41.
People vs Palacio be limited to the presentation of witnesses whose names
Topic: III-Pre arraignment Remedies (D. List of Prosecution
Witnesses)
Doctrine:
The defendant is entitled as a matter of right to be furnished
by the prosecution with a list of the witnesses to be presented
against him during the trial. But the prosecution may call at
the trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or
information.
Facts:
José Badiable alias Cabayo, Epifanio Cornelio, Ernesto
Ponciano, Lee Perfecta Ponciano Lee (Silvestre) and Jimmy
Ponciano Lee were charged with murder for the death of
Jaime Salinel, the first two as principals and the last three as
accessories.
Counsel for the defense asked the Court to order the
prosecution to furnish the defendants with a list of all the
names of the witnesses for the prosecution. Court entered an
order directing the prosecution to furnish the defense with a
list of all the names of its witnesses within 10 days.
Defendants filed a motion inviting the attention of the
Court to the fact that the prosecution had not complied with
its order to furnish them with a list of all the names of the
witnesses for the prosecution and prayed that the prosecution
appear in the information. After hearing, the Court entered an
order granting the defendants' motion.
At the trial, the prosecution called Estelita Niebres,
Soledad Abaño, José Seguerra (or Ceguera) and José Ibarando
(or Juan Ibarondo), whose names do not appear as witnesses
in the information, to take the witness stand and testify.
Counsel for the defense objected to their taking the
witness stand to testify, citing the order of the Court .The
Court disallowed them from taking the witness stand and
giving their testimony.
Issue:
Whether or not witnesses whose names do not appear
as witnesses in the information can give their testimony in
court?
Held:
Yes.
SECTION 1, Rule 112, provides:
The defendant must be arraigned before the court in
which the complaint or information has been filed unless the
cause shall have been transferred elsewhere for trial. The
arraignment must be made by the court or clerk, and shall
consist in reading the complaint or information to the
defendant and delivering to him a copy thereof, including a list
of witnesses, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not
guilty as charged. The prosecution may, however, call at the
trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or
information.
The defendant is entitled as a matter of right to be
furnished by the prosecution with a list of the witnesses to be
presented against him during the trial. But the prosecution
may call at the trial witnesses other than those named in the
complaint or information. Therefore, the prosecution need
not furnish the defendant with a list of all its witnesses. That is
the meaning of the last sentence of the above quoted
provision of the Rule. While the accused in a criminal
prosecution is entitled to know the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, yet it does not mean that he is
entitled to know in advance the names of all the witnesses
for the prosecution.
42. People vs Realon
Topic: III-Pre arraignment Remedies (D. List of Prosecution
Witnesses)
Doctrine:
Last sentence of Sec 1 (A), Rule 116 of the Rules of Court
allows the prosecution to call at the trial witnesses other than
those named in the complaint or information. Thus the
prosecution is not precluded from calling as a witness a person
who was not listed as a witness in the information.
Facts:
A group of 40+ public school teachers were rehearsing
a song number at the grandstand of Burnham Park, Baguio for
the inauguration of the Benguet Division of the Bureau of
Public Schools. In the middle of the song, co-bass singers of
herein accused REALON (a teacher himself) noticed that he
left his place towards the direction of the victim’s seat.
Moments later, they heard a loud gunshot explosion
which caused a commotion not only among the teachers but
on everybody in the surrounding area (nobody among the
teachers actually saw who caused the explosion). Also, they
noticed that their colleague, the victim, Vicente RAMOS, fell
dead to the grandstand floor after said gunshot explosion.
The court found Simplicio REALON and Eutropio guilty
for the crime of Murder against the person of Vicente RAMOS
and imposed the maximum penalty of death to each of the accused.
Accused appealed and alleged that the name of some of the
witnesses was not included in the Information.
Issue:
Whether or not witnesses whose names do not appear
as witnesses in the information can give their testimony in
court?
Held: Yes.
Although the defendant in a criminal case is entitled as
a matter of right to be furnished by the prosecution with a list
of witnesses to be presented against him during the trial, the
last sentence of Sec 1, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court allows
the prosecution to call at the trial witnesses other than those
named in the complaint or information. Thus the prosecution
is not precluded from calling as a witness a person who was
not listed as a witness in the information.
While the accused in a criminal prosecution is entitled
to know the nature and cause of the accusation against him,
yet it does not mean that he is entitled to know in advance the
names of ALL the witnesses for the prosecution. The success
of the prosecution might be endangered if such right be
granted to an accused, for the known witnesses might be
subjected to pressure or coerced not to testify. The time for
the accused to know all the witnesses against him is when
they take the witness stand.
The court held Realon guilty of murder and Soliven as
an accessory in the crime.
43. People vs Navarro
Topic: Motion to Quash- Form and Content (section 2)
Doctrine:
In the consideration of a motion to quash the
information on the ground that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense, prima facie such facts are those
described in the information; but the court may consider
additional facts which the fiscal admits to be true.
Facts:
Defendants Juan Navarro and Anacleto Atienza, Acting
Provincial Governor and Provincial Warden, respectively, both
being public officials to whom the custody and responsibility
of prisoners were entrusted for proper action, without any
lawful or justifiable cause and without legal grounds therefor,
detain Esteban P. Beloncio in the Provincial Jail of Mindoro
which continued for more than fifteen days but less than six
months.
Defendants filed a motion to quash, upon the ground
that the facts charged did not constitute a criminal offense.
Judge, granting the motion to quash, dismissed the two cases.
Fiscal appealed. The Solicitor General argues that "if
the informations must be quashed on the ground 'that the
facts charged do not constitute an offense' elementary logic
dictates that the facts charged 'in the informations' must be
the one examined and analyzed to determine the sufficiency
of the allegations."

Issue: Whether or not the fiscal may consider additional facts
other than what is stated in the information or complaint?
Held:
Yes.
It must be noted that the section of the rule (sec. 3 [a],
Rule 117) permitting a motion to quash on the ground that
"the facts charged do not constitute an offense" omits
reference to the facts detailed "in the information."
Prima facie, the "facts charged" are those described in
the complaint, but they may be amplified or qualified by
others appearing to be additional circumstances, upon
admissions made by the people's representative, which
admissions could anyway be submitted by him as
amendments to the same information.
It would seem to be pure technicality to hold that in
the consideration of the motion the parties and the judge
were precluded from considering facts which the fiscal
admitted to be true, simply because they were not described
in the complaint.
The court see no reason to prohibit the fiscal from
making, in all candor, admissions of undeniable facts, because
the principle can never be sufficiently reiterated that such
official's role is to see that justice is done: not that all accused
are convicted, but that the guilty are justly punished. Less
reason can there be to prohibit the court from considering
those admissions, and deciding accordingly, in the interest of a
speedy administration of justice.
Court ruled that the charge did not constitute an
offense.
44. People vs Alagao
Topic: Motion to Quash- Form and Content (section 2)
Doctrine:
The General rule that in resolving the motion to quash
a criminal complaint or information the facts alleged in the
complaint or information should be taken as they are. The
exceptions to this general rule are those cases where the
Rules of Court expressly permit the investigation of facts
alleged in the motion to quash.
Facts:
The said accused, being members of the Manila Police
Department, were charged with the complex crime of
incriminatory machinations through unlawful arrest. The
allegedly unlawfully arrested complainant, Marcial Apolonio y
Santos, and planted on his person a marked P1.00 bill in order
to impute to him the crime of bribery. The accused filed a
motion to quash said information on the grounds that (1) the
facts charged in the information do not constitute an offense;
and (2) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
offense charged.
The court granted the motion to quash and the case is
hereby dismissed stating that there is no complex crime
involved and the court has no jurisdiction.
The City Fiscal of Manila, filed a motion for
reconsideration of the foregoing order, but on December 19,
1962 the Court of First Instance of Manila denied the motion
for reconsideration. Hence this appeal of the City Fiscal of
Manila to this Court.
Issue: Whether or not the court is correct in granting the
motion to quash?
Held:
NO. the court committed error in granting the motion to
quash.
Motion to Quash Section 2 of Rule 117 Rules Of Court
states,
Motion to quash shall be in writing, signed by the
accused or his counsel and shall distinctly specify its factual
and legal grounds. The court shall consider no ground other
than those stated in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction
over the offense charged.
The General rule that in resolving the motion to quash
a criminal complaint or information the facts alleged in the
complaint or information should be taken as they are. The
exceptions to this general rule are those cases where the
Rules of Court expressly permit the investigation of facts
alleged in the motion to quash.
The grounds, or facts, relied upon in the motion to
quash in the present case, are not included in the exceptions
we have adverted to. We find that the information in the
present case specifically alleges that the charge shows that it
is a complex crime in the sense that the unlawful arrest was
used as a means to commit the crime of incriminatory
machinations. The accused had to detain the complainant
through the unlawful arrest first before they proceeded with
the planting.
The court held that the information in question in the
present case contains allegations properly charging the
commission of the complex crime of incriminatory
machinations thru unlawful arrest, the court also ruled that
the court a quo has jurisdiction to try the accused of the
offense charged in the information and that court committed
error when it ordered the dismissal of the case and granting
the motion to quash.

45. Gamboa vs. Cruz
Topic: Motion to Quash- Form and Content (section 2)
Doctrine:
Failure to quash the complaint or information before
pleading, defendant is deemed to have waived all objections
which are grounds for a motion to quash, except where the
complaint or information does not charge an offense, or the
court is without jurisdiction of the same.
Facts:
Petitioner Gamboa herein was arrested and was
brought to the police station because of vagrancy. The next
day, the petitioner and with other 5 detainees were ask to line
up. The complainant, meanwhile, during the line up pointed to
the petitioner herein as a suspect of robbery. After that, he
was asked to sit in front of the complainant while the latter is
being investigated. An information of robbery has been filed
against the herein petitioner.
Issue:
Whether or not the court is correct in denying the
motion to acquit (motion to quash)?
Held:
Yes.
Here, the petitioner filed a Motion To Acquit only after
the prosecution had presented its evidence and rested its
case. Since the exceptions, above-stated, are not applicable,
petitioner is deemed to have waived objections which are
grounds for a motion to quash.
Besides, the grounds relied upon by petitioner in his
Motion to Acquit are not among the grounds provided in Sec.
2, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court for quashing a complaint or
information. Consequently, the lower court did not err in
denying petitioner’s Motion to Acquit.

During the arraignment, the prosecution offered and

presented its evidence. While on the other hand, the
petitioner, after the prosecution had presented its evidence
and rested its case, file a Motion to Acquit (motion to quash).
The petitioner filed this motion on the ground that the
conduct of the line up, without notice, and in the absence of
his counsel violated his constitutional right to counsel and to
due process.
The court denied the Motion to Acquit.