1. ENRILE AND ENRILE v JUDGE MANALASTAS, ET AL.

FACTS:

The mauling incident involving neighbors end up with filing of criminal case in the MTC for frustrated
homicide and less serious physical injuries. Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the joint
resolution, arguing that the complainants had not presented proof of their having been given medical
attention lasting 10 days or longer, thereby rendering their charges of less serious physical injuries
dismissible; and that the two cases for less serious physical injuries, being necessarily related to the case
of frustrated homicide still pending in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, should not be governed
by the Rules on Summary Procedure. The MTC denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration
because the grounds of the motion had already been discussed and passed upon in the resolution
sought to be reconsidered; and because the cases were governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure,
which prohibited the motion for reconsideration. Thereafter, the petitioners presented a manifestation
with motion to quash and a motion for the deferment of the arraignment. The MTC denied the motion
to quash, and ruled that the cases for less serious physical injuries were covered by the rules on
ordinary procedure; and reiterated the arraignment previously scheduled.

Unsatisfied, the petitioners commenced a special civil action for certiorari assailing the order of the
MTC in the RTC. RTC Judge Manalastas dismissed the petition for certiorari. The petitioners moved for
the reconsideration, but the RTC denied their motion.

The petitioners next went to the CA via a petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify the orders
issued by the RTC, averring grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. They
urged the dismissal of the criminal cases on the same grounds they advanced in the RTC. The CA
dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition for being the wrong remedy.

ISSUE 1: Is it proper to invoke a motion to quash the information filed in the MTC in this case?

HELD 1: NO.

[T]he motion to quash is the mode by which an accused, before entering his plea, challenges the
complaint or information for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects apparent on its face.
Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court enumerates the grounds for the quashal of the complaint or
information, as follows: (a) the facts charged do not constitute an offense; (b) the court trying the case
has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
person of the accused; (d) the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; (e) the
complaint or information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; (f) more than one
offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law; (g) the
criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (h) the complaint or information contains averments
which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and (i) the accused has been previously
convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.

In the context of Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the complaints sufficiently charged the
petitioners with less serious physical injuries. Indeed, the complaints only needed to aver the ultimate
facts constituting the offense, not the details of why and how the illegal acts allegedly amounted to
undue injury or damage, for such matters, being evidentiary, were appropriate for the trial. Hence, the
complaints were not quashable.
ISSUE 2: Is the presentation of medical certificates that will show the number of days rendered for
medication essential during filing of complaint, considering the complaints were filed two (2) months
after the alleged incident?

HELD 2: NO.

[T]he presentation of the medical certificates to prove the duration of the victims’ need for medical
attendance or of their incapacity should take place only at the trial, not before or during the preliminary
investigation. According to Cinco v. Sandiganbayan, the preliminary investigation, which is the occasion
for the submission of the parties’ respective affidavits, counter-affidavits and evidence to buttress their
separate allegations, is merely inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering whether a person
may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the prosecutor to prepare the information. It is not
yet a trial on the merits, for its only purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and
whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. The scope of the
investigation does not approximate that of a trial before the court; hence, what is required is only that
the evidence be sufficient to establish probable cause that the accused committed the crime charged,
not that all reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused be removed.
 2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v EDGARDO ODTUHAN

FACTS: On July 2, 1980, respondent Edgardo Odtuhan married Jasmin Modina. On October 28, 1993,
he also married Eleanor Alagon. He later filed a petition for annulment of his marriage with Modina.
The RTC granted respondent’s petition and declared his first marriage void ab initio for lack of a valid
marriage license. On November 10, 2003, Alagon died. In the meantime, private complainant Evelyn
Alagon learned of respondent’s previous marriage with Modina andthus filed a Complaint-Affidavit
charging respondent with Bigamy. Respondent moved to quash the information on two grounds: (1)
that the facts do not charge the offense of bigamy; and (2) that the criminal action or liability has been
extinguished. The RTC held that the facts constitute the crime of bigamy. There was a valid marriage
between respondent and Modina and without such marriage having been dissolved, respondent
contracted a second marriage with Alagon. It further held that neither can the information be quashed
on the ground that criminal liability has been extinguished, because the declaration of nullity of the first
marriage is not one of the modes of extinguishing criminal liability. Respondent appealed to the CA on
certiorari and it concluded that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying respondent’s motion to
quash the information, considering that the facts alleged in the information do not charge anoffense.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the motion to quash by respondent is proper

2. Whether or not the court’s judgment declaring respondent’s first marriage void ab initio extinguished
respondent’s criminal liability.

Held: 1. No. A motion to quash information is the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a
criminal complaint or information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for
defects which are apparent in the face of the information. In this case however, there is sufficiency of
the allegations in the information to constitute the crime of bigamy. It contained all the elements of the
crime as provided for in Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code: (1) that respondent is legally married to
Modina; (2) that without such marriage having been legally dissolved; (3) that respondent willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously contracted a second marriage with Alagon; and (4) that the second marriage
has all the essential requisites for validity. Respondent’s evidence showing the court’s declaration that
his marriage to Modina is null and void from the beginning should not be considered because matters
of defense cannot be raised in a motion to quash. It is not proper, therefore, to resolve the charges at the
very outset without the benefit of a full blown trial.

2. No. Respondent’s claim that there are more reasons to quash the information against him because he
obtained the declaration of nullity of marriage before the filing of the complaint for bigamy against him
is without merit. Criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the commission of the offense and
from that instant, there is already liability. The time of filing of the criminal complaint or information is
material only for determining prescription. It has been held in a number of cases that a judicial
declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted. Therefore, he
who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes
the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.
The petition on review on ceritorari is granted. The CA’s decision is set aside and the case is remanded
to the RTC.
 3. PEOPLE v ANDRADE

FACTS: Pursuant to the instructions of then Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Dionisio R. Santiago,
on June 30, 2003, a random drug test was conducted in the National Bilibid Prison (NBP) wherein the
urine samples of thirty-eight (38) inmates were collected and subjected to drug testing by the Chief
Medical Technologist and Assistant Medical Technologist of the Alpha Polytechnic Laboratory in
Quezon City, and out of that number, twenty-one (21) urine samples tested positive. Necessarily, the
twenty-one (21) inmates were charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
(RA 9165).

All respondents pleaded "Not Guilty" to the crime charged during their arraignment on June 29,
2006. Thereafter, the case was set for pre-trial and trial on August 11, 2006.

On August 29, 2006, respondents filed a Consolidated Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the
facts alleged in the Information do not constitute a violation of Section 15, RA 9165, contending that
they were never apprehended or arrested for using a dangerous drug or for violating the provisions of
RA 9165, which would warrant drug testing and serve as basis for filing the proper information in court-
1n fact, they were merely called to the maximum Security Conference Hall in the morning of June 30,
2003 and with seventeen (17) other inmates made to undergo drug testing, pursuant to the directive of
then Sr. Usec. Santiago. It was only after they were found positive for dangerous drugs that the
information for Violation of Section 15, RA 9165 was filed against each of them. According to the
respondents, Section 36, Article III, RA 9165 further enumerates the persons subject to mandatory and
random drug tests, who if found positive after such drug test shall be subject to the provisions of
Section 15. National penitentiary inmates or inmates of the Bureau of Corrections are not included in
the enumeration. Thus, even if the accused have been found positive in the mandatory or random drug
test conducted by BUCOR, they cannot be held liable under Section 15. Furthermore, the accused were
also not informed of the results of the screening test, thus depriving them of the right to challenge the
same through a confirmatory drug test within the required fifteen (15)-day period after receipt of the
positive result.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa, before the scheduled hearing date for pre-trial
and trial, issued an Order9 granting respondents' Consolidated Motion to Dismiss.

The CA, in its Decision dated May 29, 2008, affirmed the trial court's Order.

ISSUE: WON the CA erred in dismissing the case against the accused based on lack of probable cause.

HELD: Yes.
The ground relied upon by respondents in their "Motion to Dismiss," which is, that the facts
alleged in the Information do not constitute an offense, is actually one of the grounds provided under a
Motion to Quash in Section 3 (a),14 Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Section 4, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly states that if the ground based
upon is that "the facts charged do not constitute an offense," the prosecution shall be given by the court
an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment.
If the defect in the information is curable by amendment, the motion to quash shall be denied
and the prosecution shall be ordered to file an amended information. Generally, the fact that the
allegations in the information do not constitute an offense, or that the information does not conform
substantially to the prescribed form, are defects curable by amendment. Corollary to this rule, the court
should give the prosecution an opportunity to amend the information.
In the present case, the RTC judge outrightly dismissed the cases without giving the prosecution an
opportunity to amend the defect in the Informations.
The CA, however, still upheld the ruling of the RTC. Thus, the RTC and the CA, by not giving the
State the opportunity to present its evidence in court or to amend the Informations, have effectively
curtailed the State's right to due process.

4. PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS: Jessie B. Castillo (Castillo) was elected mayor of the Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite in the May
1998 elections. On September 19, 2000, an Information was filed against Castillo charging him with
violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019,3 in relation to the alleged illegal operation of
the Villa Esperanza dumpsite located in Molino, Bacoor, Cavite. According to the Information, Castillo,
while in the performance of his official functions as Mayor of Bacoor, gave unwarranted benefits to his
coaccused 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).

An administrative complaint for Simple Misconduct had previously been filed against Castillo also in
relation to the illegal operation of the dumpsite. The Office of the Ombudsman found Castillo guilty of
the administrative charge and imposed the penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day suspension. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman and ordered the
dismissal of the administrative complaint against Castillo. After arraignment and pre-trial, Castillo, on
August 21, 2001, filed with the Sandiganbayan a Motion to Dismiss or Terminate Proceedings.7 He
argued that the case against him had been decriminalized by Section 37 of Republic Act No. 90038 and
invoked the decision of the Court of Appeals absolving him of administrative liability.

On September 21, 2001, Castillo filed a Supplemental Motion to Quash the Information on the ground
that the same does not charge an offense.10He claimed that a public officer may only be held liable for
violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 if he caused undue injury to the government or any private
person. Thus, Castillo argued that the undue injury must not only be mentioned in the Information, its
extent must be specified. Castillo asserted that the claim of undue injury must be "specified, quantified
and proven to the point of moral certainty.

The Sandiganbayan Special Division, in its challenged Resolution dated January 9, 2002, granted
Castillo's Supplemental Motion. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether 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 identify, specify,
and prove the alleged injury to the point of moral certainty.

HELD: No.

The subject Information filed against Castillo, on the other hand, reads to wit:

That in or about 1998, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Bacoor, Province of Cavite,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Jessie B. Castillo, a public officer, being the
incumbent Mayor of Bacoor, Cavite, while in the performance of his official and administrative function, acting in evident
bad faith and manifest partiality, conspiring and confederating with accused Melencio A. Arciaga and Emerenciano A.
Arciaga, caretakers of Villa Esperanza, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefits to
his co-accused Melencio A. Arciaga and Emerenciano A. Arciaga, by allowing the operation of the dump site located at Villa
Esperanza, Molino, Bacoor, Cavite, notwithstanding the fact that no Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) or any
permit has been issued by the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), Department of Environment and Natural
Resources to any person or entity for such purpose., and despite cease and desist orders issued by the DENR, thereby
causing undue injury to the residents and students in the area who had to endure the stench, flies, rats and mosquitoes
emanating from the dumpsite.
We find that the foregoing Information sufficiently alleges the essential elements of a violation of
Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019. 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
the Arciagas, wilfully, unlawfully and criminally gave unwarranted benefits to the latter, by allowing the
illegal operation of the Villa Esperanza dumpsite, to the undue injury ·of the residents and students in
the area who had to endure the ill-effects of the dumpsite's operation.

For as long as the ultimate facts constituting the offense have been alleged, an Information charging a
violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 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. We have consistently and repeatedly held in a number of cases that an Information need
only state the ultimate facts constituting the offense and not the finer details of why and how the crime
was committed. The details required by the Sandiganbayan (such as the specific peso amount actually
received by the Arciagas as a consequence of the illegal operation of the subject dumpsite or the specific
extent of damage caused to the residents and students) are matters of evidence best raised during the
trial; they need not be stated in the Information. For purposes of informing the accused of the crime
charged, the allegation on the existence of unwarranted benefits and undue injury under the
Information suffices.
 5. PEOPLE v ASILAN

PO1 Randy Adovas, member of PNP, while handcuffing a still unknown person, was attacked and
stabbed at the back by the accused Joseph Asilan who also took the police officer’s service gun and fired
shots at him. Both the multiple stab wounds and the gunshots were the cause of death of the police
officer. This event was witnessed by Joselito Binosa, a barker in Teresa, Sta. Mesa, and a student Pol
San Diego, who both identified Asilan as the suspect.

Asilan was tried and the RTC found him guilty of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery by
attacking the police officer from behind, depriving him of a chance to defend himself. Asilan was
however acquitted in the allegations of direct assault as the RTC found no evidence that the police
officer Adovas was effecting an arrest, or if he was indeed in the performance of his duty. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto. Hence, this petition.

The accused claims that the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him was infringed when he was convicted for murder when the qualifying
circumstance of treachery was not alleged in the Information.

Issue: WON the Information for murder filed against the accused was sufficient even though treachery
was not alleged therein.

Held: Yes, the Information was valid.

This Court held that "[u]nder Section 6, the Information is sufficient if it contains the full name of the
accused, the designation of the offense given by the statute, the acts or omissions constituting the
offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date, and the place of the offense."48 The
Information herein complied with these conditions. Contrary to Asilan’s contention, the qualifying
circumstance of "treachery" was specifically alleged in the Information. "The rule is that qualifying
circumstances must be properly pleaded in the Information in order not to violate the accused’s
constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him."49
Asilan never claimed that he was deprived of his right to be fully apprised of the nature of the charges
against him due to the insufficiency of the Information.

This Court completely agrees with the Court of Appeals’ pronouncement that "since treachery was
correctly alleged in the Information and duly established by the prosecution, Asilan’s conviction for the
crime of murder is proper.”

In any case, it is now too late for Asilan to assail the sufficiency of the Information on the ground that
there was failure to specifically allege therein how treachery was carried out. Section 9, Rule 117 of the
Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor.- The failure of the accused to assert any
ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a
motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except
those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule.

Moreover, in People v. Candaza,51 this Court held that "[a]n Information which lacks essential
allegations may still sustain a conviction when the accused fails to object to its sufficiency during the
trial, and the deficiency was cured by competent evidence presented therein."52 In this case, Asilan not
only failed to question the sufficiency of the Information at any time during the pendency of his case
before the RTC, he also allowed the prosecution to present evidence, proving the elements of treachery
in the commission of the offense. Asilan is thus deemed to have waived any objections against the
sufficiency of the Information.
 6. PEOPLE v CASTANAS

FACTS: Appellant was charged with the crime of rape in an Information, the accusatory portion of
which reads as follows:

That on or about the 12th day of JANUARY, 2004, at about 10:30 o'clock in the morning, more or less,
at Brgy. Banlas, Municipality of Maripipi, Biliran Province, Philippoines (sic), and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, actuated by lust and taking advantage of the
innocence of [AAA], a 4-year old minor Day Care Pupil, did then and there brought the latter to the
house of a certain Esok, and thereafter accused wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously laid her down and
he, in turn took off his pants and underwear, laid on top of said minor [AAA] against her, to her damage
and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW with the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and that victim
is a minor child four (4) years of age.

Appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial on the merits ensued.

Appellant's contention that the Information filed against him did not clearly state the elements of the
crime as it did not state the gravamen of the crime of rape, that is, sexual intercourse or sexual assault
through insertion of any instrument or object.

ISSUE: WON the sufficiency of the Information has been waived by the accused.

HELD: Yes.

While generally, an accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearly charged in the
information; this rule is not without exception. The right to assail the sufficiency of the information or
the admission of the evidence may be waived by the accused.25 As held in People v. Torillos:

Appellant contends that the information failed to specify the acts which constituted the crime. It is too late in the
day for him to assail the insufficiency of the allegations in the information. He should have raised this issue
prior to his arraignment by filing a motion to quash. Failing to do so, he is deemed to have waived any objection
on this ground pursuant of Rule 117, Section 9 (formerly Section 8) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Herein, if there was any missing allegation of carnal knowledge, the Court believes the appellant had
been adequately informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him by the initial
complaint filed against him together with the supporting affidavits of the witnesses and the medical
examination of AAA.

Notably, appellant has belatedly first raised this issue on appeal. He failed to raise this before the trial
court. Relevantly, appellant neither interposed objection to the prosecution's presentation of evidence
of carnal knowledge. In fact, he actively participated during trial and was able to present his defense
evidence.

In sum, appellant's guilt of the crime charged was established beyond reasonable doubt.