment, both pleaded guilty and
their sentence noted the following:
o RTC found both guilty of violating Republic Act 6425, Section 4.
o Sentence: Jail term of 6 months & 1 day, and the period during which
said accused are under detention is deducted pursuant to RA 5127.
o Evidence included “42.410 grams of dried marijuana tops” which was
confiscated in favor of the government. The property custodian was
ordered to turnover said evidence to the Dangerous Drugs Board for
proper disposition.
o On the same date, both accused applied for probation under
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 968, as amended.
• AUGUST 28, 1996: plaintiff People through Asst. City Prosec. Ma. Aurora
Escasa-Ramos, filed 2 separate motions:
o (1) motion to admit amended Information,
§ in the motion to admit, it alleged:
§ “1. That for some unknown reason both accused herein were
charged of (sic) Violation of Sec. 4, Art. II, R.P. 6425.”
§ While stating the same contents of the information filed previously,
the motion this time included another paragraph thereafter: “When
in truth and in fact the said accused should be charged for
transportation and delivery, with intent to sell and to gain, of
Forty-Five (45) pieces of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing
42.410 kilos from La Trinidad to Metro Manila.”
§ “2. That it is imperative to file an amended information in order to
make it conformable to the evidence on hand.”
o (2) motion to set aside arraignment of the accused and the RTC’s
decision dated July 16, 1996.
• AUGUST 3, 1996: In its order, the RTC resolved both motions, ruling that:
o (1) motion to admit amended information
§ RTC denied this first motion, saying that it “has already decided
this case on the basis that the accused was arrested in
possession of 42.410 grams of marijuana and it is too late at this
stage to amend the information.”
o (2) motion to set aside arraignment of the accused and the RTC’s
decision dated July 16, 1996.
§ RTC granted the motion to set aside both arraignment and RTC’s
decision, reasoning that it appeared from the published resolution
of the Supreme Court (dated Oct. 18, 1995) in the case “Inaki
Gulhoran and Galo Stephen Bobares vs. Hon. FRANCISCO H.
ESCANO, JR.” which was dismissed the SC on August 20, 1996,
“the jurisdiction over drug of small quantity as in the case at bar
should be tried by the Metropolitan Trial Court, although under
the statute of R.A. 7659 which took effect on December 31, 1993
the penalty for possession or use of prohibited or regulated drugs
is from prision [correccional] to reclusion temporal which
indeterminate penalty and under the rule on jurisdiction the court
which has jurisdiction over a criminal case is dependent on the
maximum penalty attached by the statute to the crime.”
• Given this, note that the portion of the amended Information now reads:
“sale a total of 42.410 kilos of dried marijuana fruiting tops.”
o This second information (amended) was assigned to Br. 76, RTC,
Quezon City presided by Judge Monina A. Zenarosa (respondent
herein).
Page 1 of 3
 o Accused then filed a Motion to Quash which was opposed by People in
its Comment/Opposition filed before the RTC.
o Both accused filed before the CA a petition for review which they later
moved to withdraw for Br. 76 of RTC, QC to act judiciously on their
motion to quash. The CA then considered the motion withdrawn.
• FEBRUARY 14, 1997:
o The RTC denied the accused’s motion to quash [SEE FIRST ISSUE]
and scheduled arraignment under the amended information.
o Accused’s Motion for Reconsideration opposed by prosecution was
denied by the RTC in its order dated APRIL 16, 1997.
• Hence, this Instant Petition for Certiorari with prayer for injunction and
temporary restraining order based on the grounds that the RTC
(presided by Resp. Zenarosa) erred in:
o (1) holding that there is no valid information and therefore, the accused
cannot claim the right against double jeopardy. [SEE NOTES]
o (2) failing to recognize that the RTC Br. 103 (presided by Judge
Salazar) had jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUES (issue #1 relevant to topic)
1. W/N the first information is valid – YES, the first information is valid.
2. W/N the RTC, Br. 103 (presided by Judge Salazar), where the
information was first filed and under which the criminal case was tried,
had jurisdiction to try the case – YES, RTC Br. 103 had jurisdiction to try
the case.
RULING & RATIO
1. YES, the first information is valid.
a. Petitioners (accused): insisting on the validity of the information.
b. Respondents: asserted that the accused were arraigned under an
invalid information. Alleging that there being an alteration on the first
information, hence it failed to reflect the true quantity of drugs caught
in possession of the accused, the prosecution insisted that the first
information under which accused were arraigned is invalid.
c. RTC: As recalled, RTC denied the accused’s motion to quash,
noting that the earlier information filed was sufficient in form. It was
discovered however that an alteration was made as to the weight of
the marijuana fruit tops placed at 42.410 grams when the correct
amount should have been in kilos.
i. The RTC said: “This fraudulent alteration necessarily vitiated the integrity of the
proceedings such that despite the plea of guilt made by the accused it would
not bar a subsequent prosecution for the correct offense.”
ii. The RTC reasoned that “Generally speaking to entitle accused to the plea of
former jeopardy, the prior proceedings must have been valid, and the lack of
any fundamental requisite which would render void the judgment would also
make ineffective a plea of jeopardy based on such proceedings. ... They cannot
pretend not to know the exact amount of prohibited stuff for which they were
charged before the information was tampered with. .... Consequently, their plea
to the lesser offense considering the decreased weight in the now altered
information which merited a much lighter penalty was irregularly obtained.
Hence, they cannot be considered as put in jeopardy by the proceedings in
court which was tainted with fraud.”
d. Supreme Court: disagrees with RTC’s findings.
e. SC: First, the request for appropriate inquest proceedings dated 03
July 1996 addressed to the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and
received by Prosecutor Querijero, stated that the accused were
apprehended “for conspiring, … and effecting the transportation and
delivery . . . of forty-five pieces of dried marijuana leaves (already in
bricks) and weighing approximately forty-five kilos.’’
i. In the joint affidavit of the poseur-buyeer and arresting officer, it
stated that what was stated was 45 kilos, but for some
unknown reasons, information only reflected 42.410 grams.
ii. Pursuant to Section 4, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, [SEE
PROVISION ON PAGE 1] an information is “an accusation in
writing charging a person with an offense subscribed by the
1
fiscal and filed with the court.”
1. An information is valid as long as it distinctly states
the statutory designation of the offense and the acts
or omissions constitutive thereof.
2. In other words, if the offense is stated in such a way that
a person of ordinary intelligence may immediately know
what is meant, and the court can decide the matter
according to law, the inevitable conclusion is that the
information is valid. It is not necessary to follow the
language of the statute in the information. The
information will be sufficient if it describes the crime
defined by law.
3. Given these supporting provisions, therefore, the first
information is valid as it sufficiently alleges the manner by
which the crime was committed. The purpose of the law
to inform the accused of the nature of the charge is
reasonably complied with.
iii. Moreover, the first information is valid applying Rule 110,
Section 6 of the Rules of Court [SEE PROVISION ON PAGE 1].
f. SC: Second, the RTC’s point of view that accused cannot claim their
right against double jeopardy because they “participated/acquiesced
to the tampering,” while possible, has no hard evidence supporting
such claim.
i. Assuming arguendo that alteration/tampering by the accused
took place, this does not justify setting aside the decision dated
July 16, 1996. Such tampering may be subject to another
inquiry.
1
SC also cites the SC decision of Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan citing People v. Marquez with
regard to this point (People v. Marquez talked about Section 4 which was still then Section
3 during that time.
Page 2 of 3
 ii. The case of Philippine Rabit Bus Lines v. People, supports this
view. In the said case, the Court affirmed the finality of a
criminal case decision, citing Section 7, Rule 120 of the 2000
2
Rules on Criminal Procedure.
iii. Therefore, the belated move on the part of the prosecution to
have the information amended defies procedural rules, the
decision having attained finality after the accused applied for
probation and the fact that amendment is no longer allowed at
that stage.
iv. Also, this is in line with Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal
3
Procedure.
v. Also, in Sanvicente v. People, the Court said that given the
far-reaching scope of an accused’s right against double
jeopardy, even an appeal based on an alleged misappreciation
of evidence will not lie. The only instance when double jeopardy
will not attach is when the trial court acted with GADALEJ, such
as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present
its case or where the trial was a sham.
g. Respondent’s claims: citing Galman vs. Sandiganbayan, that the
trial was a sham.
i. SC: The Court does not agree that trial was a mock trial in the Galman
case owing to the act of a then authoritarian president who ordered the
therein respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig the trial
and who closely monitored the entire proceedings to assure a
predetermined final outcome of acquittal and total absolution of the
respondents-accused therein of all the charges.
h. Moreover, double jeopardy is prohibited by Article III, Section 21 of
4 nor modified this Section.”
the Constitution.
2
Section 7, Rule 120 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure:
“A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set
aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death
penalty is imposed a judgment [of conviction] becomes final after the lapse of the period
for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or
served, or when the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal, or has applied for
probation.”
3
Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure:
Sec. 14. Amendment.—The information or complaint may be amended, in
substance or form, without leave of court, at any time before the accused pleads; and
thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of form, by leave and at the discretion of the
court, when the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the accused.
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in
charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information
upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in accordance with Rule 119,
Section 11, provided the accused would not be placed thereby in double jeopardy, and
may also require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the trial.
4
Article III, Section 21, mandates that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense.
i. In this case, it bears repeating that the accused had been arraigned
and convicted. In fact, they were already in the stage where they
were applying for probation. It is too late in the day for the
prosecution to ask for the amendment of the information and seek to
try again accused for the same offense without violating their rights
guaranteed under the Constitution.
j. Therefore, the amendment of an information by prosecution’s motion
at the time when accused has been convicted is contrary to
procedural rules and violative of accused’s rights.
2. YES, RTC Br. 103 had jurisdiction to try the case.
a. A later resolution superseding the resolution cited by the RTC, Admin. Order
No. 51-96 dated 03 May 1996, vests the RTC with jurisdiction to try the first
case.
b. The resolution designated RTC branches to exclusively try and decide cases
of, among others, violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, committed within
their territorial jurisdictions.
c. Subsequently, A.M. No. 96-8-282-RTC dated 27 August 1996, further
clarified jurisdiction of RTCs to exclusively try and decide cases of violation
of the Dangerous Drugs Act, regardless of the quantity of the drugs involved.
d. This issue is further settled by the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Hilario
G. Davide, Jr., in People v. Velasco: “… [A]ll drug-related cases, regardless
of the quantity involved and the penalty imposable pursuant to R.A. No.
7659, as applied/interpreted in People vs. Simon (G.R. No. 93028, 29 July
1994; 234 SCRA 555), and of the provisions of R.A. No. 7691 expanding the
jurisdiction of the MeTCs and MCTCs, still fall within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of RTCs, in view of Section 39 of R.A. No. 6425 (the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972). R.A. No. 7659 and R.A. No. 7691 have neither amended
DISPOSITION
• WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is Granted. The Orders
dated 14 February 1997 and 16 April 1997 issued by the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 76, are set aside. Criminal Case No. Q-96-67572 is ordered
Dismissed. Accused Marcelo Lasoy and Felix Banisa are forthwith ordered
released from detention unless there may be valid reasons for their further
detention. SO ORDERED.
NOTES
• On double jeopardy: To invoke the defense of double jeopardy, the
following requisites must be present:
o (1) a valid complaint or information;
o (2) the court has jurisdiction to try the case;
o (3) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and
o (4) he has been convicted or acquitted or the case against him
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Page 3 of 3
People vs. Puig
G.R. No. 173654 - 765 | 563 SCRA 564 | August 28, 2008 | Chico-Nazario, J.
Petition: Rule 45 certiorari
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Teresita Puig and Romeo Porras
Complaint and information (Rule 110, Secs. 2-4, 6-13)
DOCTRINE
1. The Information need not use exact language of the statute in alleging
the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The test
is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the
charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly.
FACTS
• Overview of Petitioners and Respondents
o Petitioner – People of the Philippines
! Private complainant – Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc. (RBPI)
o Respondent – Puig: cashier of RBPI; Porras: Bookkeeper of RBPI
• Facts here (chronological, clear)
o Nov. 7 2005, Iloilo Provincial Prosecutors Office filed before Branch
1
68, RTC in Dumangas, Iloilo 112 cases of Qualified Theft against
respondents.
o The allegations in the informations filed were uniform and pro
forma, except for the amounts, date and time of commission.
st
! INFORMATION: That on or about the 1 day of August
2002, in the Municipality of Pototan, Province of Iloilo,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, above-named [respondents], conspiring,
confederating, and helping one another, with grave abuse
of confidence, being the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the
Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc., Pototan, Iloilo, without the
knowledge and/or consent of the management of the Bank
and with intent of gain, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the
sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (Php15,000.00),
Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the
said bank in the aforesaid amount.
1
Art. 310, RPC - The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by
two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if
committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the
property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts
taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or if
property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.
o The RTC did not find existence of probable cause that would have
necessitated the issuance of a warrant of arrest based on ff.
grounds:
! The element of taking without the consent of the owners
was missing on the ground that it was depositors-clients,
and not bank (which filed complaint), who are owners of the
money allegedly taken by respondents and hence are real
parties-in-interest; and
! Informations are bereft of phrase alleging dependence,
guardianship or vigilance between respondents and
offended party that would have created a high degree
of confidence between them which the respondents
could have abused.
o RTC added that allowing the 112 cases for Q. Theft would be
violative of respondents’ rights under Sec. 14(2), Art. III of the
Constitution stating which states that in all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and
cause of accusation against him. RTC dismissed the cases on
January 30, 2006 following Sec. 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules
of Crim. Pro.
o Petitioner moved for reconsideration on Apr. 17, 2006 and was
denied by the RTC on June 9, 2006.
PROVISIONS
See footnotes– Secs. 6 and 9, Rule 110
ISSUES
1. W/N The 112 Informations for Q. Theft sufficiently allege the element of
taking without consent of the owner, and the qualifying circumstance of
grave abuse of confidence – YES, Informations sufficiently allege.
RULING & RATIO
The dismissal by the RTC of the criminal cases was allegedly due to
insufficiency of the Informations and, therefore, because of this defect, there
is no basis for the existence of probable cause, which will justify the issuance
of the warrant of arrest. Petitioner assails the dismissal contending that the
Informations for Qualified Theft sufficiently state facts which constitute (a) the
qualifying circumstance of grave abuse of confidence; and (b) the element
of taking, with intent to gain and without the consent of the owner, which is
the Bank. The RTC Judge based his conclusion that there was no probable
cause simply on the insufficiency of the allegations in the Informations
concerning the facts constitutive of the elements of the offense charged.
Page 1 of 2
Court on Sufficiency of Informations: respondents abused..” and without employing word
1. Petition has merit; 112 Informations pass test of sufficicency. owner in lieu of Bank were considered sufficient to
2
a. Sec, 6, Rule 110 of the RoC requires that the information must validate the allegations.
state the acts or omissions complained of as constitutive of the f. In summary, the Bank acquires ownership of the money
offense. deposited by its clients; and the employees of the Bank, who are
b. On the manner of how the Information should be worded, Sec. 9, entrusted with the possession of money of the Bank due to the
3
Rule 110 of RoC serves guidance. confidence reposed in them, occupy positions of confidence. The
c. The Information need not use exact language of the statute Informations, therefore, sufficiently allege all the essential
in alleging the acts or omissions complained of as elements constituting the crime of Qualified Theft.
constituting the offense. The test is whether it enables a
person of common understanding to know the charge
against him, and the court to render judgment properly. DISPOSITION
d. It is beyond doubt that tellers, Cashiers, Bookkeepers and other • Petition GRANTED.
employees of a Bank who come into possession of the monies
deposited therein enjoy the confidence reposed in them by their
employer. Banks, on the other hand, where monies are NOTES
deposited, are considered the owners thereof. This is very clear Roque v People – accused Asucion Roque was described in the
not only from the express provisions of the law, but from information as teller; information included phrase “ with grave abuse of
established jurisprudence. The relationship between banks and confidence and without the knowledge and consent of said
depositors has been held to be that of creditor and debtor. corporation”;
e. The Court has consistently considered the allegations in the
Information that such employees acted with grave abuse of People v Sison – convict as described in information as branch
confidence, to the damage and prejudice of the Bank, without opearation officer;
particularly referring to it as owner of the money deposits, as
sufficient to make out a case of Qualified Theft. (SEE NOTES for
People v Locson - described nature of possession by the bank.
cited jurisprudence)
Court hed that possession of the defendant as receiving teller of the bank
i. The cited cases alleged merely the positions of the
amounts to possession of the bank itself. Court held that when defendant
respondents. The respective informations id not
with grave abuse of confidence removed money without consent of bank,
necessarily state the phrase being insisted upon by
there was taking as contemplated in crime of Q. Theft.
herein respondents, “of a relation by reason of
dependence, guardianship or vigilanve, between the
respondents and the offended party that has created
a high degree of confidence between the,. Which

2
Sec. 6, Rule 110 – Sufficiency of complaint or information – A complaint or
information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the
offense given by statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of
the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.
When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be
included in the complaint or information.
3
Sec. 9, Rule 110 - Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be
stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in
the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to
know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.

Page 2 of 2
People vs. Ceredon
G.R. No. 167169 | 542 SCRA 550 | January 28, 2008 | Reyes, R. T., J.
Petition: Appeal from a decision of the CA
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Elmer Ceredon y Pagaran
Complaint and Information
DOCTRINE
• The date or time of the commission of the rape need not be alleged with
precision. The material fact or circumstance to be considered is the
occurrence of the rape – not the time of its commission. It is sufficient
that the complaint or information states that the crime has been
committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual
commission.
FACTS
• Elmer Ceredon y Pagaran was indicted for 10 counts of rape, defined
and penalized under Art 266(a) and (b) of the RPC.
• Crimes of rape committed in
o 1995 (5 times; victim was 10 years old)
o 1996 (2 times; victim 11 years old)
o 1998 (2 times; victim 13 years old)
o 2000 (1 time; victim 15 years old)
• Aug 13, 2001 – appealed not guilty to all 10 charges at his arraignment
before the RTC
• September 3, 2000 – changed his plea to guilty on all 10 charges during
the pre trial conference; manifestation granted and he was then re-
arraigned
• Read origs to find out how the rape happened
• September 18, 2000 – AAA (victim) revealed to her sister DDD, friend
Giselle and teacher Teresa that she was raped by appellant, her brother.
Upon hearing AAA’s revelation, Teresa accompanied her to their head
teacher Felix Salvador and together, they went to the brgy captain who
told them to report the matter to the police. This they did.
• September 20, 2000 – policemen were dispatched to bring appellant to
st
the police station. 1 confrontation happened and AAA punched
appellant upon seeing him and said “Hayop ka, baboy, nirape mo ako”
nd
• September 21, 2000 – 2 confrontation with mother, sister DDD, uncle,
appellant’s wife Josephine and AAA’s teachers present
o AAA accused her brother of raping her 10 times, while the brother
only admitted to having raped her 3 times only.
o Josephine (wife) told him to admit so AAA could forgive him. He
then admitted and asked for forgiveness.
o AAA replied that she could no longer forgive him because her heart
had “Already hardened like stone.” And cried.
• Appellant contends that the Information filed against him do not
sufficiently charge the offense committed because the exact dates of
commission are not alleged. Hence, his conviction is not warranted.
• Court Proceedings / Procedural History
o January 8, 2002 -- RTC: convicted appellant on all 10 counts of
rape
o January 28, 2005 – CA: affirmed judgment of trial courts but
modified damages
o Hence, this petition.
ISSUES
1. W/N information failed to sufficiently establish with particularity the dates
of the commission of the offense – No
RULING & RATIO
1. The date or time of the commission of rape need not be alleged with
precision.
a. It is enough for the information or complaint to state that the
crime has been committed at a time as near as possible to the
date of its actual commission.
b. Failure to allege the exact date when the crime happened does
not render the information defective, much less void.
2. An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the elements of the
offense and the constitutive acts or omissions
a. In a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be
considered is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of its
commission.
b. The failure to specify the exact date or time does not ipso fact
make the information defective on its face.
3. The date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of
the said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a
woman through force and intimidation.
a. The precise time when the rape takes place has no substantial
bearing on its commission. As such, the date or time need not be
stated with absolute accuracy.
b. It is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the
crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the
date of its actual commission.
4. Further, it is already too late in the day for appellant to question the
sufficiency of the information.
a. He had all the time to raise this issue during the course of the
trial by filing a bill of particulars in order to be properly informed.
b. But appellant chose to be silent and did not question the
information.
c. As a result, he is deemed to have waived whatever objections he
had and cannot now be heard to seek affirmative relief.
Page 1 of 2
 d. Furthermore, objections as to matters of form in the information
cannot be made for the first time on appeal.
5. Appellant: In order to qualify the case of relationship, information must
mention that the victim is a “relative within the second degree of
consanguinity”
a. Court: There was no effect in the information when they merely
averred that the victim was the youngest sister of appellant.
b. People v Sanchez: if the offender is merely a relation (not a
parent, ascendant, stepparent or guardian, or common law
spouse of the mother of the victim) it must be alleged in the
information that he is a relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the civil degree.
c. What is required by the Rules is that “the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and
concise language and not necessarily in the language used in
the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as
its qualifying and aggravating circumstances for the court to
pronounce judgment.”
6. Appellant: no evidence was presented as to the age of the victim.
a. Court: this is false. It is enough that the victim testified on her
age vis-à-vis the time she was raped by appellant.
b. Presentation of birth certificate is not a sine qua non requirement
to prove her age for the appreciation of minority, either as an
element of the cirime or as a qualifying circumstance.
c. More than that accused, through his plea of guilt, admitted to the
age of victim as alleged in the information against him. Thus, he
cannot claim ignorance.

DISPOSITION
• Judgment affirmed.

Page 2 of 2
People v. Soriano
G.R. No. 178325 | February, 22, 2008 | Carpio, J.
Petition: Appeal of the April 21 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals
affirming the RTC Branch 29 decision
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Carpio Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velaso Jr.,
Nachura, Reyes, Leonardo-De Castro
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 110, Section 13
Part C. Complaint and Information
DOCTRINE
A complaint or information must charge but one offense, except when the law
prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
Relevant Provision
Section 13. Duplicity of the offense. —
A complaint or information must charge but one offense,
except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
FACTS
- AAA is daughter of Dominador Soriano Sr.
- October 2000 – AAA was awakened from her sleep as she felt someone
moving on top of her
- AAA became aware it was Soriano sexually molesting her and tried to
push Soriano away but he was too strong
- AAA tried reaching out to sister BBB who was sleeping nearby but she
was sleeping soundly
- At that time AAA mother was in Manila and Soriano threatened to kill AA
if she would tell mother what happened
- Soriano repeatedly raped AAA until last incident on Dec 11 2001
- AAA testified Soriano impregnated her and she gave birth to a baby boy
- AAA testimony supported by her Aunt CCC testifying that on Feb 7 2002
she observed AAA sick and vomiting
- CCC accompanied AAA to Dr. Cortez for check up and learned AAA was
pregnant
- AAA admitted to CCC and Dr. Cortez that Soriano raped her and she is
father of child
- Dr. Cortez Health Officer in Nueva Vizcaya conducted examination of
nd
AAA and found she was in 2 trimester
- Soriano Denied charges saying Mon-Fri his children sleep at house of
CCC, except one son DDD
- Soriano claimed children only sleep home on weekends when mother is
home and AAA not sleep beside him
- Defense presented EEE (mother) and she presented Affidavit of
Desistance allegedly executed by AAA
- Trial Court found Soriano Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping
daughter and sentenced to Death
- Soriano on appeal questioned ruling of TC on ground there were
inconsistencies in testimony of AAA
o As to whether or not Soriano removed her undergarments prior
sexual act
o That TC disregarded Affidavit of Desistance signed by AAA
- Apr 21 2006 – CA affirmed TC decision and that AAA testimony was
consistent on material points
- CA ruled Affidavit of Desistance cannot exonerate him since AAA
refused to Validate
ISSUES
1. W/N Information invalid due to charging of more than 1 offense - NO
2. W/N Trial Court and CA failed to appreciate Inconsistencies in Statement
of AAA – NO
3. W/N Trial Court failed to consider Affidavit of Desistance of AAA – NO
RULING & RATIO
1. Prosecution established that Soriano had carnal knowledge of AAA on at
least 2 occasions
• In violation of Art 266-A(a) and (c) of RPC amended by RA 8353
• Information charged more than one offense in violation of Sec 13
Rule 110 of RCP
• Court may convict Soriano as many as charged and proved since not
object to Multiple Offenses charged in Information (Sec 3 Rule 120 of
RCP)
• Trial Court and CA merely found Soriano guilty of Multiple Rape
without specifying number of rapes guilty of
• Although irrelevant since Soriano would suffer extreme Penalty of
Death even if only 1 count of rape proven
• However still important since has bearing on Soriano Civil Liability
• Rule – There is no such crime as Multiple Rape
• Soriano is guilty of 2 counts of rape qualified by circumstance that
victim under 18 and offender is parent
• Since qualifying circumstance of Minority and Relationship were
alleged and established
• Then Death Penalty imposed by TC and CA is proper
• However due to RA 9346 (Act Prohibiting Imposition of Death
Penalty) Soriano sentenced for each count of rape to supper penalty
of Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for Parole
Page 1 of 2
2. AAA could not remember whether Soriano pulled down her panties –
insignificant detail
• Rule – Discrepancies of minor detail do not affect credibility of
witness as long as believable as whole
• Rule – Credibility of witnesses is matter best left to Trial Court and
Denied to Appellate Courts
• Rationale – TC best unique position of having observed witnesses
deportment on stand while testifying
3. During Cross Exam: EEE admitted Affidavit of Desistance executed on
condition Soriano would leave Family

DISPOSITION
Wherefore, Decision of RTC Branch 29 is Affirmed with Modification.
Appellant Dominador Soriano, Sr. is found guilty of two counts of
qualified rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count of rape, and to
pay the victim, AAA, P150,000 as civil indemnity, P150,000 as moral
damages, and P50,000 as exemplary damages.

NOTES:
RCP = Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure J
TC = Trial Court
CA = Court of Appeals

Page 2 of 2
Senador vs. People
G.R. No. 201620| March 6, 2013 | Velasco, JR., J.
Petition: Review on Certiorari
Petitioners: Ramoncita O. Senador
Respondents: People of the Philippines v. Cynthia Jaime
Complaint and Information (sec. 2-4;6-13 of Rule 110 Rules of Court)
DOCTRINE
• In offenses against property, if the subject matter of the offense is
generic and not identifiable, such as the money unlawfully taken,
an error in the designation of the offended party is fatal and
would result in the acquittal of the accused. However, if the
subject matter of the offense is specific and identifiable, such as
a warrant, or a check, or in this case, specific jewelry, an error in
the designation of the offended party is immaterial.
Important Laws
Sec. 12 of Rule 110 of Rules of Court
• Name of the offended party. The complaint or information must state the
name and surname of the person against whom or against whose
property the offense was committed, or any appellation or nickname by
which such person has been or is known. If there is no better way of
identifying him, he must be described under a fictitious name.
(a) In offenses against property, if the name of the offended party is
unknown, the property must be described with such particularity as to
properly identify the offense charged.
(b) If the true name of the person against whom or against whose
property the offense was committed is thereafter disclosed or
ascertained, the court must cause such true name to be inserted in the
complaint or information and the record
FACTS
• In an Information, petitioner Ramoncita O. Senador (Senador) was
charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), with the crime of Estafa
under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Rita Jaime (Rita) and her daughter-in-law, Cynthia Jaime (Cynthia), were
engaged in a jewelry business.
• Senador went to see Rita at her house, expressing her interest to see
the pieces of jewelry that the latter was selling.
• Cynthia delivered to Senador several pieces of jewelry worth seven
hundred five thousand six hundred eighty five pesos (PhP 705,685).
o A Trust Receipt Agreement was signed by Cynthia and Senador
with the agreement that:
§ the latter undertook to sell the jewelry thus delivered on
commission basis and, thereafter, to remit the proceeds
of the sale, or return the unsold items to Cynthia within
fifteen (15) days from the delivery.
• Senador failed to turn over the proceeds of the sale or return the unsold
jewelry within the given period., prompting Rita to file the instant criminal
complaint against Senador.
RTC
• Senador argued that the facts alleged in the Information and the facts
proven and established during the trial differ.
o Senador asserted that the person named as the offended part in
the Information is not the same person who made the demand
and filed the complaint, hence her right to be informed would be
violated if the case pushed through.
• RTC still found Senador guilty
COURT OF APPEALS
• Sustained RTC ruling.
* Hence this petition before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
1. W/N an error in the designation in the Information of the offended party
violates, as petitioner argues, the accused’s constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, thus
entitling her to an acquittal. – NO. Petition is without merit.\
RULING & RATIO
1. The variance between the allegations of the information and the
evidence offered by the prosecution does not of itself entitle the
accused to an acquittal, more so if the variance relates to the
designation of the offended party, a mere formal defect, which does
not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused.
a. in the instant case, Senador was charged with estafa, a
crime against property that does not absolutely require as
indispensable the proper designation of the name of the
offended party. Rather, what is absolutely necessary is the
correct identification of the criminal act charged in the
information.
2. Thus, in case of an error in the designation of the offended party in
crimes against property, Rule 110, Sec. 12 of the Rules of Court
mandates the correction of the information, not its dismissal
Page 1 of 2
 3. It is clear from the above provision that in offenses against property, to remit proceeds of the sale of said items or to return any of the
the materiality of the erroneous designation of the offended party items that may have been unsold to said Cynthia Jaime but instead
would depend on whether or not the subject matter of the offense has willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied
was sufficiently described and identified and converted the same to his/her own use and benefit to the
4. The SC concludes that in offenses against property, if the subject damage and prejudice of said Cynthia Jaime in the aforementioned
matter of the offense is generic and not identifiable, such as the amount of P705,685.00
money unlawfully taken, an error in the designation of the
offended party is fatal and would result in the acquittal of the
accused. However, if the subject matter of the offense is
specific and identifiable, such as a warrant, or a check, or in this
case, specific jewelry, an error in the designation of the offended
party is immaterial.
5. In the present case, the subject matter of the offense does not refer
to money or any other generic property. Instead, the information
specified the subject of the offense as "various kinds of jewelry
valued in the total amount of P705,685.00." The charge was
thereafter sufficiently fleshed out and proved by the Trust Receipt
Agreement signed by Senador and presented during trial, which
enumerates these "various kinds of jewelry valued in the total
amount of PhP 705,685.”

Difference with Lahoylahoy case:

• The Lahoylahoy case dealt with MONEY, which is a generic object.
Hence, the information in that case with a defect in relation to the identity
of the offended party is fatal to the prosecution’s cause.

DISPOSITION
• WHEREFORE, the Decision dated May 17, 2011 and Resolution dated
March 30, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in C A-G.R. CJ.C No. 00952,
finding Ramoncita Senador guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of ESTAFA under par. 1 (b), Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, are
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary
damages he reduced to PhP 30,000.

NOTES
• The Information against the accused:
o That on or about the 10th day of September 2000 in the City of
Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, having obtained and received from
oneCynthia Jaime various kinds of jewelry valued in the total
amount of P705,685.00 for the purpose of selling the same on
consignment basis with express obligation to account for and remit
the entire proceeds of the sale if sold or to return the same if unsold
within an agreed period of time and despite repeated demands
therefor, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail
Page 2 of 2
People vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 160619 | 770 SCRA 162 | September 9, 2015 | Jaardeleza, J.
Petition: Petition for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the
Sandiganbayan
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
th
Respondents: Sandiganbayan (4 div), Jessie Castillo, Melencio Arciaga
and Emerenciano Arciaga
Complaint and Information
DOCTRINE
• The true test in ascertaining the validity and sufficiency of an information
is “whether the crime is described in intelligible terms with such
particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the
offense charged.”
• When a motion to quash is filed challenging the validity and sufficiency of
an information, and the defect may be cured by amendment, the courts
must deny the motion to quash and order the prosecution to file an
amended information.
FACTS
• Jessie Castillo was elected mayor of the Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite in
the May 1998 elections.
• September 19, 2000 – an Information was filed against him charging
him with violation of Sec 3(e) of RA 3019, in relation to the alleged illegal
operation of the Villa Esperanza dumpsite located in Molino, Bacoor,
Cavite.
o According to the information, Castillo, while in the performance of
his official functions as Mayor of Bacoor, gave unwarranted benefits
to his co-accused Melencio and Emerenciano Arciaga by allowing
the latter to operate the Villa Esperanza dumpsite without the
requisite Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) and permit
from the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB).
• Previously, an administrative complaint for simple misconduct was filed
against Castillo also in relation to the illegal operation of the dumpsite.
o Office of the Ombudsman found Castillo guilty
o CA set aside the decision and ordered dismissal of the complaint.
§ Castillo did not violate the DENR notice which was issued
way back in 1998 or before his actual assumption of office.
As mayor, he took steps in resolving the municipality’s
aged-long garbage problem.
• August 21, 2001 – Castillo filed with the Sandiganbayan a Motion to
Dismiss or Terminate Proceedings
o Denied by Sandiganbayan
• September 21, 2001 – Castillo filed a Supplemental Motion to Quash the
information on the ground that the same does not charge an offense and
that a public officer may only be held liable for violation of Sec 3(e) of RA
3019 if he caused undue injury to the govt or any private person.
o He argued that the undue injury must not only be mentioned in the
information, its extent must be specified.
o Sandiganbayan Special Division granted
• People appealed, denied by Sandiganbayan.
ISSUES
1. W/N an information alleging the grant of unwarranted benefits and
existence of undue injury must state the precise amount of the alleged
benefit unduly granted as well as specify, identify and prove the alleged
injury to the point of moral certainty – No
RULING & RATIO
1. The purpose of an information is to ensure that an accused is formally
charged of the facts and the acts constituting the offense charged.
a. Where insufficient, an accused in a criminal case can file a
motion to have the information against him quashed and/or
dismissed before he enters his plea
b. Where the information is insufficient and thus cannot be the
basis of any valid conviction, the court must drop the case
immediately and save an accused from the anxiety and
convenience of a useless trial.
c. Courts must look into three matters: (1) what must be alleged in
a valid info (2) what the elements of the crime charged are (3)
whether these elements are sufficiently stated in the information
2. The Information sufficiently alleges the essential elements of a violation
of Sec 3(e) of RA 3019.
a. The information specifically alleged that Castillo is the Mayor of
Bacoor, Cavite, who in such official capacity, with evident bad
faith and manifest partiality, and conspiring with Arciagas,
willfully, unlawfully and criminally gave unwarranted benefits to
the latter, by allowing the illegal operation of the Villa Esperanza
dumpsite to the injury of the residents and students in the area
who had to endure the ill effects of the dumpsite’s operation.
b. For as long as the ultimate facts constituting the offense have
been alleged, an information charging a violation need not state,
to the point of specificity, the exact amount of unwarranted
benefit granted nor specify, quantify or prove, to the point of
moral certainty the undue injury caused.
3. The ultimate facts constituting the offense and not the finer details of why
and how the crime was committed are those only needed to make the
Information sufficient.
a. Allegation of existence of unwarranted benefit and undue injury
under the Information suffices
Page 1 of 2
 i. It was in fact alleged that the unwarranted benefit was
the privilege granted by Castillo to the Arciagas to
operate without need to comply with the applicable rules
and requirements
ii. The undue injury being residents and students made to
endure the ill effects of the illegal operation
4. Application of Llorente ruling misplaced
a. Llorente ruling: undue injury must be specified, quantified and
proven to the point of moral certainty
i. Interpretation of Sandiganbayan: the accused would be
required to face the eevidence as soon as the
Information is filed and even before he pleads.
ii. Court: proof of undue injury must be established by the
prosecution during the trial and not when the information
is filed

DISPOSITION
• Petition granted.

NOTES
Elements of Sec 3(e) od RA 3019
1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,
judicial or official functions;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or

gross inexcusable negligence; and

3. That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the
government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.

Page 2 of 2