crim-pro- rule 110.docx

1. Inferior Courts (Sec. 32, BP 129 as amended by RA 7691) Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective respective territorial  jurisdiction; and (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. Criminal Jurisdiction of Inferior Courts 1. violations of city or municipal ordinances committed ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and 2. offenses punishable punishable with imprisonment imprisonment not  not exceeding 6 years irrespective years irrespective of the a. amount of fine b. other imposable accessory or other penalties c. civil liability arising from such offenses offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof 3. offenses involving damage damage to property through criminal negligence negligence US v. Bernardo, Bernardo, 19 Phil 265 (1911) – (1911) – repealed  repealed by Legados case; Inferior courts have no jurisdiction to over crimes that may require sentencing the accused to support the offspring from the crime, even if the period of imprisonment is within the jurisdiction of the inferior court. Legados v. de Guzman, 170 SCRA 357 (1989) MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses where the penalty imposable does not exceed 4 years and 2 months (now 6 years) regardless of other imposable penalties and civil liability arising from such offense. Hence, the inferior courts have  jurisdiction for simple seduction, even if the accused might be required to support the offspring from the crime.

2. Regional Trial Courts Sec. 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent  jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter. RTC criminal jurisdiction – all criminal cases not within t he exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body 3. Sandiganbayan (Sec. 4, PD 1606 as amended by RA 8249) Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. — The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:  A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, other known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense: (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as  Grade '27' and higher , of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including: (a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads; (b) City mayor, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod , city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads; (c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher; (d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank; (e) Officers of t he Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintended or higher; (f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; (g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations.

(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade '27' and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989; (3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; (4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commission, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitut ion; and (5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade '27' and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. B. Other offenses of felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection A of this section in relation to their office. C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. (PCGG cases) In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade '27' or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officer mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, (if penalty is above 6yrs.) metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, (if penalty does not exceed 6yrs.) as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg . 129, as amended. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or order of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided. The Sandiganbayan  shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided , That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court. The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg . 129, as well as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may thereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to a ppeals and petitions for review filed with t he Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.  Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in, the same proceeding (NOTE: reservation of filing a separate civil action is not allowed in cases filed in the Sandiganbayan) by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the filing of the c riminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the f iling of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recognized: Provided, however , That where the civil action had heretofore been filed separately but judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint determination with the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action s hall be deemed abandoned. If you have criminal case, start barangay for conciliation, if more than one year exempted. So go to the fiscal immediately. If maka find probable cause so nay information. Jurisdiction provided by gerneral law BP 129 Not more than six six years-MTC, if the penalty is more tjan six years RTC. No concurrent jurisdictions. Not confusing exempt if summary procedure, walay warrant of arrest, WA is dili mo answer. What are the crimes covered by summary rules? Sandiganbayan eclusive jurisuction in public officesers connected in the performance of their funstions otherwise, ordinary court. Filing of the compliant sa fical-criminal action sa rules of court. Sec 1 says

 An actio the ine files in court. When a charge filed in court so prosecuted ka, pero sa fiscal dapat dili prosecition kay nag investigate pa man lang. Famador contradicts sec 1  Ang naa sa fiscal for PI lang na. 

There are two parts in the investigation



If nay complaint review if dismiss or not. If nay merit hatag sunpoena to submit counter affidavvit.



1st atge unilateral review, if nay m erit subpoena respondent.



Clarificatory investigation, fiscal submit resolution.



Chief prosecutor does not conduct.



Can you file a compliant directly in the MTC? No



If naa nay arrets, fiscal has to conduct inquest. Signed waiver. If dili mo sign file detso sa court esp if wala available foscal.



Art. 125. what is the effect of the filing of the compliant n the fiscal office? It stops the running of the prescriptive period sa cirme



Who made the amendent?SC



Sunstantive right ang prescription



So it is like the court amends RPC and civil code.



It should be the filing of the action dili sa fiscal (famador dissents)



If the special law does not follew RR then follow the former

Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr., 211 SCRA 277 (1992) Doctrine: G R :   All cases, even those governed by Summary Procedure, are now interrupted by filing a complaint with the  prosecutor, or with the inferior courts. Exception: Otherwise provided in special laws, e.g. violation of municipal ordinance under  Act 3326.



Nayy benefit sa sligt offenses, 2 months. Compute from the discovery sa offended party or sa law enforcement agency. Not the day but the time.



Is there only one pleading allowed in the crim pro?



Unsa man na pleading? Information, the written accusation prepared by the fiscal.



Nganung getawahg man na pleading? That is where you narrate the comiision of the elements.



It is the information or the complaint. Omplianant



Private crimes



Rape -pysical assault



This one is lifted sa RPC, art 144.



How is is commenced? And private crimes? Wher do you go first?



Adto kauna sa police, blotter and make a compliant.



Sine dili in falgr



If ante, the police finds probable cause, tan awon parts of the cimr, para naay persona kowledge, so maka arrest na.



Iif dili, adto ka sa fiscal, mo draft ang fiscal if naay affidavit sa police, mo make inquest, inetrviewhon ang police. So if dili mo sign sa to waive PI,



If modetso hire atty.



If private crimes, file a complaint in?



What is a compliant? Affidavit swoen statement



Kay swoen man so mao na imong I file in court?



Unsay buhaton sa fisacl? Mofle sa information, but attached compliant in the information.



Why need pa I attached sa complaint?



Why mo file sa complaint ug information?



The fiscal finds an infomartion kay mao na ilang format, dili affidavit kay taas ka ana.



Ang naa sainfromation naa sa complaint.



Ana si sir under the law wala man ge required ang pag file ug information ang prosecutor for private crimes.



Nganu maghimo man gyud ug information aside sa complaint? ang nahitabo change ang caption information to complaint signed by the offended party.



Why is compaint attched to the information kay fscal obliged to follow the law, kay if walay complaint, court will not acquire  jurisdiction.  Article 144, RPC, which is popularly known as PRIVATE CRIMES: 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.



Complaint is a SWORN statement.



For famador: I change ang heading information to complaint then pa signan sa offended party.



Motion for bill of particular -wala ge state ang facts na makaingon na ang rape by use of force is committed.



That is why the fsical finds information kay ganahan sila na format na short and precuise, and para ma ka comply sila sa RPC, sila ge attached.



So for fammy format sa information signan sa offended party so ma hug na complaint.

What are he isntance na compalint only?

Crimes committed in the bundok no fiscal, so walay mo conduct sa PI. If walay fiscal file complaianant sa court or ang police ba ang mo file. Kay dili man sad mahimo na I realease nimo siya. 

Have you notice defiition of complaint section 3 and section 4.



Nakalimot ang SC sa private crimes.



Second instance na maka file ka complaint?



Or the sc is thiniking about complaint filed in the fiscal.



Ang complaint dili mandated na sa court kay naa sa section na crim cases can be institued by filing complaint sa pros.



Ang naa sa fiscal complant vs respondent.

People v. Beriales;

Keyword:  Hearing without fiscal Doctrine: 

All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. Once a public prosecutor has been entrusted with the investigation of a case and has acted thereon by filing the necessary information in court he is by law in duty bound to take charge thereof until its finally termination, for under the law he assumes full responsibility for his failure or success since he is the one more adequately prepared to pursue it to its termination. While there is nothing in the rule of practice and procedure in criminal cases which denies the right of the f iscal, in the exercise of a sound discretion, to turn over the active conduct of the t rial to a private prosecutor, nevertheless, his duty to direct and control the prosecution of criminal cases requires that he must be present during the proceedings.



People would hire the private counsel to do the prosecution under the administrative law.



What is the job of the fiscal? Find probable cause then prosecute crime.



Private counsel cannot enter unless the fiscal would allow it. So dapat has to tell the court that he isauthorizing atty to handle the prosecution of the case.



Under the presence.



How can you do it na dili na ka mo wait sa fiscal to come in to say n ge authorize ka?



Ask for an authorization to prosecute the case.



Dili simple because, basaha ang rules sa special authorization. Can be done only when walay fiscal to handle the case in the court.



Court cannot start if the fiscal is not around.



Fical dili mo prosecute, so ge recommend dismissal (rape case) can he withdraw ang fiscal?



Yes kay the moment the information is filed in court, the latter will have the discretion. If the judge disgaree, so the curt should communcate with the chief prosecitor para mag send ug otehr prose na mo prosecute te case.



So naay special state prosecutor to handle the rape case.



Since na man special authorization, the SC rules requires na uthorization if wala nay lain fiscal.



Crespo doctrine-one the case is filed the court the latter has the power won to dismmiiss tha case or not

Crespo v. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462 (1987)  After the information is filed in court, the court has discretion whether to grant a Motion to Dismiss even if it is filed by the prosecution. Fammy: if the fiscal recoomends dismissal, dapat I follow na. Question: What if ma quah ang information? ma hug na trial on the merits? Dili kay wala pay arraignment. So before arraignment, no doubl jeopardy. 

Motion to quash if before arraignment (no double jeopardy), if na arraigned na, motion to dismiss the case.



Motion to qush equivalent sa consent, the rule is that if nay consent sa accused, no double jeopardy.



No arraignment, no jeopardy



For fammy, irregular na I allow ang private prosecutor to prosecute.



Presumption of regularity if done by the public officials.



If the ffneded party is aminor, the minor files a complaint, siya ang nay prerogative ven if minor siya.



When would the parents come in? If tha parents is incompetent, incapable (physically incapable) 

Direct land, parents, grandparents, if wala na gyud ang state na.



When the offended party fails, what s the difference sa fail and refuse, former unintentional, refuse, intentional.

If ang minor mo refuse to file kay love niya ang nag seduce? But nahan ang parents na mo file, can the parets file the complaint? NO. 



Pero any prob sa fails kay wala man sya mo file so akong mo fail. So naa ra na sa interpretation.

If ikaw acccused file ka motion to quash the information and compliant filed by the fiscal on the ground of lack of jurosdiction over the casekay not f iled by the offended party as required by the RPC, if parents ang ni file. 



Fail is incapable, refused is different os mao ni aimong argument.



These righst kay exclusive sa offneded party. So parents, then garndparents.

Q: What happens if there was an erroneous naming of the offended party?  A: In the case of PEOPLE vs. UBA 99 Phil 134 FACTS: Vidz, on a certain date, was alleged to have uttered publicly slanderous words against Jessamyn. So Jessamyn is the victim of the slander. Alam niyo during the trial, it turned out that the victim pala was Lyle, not Jessamyn. But everything is the same - the date and place of the commission, the defamatory words - pare-pareho! Only, there was an erroneous designation of the offended party.

ISSUE: Can the court convict Vidz for the crime of slander? HELD: NO. Although the words are the same, the slander against Lyle is a separate offense. Meaning, you are charging a different offense from the crime proven. You cannot convict a person of a crime not properly charged. "A mistake in putting in the information the name of the offended party is a material matter which necessarily affects the identification of the act charged. The case should be dismissed for variance between the allegations of the information and the proof." However, there were exceptions  in the past like where the accused, who is not a doctor, was charged of illegal practice of medicine. The information stated that the offended party is Paul. Pag-trial, hindi pala si Paul. Si Inay pala dapat ang victim. The SC said the accused can be convicted. Why? The crime is illegal practice of medicine regardless of whether the victim is Paul or Inay. (Diel vs. Martinez, 76 Phil. 273) Yan! It is different from the case of Uba. SEC. 14. Amendment or substitution. - A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused. However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or excludes any accused from the complaint or information, can be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court. The court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended party. (n) If it appears at anytime 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 section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall not be placed in double  jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the trial. (14a) In civil procedure, formal amendment  - no problem. It can be allowed at any stage. Substantial amendment , for as long as there is still no responsive pleading, the plaintiff can amend his complaint anytime. Once a responsive pleading is filed, substantial amendment is allowed but with leave of court.

In criminal procedure the rule is: for as long as the accused has not yet entered his plea - wala pang arraignment, the accused has not yet pleaded guilty or not guilty - the information can be amended either in substance or in form. Q: What happens if the accused has already entered  his plea? Can the information still be amended by the prosecution?  A: As to FORM - Yes, as a matter of judicial discretion. Kailangan merong permission.  As to SUBSTANCE - Never! Bawal! 100% prohibited. Q:  How do you determine whether the amendment is formal or substantial? Sometimes madali, sometimes mahirap. Kung wrong spelling lang, talagang formal yan.  A: According to the SC based on certain cases, the following are considered substantial  and therefore cannot be allowed after plea:

1.

if the amendment changes the manner of the commission of the offense; (People vs. Zulueta, 89 Phil. 752)

2.

if it changes the name of the offended party; (People vs. Uba, 99 Phil. 134)

3.

if it changes the date of the commission of the offense; (People vs. Opemia, 98 Phil. 698) Let's say, from the year 2000 to 5 years backwards. Hindi pwede ng maging formal yan.

4.

when the purpose of amendment is to make the information charge an offense when the original information does not charge an offense; (Wong vs. Yatco, 99 Phil. 791) or 

5.

when it changes the fact or ground of responsibility alleged in the original information. (People vs. Labatete, 57 O.G. 6783) Example: from accomplice, gagawin kang principal. The same is not formal.

Q: How do you determine whether the amendment is as to form or substance?  A: An amendment which merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the original information, and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged is an amendment to form that can be made at anytime. (People vs. Montenegro, 159 SCRA 236) Q: The amendment is substantial if the amendment will prejudice the rights of the accused. How do you determine whether the rights of the accused are prejudiced?  A:  The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or information is when a defense under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made, and when any evidence the accused might have, would be inapplicable to the complaint or information as amended. (People vs. Montenegro, 159 SCRA 236) Meaning, evidence which could help you in the first place will no longer help you after the amendment - that is prejudicial. Q: What do you call that?  A: SUBSTITUTION of complaint or information. Q: Now, how do you distinguish substitution of information from amendment  of information?  A: The case of TEEHANKEE JR. vs. MADAYAG 207 SCRA 134

FACTS: This case was about the murder of Maureen Hultman. She was shot but did not die immediately. So the crime charged was frustrated murder. But while the case was pending, Hultman died. Therefore, the fiscal filed a new information for consummated murder. ISSUE: Distinguish amendment of information from s ubstitution of information? [This would be clearer when we reach Rule 112 on Preliminary Investigation] HELD: The first paragraph provides the rules for amendment of the information or complaint, while the second paragraph refers to the substitution of the information or complaint. It may accordingly be posited that both amendment and substitution of the information may be made before or after the defendant pleads, but they differ in the following respects:

1.

 AMENDMENT m ay involve either formal or s ubstantial c hanges, while SUBSTITUTION necessarily involves a substantial change from the original charge;

2.

 AMENDMENT before plea has been entered can be effected without leave of court, but SUBSTITUTION of information must be with leave of c ourt as the original information has to be dismissed;

3.

Where the AMENDMENT is only as to form, there is no need for another preliminary investigation and the retaking of the plea of the accused; in SUBSTITUTION of information, another preliminary investigation is entailed and the accused has to plead anew to the new information; and

4.

 An AMENDED information refers to the same offense charged in the original inf ormation or to an offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the original charge, hence substantial amendments to the information after the plea has been taken cannot be made over the objection of the accused, for if the original information would be withdrawn, the accused could, invoke double jeopardy. On the other hand, SUBSTITUTION

requires or presupposes that the new information involves a different offense which does not include or is not necessarily included in the original charge, hence the accused cannot claim double jeopardy. In amendment , you are not changing the crime. The crime is the same. Therefore, after the accused has pleaded, you cannot change the information anymore. That is why substantial amendments can never be allowed after the plea. If this rule is violated, he will be placed in double jeopardy because you are charging him for the same offense or an offense necessarily included in the original charge. On the other hand, substitution presupposes that the new information or complaint involves a different offense which is not necessarily included in the in the original charge. Therefore, the accused can not claim double jeopardy. How can you invoke double  jeopardy in substitution when the new charge is completely different from the original charge? I remember this was a 1992 decision. During the 1994 Bar exams, this was one of the questions that entered into my mind. Nahulaan ko na lalabas ito eh. (ehem!): distinguish amendment from substitution. Just remember the case of Teehankee Jr. vs. Madayag . I think that question was only 3 points. Alright. when do you file a substituon? When the information does not charge a crime. Kay lahi ang na crime ang na prove during the trial.  Amendement allowed? Murder to homcide, allowed kay all the elements are present, but not homocide to murder. No need to conduct PI. Sa uba walay crime, kay committed sa time na wala man d I didto. So mag substitute gyud ka. When the information does not charge the crime, so court will not dismiss the case, until a new information is substituted. So mag PI. REMEMBER: the greater includes the lesser offense 

If nahuman na mo present evidence (frustarted homicide) nay supervening events namatay, prsent medico legal.



New trial basta substitution. Conduct PI kay it is a new crime.



No double jeopardy even if nay arraignement, if he was arraigned with the wrong crime. Sa double jeopary information shoul be VALID or has jurisdisction over the case.



So the arraignment is invalid, hence, no double jeopardy, sa teehankee naa double jeopardy kay na arraigned na.



Frustarted muredr to murder, so nganung ma doule jeopardy? Same crime, I prove lang ang death. Ge arraign ka sa frustrated ni supersede ang usa ka venet ang crime na ge charge it is gone so no double jeopardy.



Ang double jeopary kay not to be tried and charge with the same offense, dire dili same ofense, walay final judgment.



Arraignment becomes nothing. So I araign balik kay new crime man. Otherwise void.



In the power of the fical ver the prosecution, mtion o dimiss can filed by the fisacl himself, so pa signan ang fiscal, if proivate prosecutor.



Lawyer of the offended party file MtD dapat signan sa fiscal to be honored by the court.



An awa ang form sa information.



Pa drftan ta ug information ni sir. (legal forms)



Melon bank case (solution indebiti) the spouses wre expectong 1k dollars remittance, notfied sa sender.natgaan sa 1m nasayup ang bangko. Ana ang SC ang crime na na commit kay ang estafa.



Why did the SC rule na estafa? Abuse of confidence kay when you received something that is not your, there is constructive trust relationship, you break that trust then it is criminal. (famador contradicts) kay legal obligation lang ang naa. Hence, civil liability.



Getgaan ka kwarta palit cellphone, imo gegasto, theft not estafa.

Sufficiency of Complaint or Information 

If no name but you can identify, use fictitious name “john doe”,” jane doe”



Dapat before arraignment mausob na na sa correct name. It is just for the filing o finformation para ma completo.



Information should Designation of Offense given in the statute? SEC. 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 given by the 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. (6a)



Fiscal ka pero wala nag make ug designation?



Information is still valid because

People v. Cosare; C aption 





The crime of which the defendant stands accused is that described by the facts stated in the information, and not that designated by the fiscal in the preamble thereof It is not necessary, for the protection of the substantial rights of the accused, nor the effective preparation of his defense, that he be informed of the technical name of the crime of which he stands charged. He must look to the facts alleged The rule regarding double applies when the case against the accused is dismissed or is otherwise terminated without his express consent



As lang as the facts are there that would constitute the crime, the cort esaily render judgment on that kay he can identify what crime was committed.



Homicide lang, syaro dili ka kabw na homicide na. No designation not a fatal defect. Fammy says na sa section need man ang designation but SC in jurisprudence provides na na dili necess ary as long as the elements are alleged completely.



If nay missing element, ground for motion to quash.



The acts or omission complained of mao na ni ang lements, dili ang conclusion of facts and law. Violates the right to be informed.



What is remedy if conclusion of fact and law? File a motion for bill of particulars. The allegation of force is so general so you ask the pros how force was employed by the accused.



The name of the offended party, if walay name, how can you prove the case?



Proximate date of the commison and the place-dili necessary na exat basta kay duol lang. Otherwise violation of the right to be informed.



Theft committed 6 years ago

Rocaberte v. People, 193 SCRA 152 (1991)

Keywords: Rocaberte was charged with theft allegedly committed in a period of 7 years (1977-1983). He moves to quash on the ground that the information violated his right to be informed. Doctrine: A variance of several years in the allegations of the complaint is fatally defective and violative of the constitutional right to be informed. However, the remedy is to move for a bill of particulars, not a motion to quash.



Gamay ra deperensya dili maka render sa information invalid unless it is part of the crime.



You do not need to be exact, proximate lang. Example. Infanticide.



Place where the offense where committed, not necessary na detailed. Butangan lang na “City of Cebu” to know territorial  jurisdiction which you call venue.



Kay the court will not know if it has jurisdiction over the case, unless the place is the essential element of the crime. Like trespass to dwelling.



Designation of the offense- it has a sepcial provision section 8, complain or information shall specy the aggravating and ualifying circumstance otherwise dili ka allowed to prove in curt.



Teachery wala ni object if the defense ala no ibject

People vs. Romagosa Keyword: Multiple crimes charged in the information. Defective information.

Doctrine: A plea of guilty admits all the allegations in the information and a waiver of all its defects. Where the information defectively charged more than one offense, a guilty plea results in defendant’s conviction of each of the crime charged. 

But ana si famador na right to be informed cannot be waived. Even if it was proved na nay treachery court should not object even if walay obejction, so dili controlling ang c ase?



Section 9 speaks cause of accusation- elements, ordinary language sould be used by the prosecutor. Ang statute dili dapat I used kay dili kasabot ang accused. In terms na masabot ang peopleof common understanding.



Allegation should be example so that the curt culd pronounc judgement. All the lements mus be there otherwise the court could not render judgment otherwise the information does not charge a crime.

Start to Proseccution of offenses