CRIMINAL

 PROCEDURE  DIGESTS   c. Rape  Attempt:  Appellant  laid  complainant  down  on  the  sofa  then  placed  himself  
on   top   of   her   and   made   pumping   motion   even   with   their   shorts   on.   Appellant  
RULE  110:  COMPLAINT  OR  INFORMATION  
stopped  only  when  he  heard  the  arrival  of  his  wife.  
 
TOPIC:  Sufficiency  of  Complaint  or  Information    
  2.   It   was   only   in   November   1995   that   she   confided   the   sexual   abuses   to   her   mother.  
1A.  People  v.  Dimaano  (AB)    
Promulgated:  September  14,  2005   3.   On   January   3,   1996,   complainant   and   her   mother   went   to   Camp   Crame   where   they  
Ponente:  Per  Curiam:  En  Banc:  Decision   filed   a   complaint.   The   Medico-­‐Legal   Officer   at   the   PNP   Crime   Laboratory   examined  
Petitioner:  Maricar  Dimaano   complainant  and  found  her  to  have  suffered  deep  healed  hymenal  lacerations  and  was  in  
Respondent:  Edgardo  Dimaano   a  non-­‐virgin  state.  
   
RRV:   4.   Appellant   pleaded   not   guilty   to   the   charges.   Thereafter,   trial   on   the   merits   ensued.  
Maricar  Dimaano  charged  her  father  Edgardo  Dimaano  with  two  (2)  counts  of  rape  and    
one  (1)  count  of  attempted  rape.  The  trial  court  ruled  in  favor  of  the  victim  and  found   5.   Appellant   denied   the   accusations   against   him   with   various   allegations.   He   also  
the  testimony  of  complainant  to  be  spontaneous  and  credible.  The  testimony  of  Maricar   maintained  that  the  fact  that  his  daughter  was  in  a  non-­‐virgin  state  did  not  conclusively  
of  her  ignominious  experience  contains  all  the  indicia  of  truth.  Her  credibility  is  beyond   prove   that   he   was   responsible   for   it   because   it   is   also   possible   that   his   daughter   had  
question.   CA   affirmed   RTC   decision.   Appellant   raised   the   following   issues   to   the   SC:   a.   sexual  intercourse  with  another  man  her  age.  
Were  the  evidence  enough  to  overcome  the  presumption  of  innocence  and  b.  WON  the    
affidavit   of   desistance   by   the   private   complainants   should   have   put   to   doubt   the   reasons   6.  The  trial  court  ruled  in  favor  of  the  victim  and  found  the  testimony  of  complainant  to  
behind   the   rape   charges.   The   SC   upheld   the   decision   of   the   lower   court   however   be   spontaneous   and   credible.   She   narrated   the   obscene   details   of   her   harrowing  
appellant  was  acquitted  for  the  crime  of  rape  for  failure  to  allege  in  the  complaint  the   experience   which   no   girl   of   tender   age   would   have   known   unless   she   herself   had  
specific   acts   constitutive   of   attempted   rape.   The   allegation   therein   that   the   appellant   experienced  it.  It  found  the  delay  in  reporting  the  rape  understandable  due  to  the  fear  
'tr[ied]  and  attempt[ed]  to  rape  the  complainant  does  not  satisfy  the  test  of  sufficiency  of   complainant  had  of  her  father  who  had  moral  ascendancy  over  her.  
a  complaint  or  information,  but  is  merely  a  conclusion  of  law  by  the  one  who  drafted  the    
complaint.  This  insufficiency  therefore  prevents  this  Court  from  rendering  a  judgment  of   7.  There  was  an  affidavit  of  resistance  submitted  by  the  complainant  but  RTC  disregarded  
conviction.  The  requirement  of  alleging  the  elements  of  a  crime  in  the  information  is  to   the   Compromise   Agreement   and   the   Salaysay   sa   Pag-­‐uurong   ng   Sumbong   since  
inform  the  accused  of  the  nature  of  the  accusation  against  him  so  as  to  enable  him  to   complainant  was  not  assisted  by  a  lawyer  when  she  signed  the  same.  
suitably  prepare  his  defense.  The  presumption  is  that  the  accused  has  no  independent    
knowledge  of  the  facts  that  constitute  the  offense.   8.  The  Court  of  Appeals  affirmed  with  modifications  the  decision  of  the  trial  court,  thus:  
   
FACTS:   ISSUES:  
1.  On  January  26,  1996,  Maricar  Dimaano,  born  on  August  26,  1983,  charged  her  father,   1.   WON   the   evidence   adduced   by   the   prosecution   has   overcome   the   presumption   of  
Edgardo  Dimaano  with  two  (2)  counts  of  rape  and  one  (1)  count  of  attempted  rape.   innocence  of  the  accused.  
   
a. First   Rape   incident:   September   1993-­‐The   father   Edgardo   inserted   his   penis   into   2.   WON   the   affidavit   of   resistance   should   have   put   to   doubt   the   rape   charges   against   the  
her   daughter's   anus   while   inside   their   house.   She   cried   in   pain   but   kept   to   herself   complainant.  
as  her  father  might  hurt  her,  she  was  10  years  old.    
  HELD:   (I   only   put   the   relevant   doctrine   for   Rule   110:   Sufficiency   of   the   complaint)  
b. Second   Rape   incident:   December   29,   1995-­‐   While   in   the   kitchen   he   fondled   and   1.  The  court  upheld  the  lower  court's  decision.  However,  the  appellant  was  acquitted  for  
kissed   her   breasts   then   inserted   his   penis   in   her   vagina   but   stopped   when   her   the  crime  of  rape  for  failure  to  allege  in  the  complaint  the  specific  acts  constitutive  of  
brother  Edward  came  in,  she  was  12.   attempted  rape.  
 
2.  For  complaint  or  information  to  be  sufficient,  it  must:   indemnity,   P50,000.00   as   moral   damages,   and   P25,000.00   as   exemplary   damages,   and   in  
    a.  state  the  name  of  the  accused;     Criminal   Case   No.   96-­‐150   the   amounts   of   75,000.00   as   civil   indemnity,   P75,000.00   as  
    b.  the  designation  of  the  offense  given  by  the  statute;   moral   damages,   and   P25,000.00   as   exemplary   damages,   is   AFFIRMED.   Appellant   is  
    c.  the  acts  or  omissions  complained  of  as  constituting  the  offense;     however  ACQUITTED  for  the  crime  of  attempted  rape  in  Criminal  Case  No.  96-­‐151  for  
    d.  the  name  of  the  offended  party;   failure  of  the  complaint  to  allege  the  specific  acts  or  omissions  constituting  the  offense.    
    e.  the  approximate  time  of  the  commission  of  the  offense,    
    f.  and  the  place  wherein  the  offense  was  committed.      
   
3.   What   is   controlling   is   not   the   title   of   the   complaint,   nor   the   designation   of   the   offense  
1B.  Sasot  v.  People  (DU)  
charged   or   the   particular   law   or   part   thereof   allegedly   violated,   these   being   mere   MELBAROSE  R.  SASOT  AND  ALLANDALE  R.  SASOT,  petitioners,  
conclusions   of   law   made   by   the   prosecutor,   but   the   description   of   the   crime   charged    vs.  
and  the  particular  facts  therein  recited.      PEOPLE  OF  THE  PHILIPPINES,  THE  HONORABLE  COURT  OF  OF  APPEALS,  and  REBECCA  G.  
  SALVADOR,  Presiding  Judge,  RTC,  Branch  1,  Manila,  respondents.  
4.   The   acts   or   omissions   complained   of   must   be   alleged   in   such   form   as   is  sufficient   to   G.R.  No.  143193.    June  29,  2005    
enable   a   person   of   common   understanding   to   know   what   offense   is   intended   to   be   AUSTRIA-­‐MARTINEZ,  J.    
charged,   and   enable   the   court   to   pronounce   proper   judgment.   No   information   for   a   Second  division  
crime   will   be   sufficient   if   it   does   not   accurately   and   clearly   allege   the   elements   of   the  
Summary:  
crime  charged.  Every  element  of  the  offense  must  be  stated  in  the  information.  
NBA   Properties   Inc.   (NBA),   filed   a   complaint   for   unfair   competition   under   Art  
 
189,   RPC.   Complaint   was   notarized   by   a   Notary   public   of   the   State   of   New   York.   NBA  
5.   What   facts   and   circumstances   are   necessary   to   be   included   therein   must   be   alleges   that   petitioners   were   counterfeiting   their   trademarks   and   logos.   After  
determined   by   reference   to   the   definitions   and   essentials   of   the   specified   crimes.   The   investigation   by   NBI,   Prosecutor   Gutierrez   filed   an   information   against   petitioner   for  
requirement   of   alleging   the   elements   of   a   crime   in   the   information   is   to   inform   the   violation  of  Art  189,  RPC.  Petitioner  filed  for  a  motion  to  quash  citing  that  the  complaint  
accused   of   the   nature   of   the   accusation   against   him   so   as   to   enable   him   to   suitably   was   not   duly   sworn   by   the   complainant   (a   defect   in   the   complaint),   and   that   the   latter  
prepare   his   defense.   The   presumption   is   that   the   accused   has   no   independent   had   not   capacity   to   sue,   among   others.   RTC   denied   the   motion.   Petitioner   filed   for  
knowledge  of  the  facts  that  constitute  the  offense.   certiorari  in  the  CA,  but  CA  denied.    
  SC  affirmed  CA  that  certiorari  is  not  the  proper  remedy  to  assail  the  denial  of  
6.Notably,  the  above-­‐cited  complaint  upon  which  the  appellant  was  arraigned  does  not   the  motion  to  quash.  Petitioner  should  have  just  continued  with  the  case  and  raise  the  
allege   specific   acts   or   omission   constituting   the   elements   of   the   crime   of   rape.   Neither   defenses  mentioned  in  the  motion  to  quash.  SC  also  said  Motion  to  Quash  was  properly  
denied   as   the   1985   rules   of   court   (RoC)   did   not   provide   that   an   information   can   be  
does  it  constitute  sufficient  allegation  of  elements  for  crimes  other  than  rape,  i.e.,  Acts  of  
quashed   on   the   grounds   of   defect   in   the   complaint.   The   complaint   was   also   in  
Lasciviousness.   The   allegation   therein   that   the   appellant   'tr[ied]   and   attempt[ed]   to  
accordance   with   section   3   rule   112   (1985   RoC).   Capacity   to   sue   of   complainant   is  
rape   the   complainant   does   not   satisfy   the   test   of   sufficiency   of   a   complaint   or   immaterial,  since  a  criminal  offense  is  an  act  against  the  state,  it  is  the  state  who  stands  
information,  but  is  merely  a  conclusion  of  law  by  the  one  who  drafted  the  complaint.   as  the  injured  party.  
This   insufficiency   therefore   prevents   this   Court   from   rendering   a   judgment   of   conviction;    
otherwise  we  would  be  violating  the  right  of  the  appellant  to  be  informed  of  the  nature  
of  the  accusation  against  him.   FACTS:  
   NBA   Properties   Inc   owned   trademarks   and   Logos   of   NBA   teams   which   were   being  
WHEREFORE  ,  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  CA-­‐G.R.  CR  No.00263  affirming  the   used   by   petitioner   as   logos/designs   for   their   merchandises   without   the  
decision  of  the  Regional  Trial  Court  of  Paraaque  City,  Branch  257,  in  Criminal  Cases  Nos.   authorization  of  the  former.  
 Rick  Welts  (President  of  NBA  Properties,  Inc),  through  a  notarized  Special  Power  of  
96-­‐125  and  96-­‐150,  finding  appellant  Edgardo  Dimaano  GUILTY  beyond  reasonable  doubt  
Attorney   (SPA),   constituted   the   law   firm   of   Ortega,   Del   Castillo,   Bacorro,   Odulio,  
of   the   crime   of   rape   committed   against   his   own   daughter,   Maricar   Dimaano,   and  
Calma  &  Carbonell,  as  the  company’s  attorney-­‐in-­‐fact  and  agent  to  file  criminal,  civil  
sentencing  him  to  reclusion  perpetua  and  DEATH,  respectively;  and  ordering  him  to  pay   and  administrative  complaints  in  their  behalf.  
the   complainant   in   Criminal   Case   No.   96-­‐125   the   amounts   of   P50,000.00   as   civil  
 The   SPA   was   notarized   by   Nicole   Brown   of   New   York   County,   was   certified   by    procedure  in  such  a  case  is  for  the  accused    
County  Clerk  and  Clerk  of  SC-­‐NY  and  authenticated  by  the  Consulate  General  of  the   o to  enter  a  plea,    
Philippines  in  New  York.   o go  to  trial  without  prejudice  on  his  part  to  present  the  special  defenses  he  had  
 Welts   also   executed   a   Complaint-­‐Affidavit   on   February   12,   1998,   before   Notary   invoked  in  his  motion  to  quash  and,    
Public  Nicole  J.  Brown  of  the  State  of  New  York   o if  after  trial  on  the  merits,  an  adverse  decision  is  rendered,  to  appeal  therefrom  
 July   15,   1998,   Prosecution   Attorney   Aileen   Marie   S.   Gutierrez   recommended   the   in  the  manner  authorized  by  law.  
filing   of   an   Information   against   petitioners   for   violation   of   Article   189   of   the   Revised  
Penal  Code  (unfair  competition)   RE:  Motion  to  Quash  
 INFORMATION:    Petitioner  contend  that    the  complaint  must  be  sworn  to  before  the  prosecutor  
o That  on  or  about  May  9,  1997  and  on  dates  prior  thereto,  in  the  City  of  Manila,    The  record  show  that  the  complaint  was  only  a  faxed  copy    
Philippines,   and   within   the   jurisdiction   of   this   Honorable   Court,   above   named   o Prosecutor   stated   however   that   complainant’s   representative   will   present   the  
accused   ALLANDALE   SASOT   and   MELBAROSE   SASOT   of   Allandale   Sportslines,   authenticated  notarized  original  in  court  
Inc.,   did   then   and   there   willfully,   unlawfully   and   feloniously   manufacture   and   o Prosecutor  manifested  also  that  the  original  copy  is  already  on  hand  
sell   various   garment   products   bearing   the   appearance   of   “NBA”   names,    
symbols  and  trademarks,  inducing  the  public  to  believe  that  the  goods  offered    Section  3,  Rule  117  of  the  1985  Rules  of  Criminal  Procedure  –  grounds  for  quashing  
by   them   are   those   of   “NBA”   to   the   damage   and   prejudice   of   the   NBA   an  information(rules  in  force  at  that  time)  
Properties,  Inc.,  the  trademark  owner  of  the  “NBA”.   a) That  the  facts  charged  do  not  constitute  an  offense;  
 Before  arraignment,  petitioners  filed  a  Motion  to  Quash  the  Information   b) That   the   court   trying   the   case   has   no   jurisdiction   over   the   offense   charged   or  
o they  argued  that  fiscal  should  have  dismissed  because  the  complaint  must  be   the  person  of  the  accused;  
sworn  to  before  the  prosecutor  and  the  copy  on  record  appears  to  be  only  a  fax   c) That  the  officer  who  filed  the  information  had  no  authority  to  do  so;  
transmittal.   d) That  it  does  not  conform  substantially  to  the  prescribed  form;  
o They  also  contend  that  complainant  is  a  foreign  corporation  not  doing  business   e) That  more  than  one  offense  is  charged  except  in  those  cases  in  which  existing  
in  the  Philippines,  and  cannot  be  protected  by  Philippine  patent  laws  since  it  is   laws  prescribe  a  single  punishment  for  various  offenses;  
not  a  registered  patentee   f) That  the  criminal  action  or  liability  has  been  extinguished;  
 RTC  of  Manila  (Branch  1)  denied  petitioner’s  motion  to  quash.   g) That   it   contains   averments   which,   if   true,   would   constitute   a   legal   excuse   or  
 Appealed  to  CA  for  a  special  civil  action  for  certiorari     justification;  and  
o CA  dismissed  petition   h) That   the   accused   has   been   previously   convicted   or   in   jeopardy   of   being  
o the  petition  is  not  the  proper  remedy  in  assailing  a  denial  of  a  motion  to  quash,   convicted,  or  acquitted  of  the  offense  charged.  
and  that  the  grounds  raised  therein  should  be  raised  during  the  trial  of  the  case  
 Nowhere   in   the   foregoing   provision   is   there   any   mention   of   the   defect   in   the  
on  the  merits.  
complaint  filed  before  the  fiscal  and  the  complainant’s  capacity  to  sue  as  grounds  
o Motion  for  reconsideration  was  also  denied  
for  a  motion  to  quash.  
ISSUE:    
W/N  CA  and  RTC  erred  in  its  decision  to  deny  petitioner’s  motion  to  quash.    Section   3,   Rule   112   of   the   1985   Rules   of   Criminal   Procedure,   a   complaint   is  
  substantially  sufficient  if    
Held:   NO:   WHERFORE,   the   petition   is   DENIED   for   lack   of   merit.     Let   the   records   of   this   o it  states  the  known  address  of  the  respondent,    
case   be   REMANDED   to   the   Regional   Trial   Court   of   Manila   (Branch   24)   where   Criminal   o it  is  accompanied  by  complainant’s  affidavit  and  his  witnesses  and  supporting  
Case   No.   98-­‐166147   is   presently   assigned,   for   further   proceedings   with   reasonable   documents,  and    
dispatch.   o the   affidavits   are   sworn   to   before   any   fiscal,   state   prosecutor   or   government  
  official  authorized  to  administer  oath,    
o or  in   their   absence   or   unavailability,   a   notary   public   who   must   certify   that   he  
RATIO:   personally   examined   the   affiants   and   that   he   is   satisfied   that   they   voluntarily  
executed  and  understood  their  affidavits.    
RE:  special  action  for  certiorari    Section  3,  rule  112  requirements  have  been  duly  satisfied  by  the  complaint  filed  
 a  special  civil  action  for  certiorari  is  not  the  proper  remedy  to  assail  the  denial  of  a  
motion  to  quash  an  information  
 o Complaint-­‐Affidavit   contains   an   acknowledgement   by   Notary   Public   Nicole   to  admit  amended  Information  replacing  grams  with  kilos,  and  second,  to  set  aside  the  
Brown  of  the  State  of  New  York  that  the  same  has  been  subscribed  and  sworn   arraignment  of  the  accused,  as  well  as  the  decision  of  the  trial  court  on  the  ground  that  
to  before  her  on  February  12,  1998   the  RTC  did  not  have  jurisdiction  for  it  belonged  to  the  MTC.  The  trial  court  denied  the  
o duly  authenticated  by  the  Philippine  Consulate   first   motion   but   granted   the   second   and   thus,   the   second   information   was   assigned   to  
  Branch   76   of   RTC   of   QC,   which   denied   accused’s   motion   to   quash   and   scheduled   the  
 It   must   be   noted   that   even   the   absence   of   an   oath   in   the   complaint   does   not   arraignment   under   the   amended   information.   The   accused   argued   that   trial   under   the  
necessarily  render  it  invalid.   amended  information  is  a  violation  of  their  right  against  double  jeopardy.  
o Want  of  oath  is  a  mere  defect  of  form,  which  does  not  affect  the  substantial     The  Supreme  Court  held  that  under  Sec.  4  of  Rule  110,  the  first  information  is  
rights  of  the  defendant  on  the  merits.   valid  inasmuch  as  it  sufficiently  alleges  the  manner  by  which  the  crime  was  committed.  
 The   information,   with   other   supporting   documents,   was   valid   on   its   face   and   not   Also,   under   Sec.   6   of   Rule   110,   the   first   information   shows   on   its   face   that   it   is   valid.  
showing  of  grave  abuse  of  discretion  by  the  prosecutor   Ultimately,   the   accused   had   been   arraigned,   convicted,   and   were   already   in   the   stage  
o Being  so  trial  court  should  respect  the  determination  of  the  prosecutor  to  file   where   they   were   applying   for   probation.   There   is,   therefore,   no   question   that   the  
the  information   amendment   of   an   information   by   motion   of   the   prosecution   and   at   the   time   when   the  
accused  had  already  been  convicted  is  contrary  to  procedural  rules  and  violative  of  the  
Capacity  to  Sue:   rights   of   the   accused.   On   the   question   of   jurisdiction,   the   court   held   that   the   RTC   had  
 The  crime  of  unfair  competition  (Art  189,  RPC)  is  a  public  crime   jurisdiction   to   try   the   case   due   to   Sec.   39   of   the   Dangerous   Drugs   Act,   which   vests  
o Essentially  an  act  against  the  state   jurisdiction   to   the   RTC   regardless   of   the   quantity   involved   and   the   penalty   imposable.  
o It  is  the  state  that  principally  stand  as  the  injured  party   Therefore,  the  accused  were  ordered  to  be  released.  
o Complainant’s  capacity  to  sue,  as  such,  becomes  immaterial    
 La  Chemise  Lacoste,  S.A.  v  Fernandez   Facts:    
o Court  have  the  same  ruling   1. In   an   information   filed   by   Assistant   City   Prosecutor   Evelyn   Dimaculangan-­‐
o After   preliminary   investigation   and   prosecution   starts,   the   information   would   Querijero   dated   July   3,   1996,   accused   Marcelo   Lasoy   and   Felix   Banisa   were  
become  People  of  the  Philippines  (and  not  petitioner’s  name)  vs  (defendant)     charged  as  follows:  
nd
 Petitioner  now  becomes  only  an  aggrieved  party     “That   on   or   about   the   2   day   of   July,   1996,   in   Quezon   City,  
 This  is  because  criminal  offense  is  an  act  against  the  state     Philippines,   the   above-­‐named   accused,   conspiring   together,  
o Petitioner’s   capacity   to   sue   would   become   of   not   much   significance   in   the   man   confederating   with   and   mutually   helping   each   other,   not   having   been  
case     authorized   by   law   to   sell,   dispense,   deliver,   transport,   or   distribute  
  any   prohibited   drug,   did   then   and   there,   wilfully,   unlawfully   sell   or  
RE:  NBA  not  being  entitled  to  protection  by  Philippine  Laws   offer   for   sale   a   total   of   42.410   grams   of   dried   marijuana   fruiting   tops,  
 These  are  matters  of  defense  that  are  better  ventilated  and  resolved  during  trial  on   a  prohibited  drug,  in  violation  of  said  law.”  
the  merits  of  the  case.   2. Upon  arraignment,  both  accused  pleaded  guilty  and  were  sentenced  on  July  16,  
  1996  –  they  were  sentenced  to  suffer  a  jail  term  of  6  months  and  1  day.  On  the  
same  date,  both  accused  applied  for  probation.  
1C.  Lasoy  v.  Zenarosa  (AD)  
3. On   August   28,   1996,   plaintiff   People   of   the   Philippines,   thru   Assistant   City  
  Prosecutor   Ma.   Aurora   Escasa-­‐Ramos,   filed   two   separate   motions,   first,   to  
Date:  April  12,  2005   admit   amended   information,   and   second,   to   set   aside   the   arraignment   of   the  
Ponente:  Chico-­‐Nazario,  J.   accused,  as  well  as  the  decision  of  the  trial  court.  
Petitioners:  Marcelo  Lasoy  and  Felix  Banisa   a. That   for   some   unknown   reason   both   accused   herein   were   charged   of  
Respondent:   Hon.   Monina   A.   Zenarosa,   Presiding   Judge,   RTC,   Br.   76,   Quezon   City,   and   Violation  of  Sec.  4,  Art.  II,  RP  6425…  when  in  truth  and  in  fact  the  said  
The  People  of  the  Philippines   accused   should   be   charged   for   transportation   and   delivery   with  
  intent   to   sell   and   to   gain,   45   pieces   of   dried   marijuana   fruiting   tops  
Emergency  Recit:   weighing  42.410  KILOS  (not  grams).  
  Marcelo  Lasoy  and  Felix  Banisa  were  charged  under  an  Information  for  selling   i. Trial   court,   in   its   Order   held   that   the   motion   to   admit  
or  offering  to  sell  a  total  of  42.410  grams  of  marijuana  in  the  RTC  of  QC.  They  pleaded   amended   information   is   hereby   denied,   as   this   court   has  
guilty   and   were   sentenced   to   a   jail   term   of   6   months   and   1   day   and   they   applied   for   already   decided   this   case   on   the   basis   that   the   accused   was  
probation.  Subsequently,  the  Assistant  City  Prosecutor  filed  two  separate  motions,  first,  
 arrested  in  possession  of  42.410  grams  of  marijuana  and  it   If  it  appears  at  any  time  before  judgment  that  a  mistake  has  
is  too  late  at  this  stage  to  amend  the  information.   been  made  in  charging  the  proper  offense,  the  court  shall  dismiss  the  
b. Another   Order   was   issued   resolving   the   motion   to   set   aside   the   original   complaint   or   information   upon   filing   of   a   new   one   charging  
arraignment  of  the  accused  as  well  as  the  decision  filed  by  the  Public   the   proper   offense   in   accordance   with   Rule   119,   Section   11,   provided  
Prosecutor   is   granted,   it   appearing   from   the   published   resolution   of   the   accused   would   not   be   placed   thereby   in   double   jeopardy,   and  
the   Supreme   Court   in   Inaki   Gulhoran   and   Galo   Stephen   Bobares   v.   may   also   require   the   witnesses   to   give   bail   for   their   appearance   at  
Hon.  Francisco  Escano,  Jr.  that  jurisdiction  over  drug  of  small  quantity   the  trial.  
as  in  the  case  at  bar  should  be  tried  by  the  MTC.   5. In   this   case,   it   bears   repeating   that   the   accused   had   been   arraigned   and  
4. The   second   information   (which   just   changed   the   kilos   to   grams)   was   assigned   convicted.   In   fact,   they   were   already   in   the   stage   where   they   were   applying   for  
to   Branch   75   of   the   RTC   of   QC   presided   by   Zenarosa.   In   its   now   assailed   probation.   It   is   too   late   in   the   day   for   the   prosecution   to   ask   for   the  
resolution,  the  trial  court  denied  accused’s  motion  to  quash,  and  scheduled  the   amendment   of   the   information   and   seek   to   try   again   accused   for   the   same  
arraignment  of  the  accused  under  the  amended  information   offense  without  violating  their  rights  guaranteed  under  the  Constitution.  
5. Hence,  the  instant  Petition  for  Certiorari    
  Issue   2:   WoN   the   RTC   where   the   first   information   was   filed   had   jurisdiction   to   try   the  
Issue  1:  WoN  the  first  information  is  valid  –  if  yes,  there  will  be  double  jeopardy   case.  
Held:  Yes,  it  is  valid.   Held:  Yes,  it  did.  
1. Under   Sec.   4,   Rule   110:   An   information   is   an   accusation   in   writing   charging   a   1. All   drug-­‐related   cases,   regardless   of   the   quantity   involved   and   the   penalty  
person  with  an  offense  subscribed  by  the  fiscal  and  filed  with  the  court   imposable  still  fall  within  the  exclusive  original  jurisdiction  of  the  RTC,  in  view  
a. If   the   offense   is   stated   in   such   a   way   that   a   person   of   ordinary   of  Sec.  39  of  RA  6425  (Dangerous  Drugs  Act  of  1972).  
intelligence   may   immediately   know   what   is   meant,   and   the   court   can    
decide  the  matter  according  to  law,  the  inevitable  conclusion  is  that   WHEREFORE,  premises  considered,  the  instant  petition  is  GRANTED.  The  Orders  dated  14  
the  information  is  valid.     February   1997   and   16   April   1997   issued   by   the   Regional   Trial   Court   of   Quezon   City,  
b. The   first   information   is   valid   inasmuch   as   it   sufficiently   alleges   the   Branch   76,   are   set   aside.   Criminal   Case   No.   Q-­‐96-­‐67572   is   ordered   Dismissed.   Accused  
manner  by  which  the  crime  was  committed.  The  purpose  of  the  law,   Marcelo   Lasoy   and   Felix   Banisa   are   fortwith   orderd   released   from   detention   unless   there  
that   is,   to   apprise   the   accused   of   the   nature   of   the   charge   against   may  be  valid  reasons  for  their  further  detention.  
them,  is  reasonably  complied  with.    
2. Also,  applying  Sec.  6  of  Rule  110,  the  first  information  shows  on  its  face  that  it   SO  ORDERED.    
is  valid.    
a. Sec.   6.   Sufficiency   of   complaint   of   information   –   A   complaint   or    
information   is   sufficient   if   it   states   the   name   of   the   accused;   the   TOPIC:  Substitution  of  Information  
designation   of   the   offense   by   the   statute;   the   acts   or   omissions    
complained  of  as  constituting  the  offense;  the  name  of  the  offended   2.  Saludga  v.  Sandiganbayan  (JAG)  
party;   the   approximate   time   of   the   commission   of   the   offense,   and    
the  place  wherein  the  offense  was  committed   QUINTIN   B.   SALUDAGA   and   SPO2   FIEL   E.   GENIO,   petitioners,   vs.   THE   HONORABLE  
3. Indeed,   the   belated   move   on   the   part   of   the   prosecution   to   have   the   SANDIGANBAYAN  and  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  PHILIPPINES,  respondents  
information   amended   defies   procedural   rules,   the   decision   having   attained    
finality   after   the   accused   applied   for   probation   and   the   fact   that   amendment   is   Petitioners  –     Saludaga;  Mayor  of  Municipality  of  Lavezares,  Northern  Samar  
no  longer  allowed  at  that  stage.       SPO2  Genio;  PNP  Member  of  Lavezares  
4. Sec.  14  of  Rule  110  is  emphatic:    
a. Sec.   14.   Amendment   –   The   information   or   complaint   may   be   RESHIT:   The   office   of   the   Ombudsman-­‐visayas   filed   an   information   against   Quintin   B.  
amended,   in   substance   or   form,   without   leave   of   court,   at   any   time   Saludaga   and   SPO2   Fiel   E.   Gieno   for   violating   Sec.3(e)   of   the   anti-­‐graft   and   corrupt  
before   the   accused   pleads;   and   thereafter   and   during   the   trial   as   to   practices  act.    They  were  accused  of  entering  into  a  Pakyaw  Contract  for  the  construction  
all  matter  of  form,  by  leave  and  at  the  discretion  of  the  court,  when   of  2  barangay  day-­‐care  centers  without  conducting  a  competitive  public  bidding.  The  first  
the  same  can  be  done  without  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  the  accused.   information   assailed   that   the   actions   were   done   to   the   damage   and   prejudice   of   the  
government.   The   Sandiganbayan   granted   the   motion   to   quash   because   they   did   not  
allege   and   prove   the   actual   damages   caused.   The   Ombudsman   re-­‐filed   the   case   and    
submitted   a   second   information   which   now   states   that   the   accused   gave   unwarranted   New   Information:   The   undersigned   Prosecutor   of   the   Office   of   the   Special  
benefit  or  advantage  to  Olimpio  Legua  a  non-­‐accredited  contractor.  The  petitioners  filed   Prosecutor/Office   of   the   Ombudsman,   hereby   accuses,   MAYOR   QUINTIN   B.   SALUDAGA  
a   motion   that   there   should   be   a   new   preliminary   investigation   since   the   prosecutors   and   SPO2   FIEL   E.   GENIO,   for   the   violation   of   Section   3(e)   of   Republic   Act   3019,   as  
submitted   a   new   information   or   at   least   had   significant   amendments.   Sandiganbayan   amended,   otherwise   known   as   the   Anti-­‐Graft   and   Corrupt   Practices   Act,   committed   as  
denied   their   petition.   SC   upheld   the   decision   of   the   Sandiganbayan.   There   was   no   follows:That   in   or   about   the   months   of   November   and   December,   1997   at   the  
significant  amendment  to  warrant  another  preliminary  investigation  because  they  were   Municipality   of   Lavezares,   Province   of   Northern   Samar,   Philippines,   and   within   the  
charged  with  the  same  offense,  only  the  mode  of  commission  was  modified.  The  accused   jurisdiction   of   this   Honorable   Court,   accused   QUINTIN   B.   SALUDAGA,   a   high   ranking  
also   claimed   that   there   should   be   a   preliminary   investigation   because   there   was   newly   public   official   being   then   the   Mayor   of   Lavezares,   Northern   Samar,   and   committing   the  
discovered  evidence.  The  court  struck  this  down  as  the  evidence  they  were  referring  to   crime   herein   charged   while   in   the   discharge   of   his   official   administrative   function,  
was  already  examined  in  the  previous  preliminary  investigation.     conspiring  and  conniving  with  accused  SPO2  FIEL  B.  GENIO,  a  member  of  Lavezares  Police  
  Force   (PNP)   and   with   the   late   OLIMPIO   LEGUA,   a   private   individual,   with   deliberate  
Mendoza,  J.   intent,   did   then   and   there   willfully,   unlawfully   and   criminally  give   unwarranted   benefit  
Factual  Antecedents:     or   advantage   to   the   late   Olimpio   Legua,   a   non-­‐license   contractor   and   non-­‐accredited  
• An  Information  was  filed  on  September  13,  2000  was  filed  against  Saludaga  and   NGO,   through   evident   bad   faith   and   manifest   partiality   by   then   and   there   entering   into   a  
Genio   for   violation   of   Section   3(e)   of   RA   3019   (the   anti-­‐graft   and   corrupt   Pakyaw   Contract   with   the   latter   for   the   Construction   of   Barangay   Day   Care   Centers   for  
practices  act)     barangays   Mac-­‐Arthur   and   Urdaneta,   Lavezares,   Northern   Samar,   in   the   amount   of  
FIRST  INFORMATION:  (Sorry  had  to  put  it  here  pero  substitution  of  information  ang  topic  eh)   FORTY  EIGHT  THOUSAND  FIVE  HUNDRED  PESOS  (P48,500.00)  each  or  a  total  of  NINETY  
The   undersigned   Graft   Investigation   Officer   of   the   Office   of   the   Ombudsman-­‐Visayas,   SEVEN   THOUSAND   PESOS   (P97,000.00)   Philippine   Currency,   without   the   benefit   of   a  
accuses  QUINTIN  B.  SALUDAGA  and  SPO2  FIEL  E.  GENIO,  for  VIOLATION  OF  SECTION  3(e)   competitive  public  bidding  to  the  prejudice  of  the  Government  and  public  interest.  
OF   REPUBLIC   ACT   NO.   3019,   AS   AMENDED   (THE   ANTI-­‐GRAFT   AND   CORRUPT   PRACTICES    
ACT),  committed  as  follows:   • Petitioners   filed   a   motion   that   they   should   be   afforded   a   NEW   preliminary  
That   in   or   about   the   months   of   November   and   December,   1997,   at   the   Municipality   of   investigation   since   the   prosecution   substituted   a   new   information   or   at   least  
Lavezares,   Province   of   Northern   Samar,   Philippines,   and   within   the   jurisdiction   of   this   significantly  amended  the  previous  one.  Plus,  they  claimed  that  since  there  was  
Honorable  Court,  above-­‐named  accused,  public  officials,  being  the  Municipal  Mayor  and   newly  discovered  evidence  there  was  a  need  to  re  examine  a  filing  of  the  case.    
PNP  Member  of  Lavezares,  Northern  Samar  in  such  capacity  and  committing  the  offense   • Sandiganbayan   denied   the   motion   for   preliminary   investigation   thus   the  
in  relation  to  office,  conniving,  confederating  and  mutually  helping  with  one  another,  and   present  case  of  certiorari  and  mandamus.  
with  the  late  Limpio  Legua,  a  private  individual,  with  deliberate  intent,  with  evident  bad    
faith  and  manifest  partiality,  did  then  and  there  willfully,  unlawfully  and  feloniously  enter   Issue/s:  
into   a   Pakyaw   Contract   for   the   Construction   of   Barangay   Day   Care   Centers   for   1. WoN  the  Sandiganbayan  committed  grave  abuse  of  discretion  amounting  to  lack  or  
Barangays   Mac-­‐arthur   and   Urdaneta,   Lavezares,   Northern  Samar,   each   in   the   amount   excess  of  jurisdiction  when  it  refused  to  order  a  preliminary  investigation  when  the  
of  FORTY-­‐EIGHT  THOUSAND  FIVE  HUNDRED  PESOS  (P48,500.00),  Philippine  Currency,  or  a   second  information  was  submitted.  NO.  
total   amount   of   NINETY-­‐SEVEN   THOUSAND   PESOS   (P97,000.00),   Philippine   Currency,   2. WoN  the  Sandiganbayan  committed  GADALEJ  when  it  refused  to  order  a  preliminary  
without   conducting   a   competitive   public   bidding,   thus   depriving   the   government   the   investigation  since  the  second  information  contained  substantial  amendments.  NO.  
chance  to  obtain  the  best,  if  not,  the  most  reasonable  price,  and  thereby  awarding  said   3. Won  the  Sandiganbayan  committed  GADALEJ  when  it  refused  to  order  a  preliminary  
contracts  to  Olimpio  Legua,  a  non-­‐license  contractor  and  non-­‐accredited  NGO,  in  violation   investigation   although   the   newly   discovered   evidence   mandates   re-­‐examination   of  
of  Sec.  356  of  Republic  Act  No.  7160  (The  Local  Government  Code)  and  COA  Circular  No.   the  finding.    
91-­‐368,  to  the  damage  and  prejudice  of  the  government.    
   
• Sandiganbayan  granted  petitioners’  motion  to  quash  first  information  because   Held:    
it  did  not  allege  and  prove  the  actual  damages  caused  to  the  government  which   Issue  1  and  2:  (Issue/s  1  and  2  are  similar  and  was  summarized  as:  WoN  the  2  ways  of  
was  an  essential  element  of  the  crime  charged.     violating  section  3(e)  of  RA  3019  namely:  a)  causing  undue  injury  to  any  party,  including  
• Ombudsman   directed   Office   of   the   Special   Prosecutor   (OSP)   to   amend   the   the   government;   b)   by   giving   any   private   party   any   unwarranted   benefit,   advantage   or  
information  and  re-­‐file  with  the  Sandiganbayan   preference  constitute  two  distinct  and  separate  offenses)  
• OSP  re-­‐filed  the  information    
Section   3.   Corrupt   practices   of   public   officers.-­‐   In   addition   to   acts   or   omissions   of   public   Issue  3:  (no  antecedent  facts  for  this  issue)  
officers  already  penalized  by  existing  law,  the  following  shall  constitute  corrupt  practices   Under   Section   2,   Rule   121   of   the   Rules   of   Court;   Requisites   for   newly  
of  any  public  officer  and  are  hereby  declared  to  be  0unlawful:   discovered  evidence:    
x  x  x   a) The  evidence  was  discovered  after  trial  (in  this  case  after  investigation)  
(e)   Causing   any   undue   injury   to   any   party,   including   the   Government,   or   giving   any   b) Such   evidence   could   not   have   been   discovered   and   produced   at   the   trial  
private  party  any  unwarranted  benefits,  advantage  or  preference  in  the  discharge  of  his   with  reasonable  diligence  
official,  administrative  or  judicial  functions  through  manifest  partiality,  evident  bad  faith   c) That   it   is   material,   not   merely   cumulative,   corroborative   or   impeaching,  
or   gross   inexcusable   negligence.   This   provision   shall   apply   to   officers   and   employees   and  is  of  such  weight  that,  if  admitted,  will  probably  change  the  judgment.  
charged  with  the  grant  of  licenses  or  permits  or  other  concessions.    
  o Pornelos  affidavit  which  Saludaga  claimed  as  newly  discovered  was  already  in  
The  essential  elements  of  the  offense  are  as  follows:   existence   prior   to   the   re-­‐filing   of   the   case.   In   fact,   it   was   one   of   the   documents  
1.   The   accused   must   be   a   public   officer   discharging   administrative,   judicial   or   official   considered  during  the  preliminary  investigation.    
functions;    
2.   He   must   have   acted   with   manifest   partiality,   evident   bad   faith   or   inexcusable   Additional   Note:   In   line   with   the   appellants   motion   for   certiorari:   Without   good   and  
negligence;  and   compelling   reason,   The   court   cannot   interfere   with   the   exercise   of   the   Ombudsman   to  
3.   That   his   action   caused   any   undue   injury   to   any   party,   including   the   government,   or   investigate  and  prosecute.  <-­‐Case  Law  
giving   any   private   party   unwarranted   benefits,   advantage   or   preference   in   the    
discharge  of  his  functions.  
   
• Each   mode   does   not   constitute   distinct   offenses,   but   rather,   that   an  accused   may   TOPIC:  Amended  Information  
be  charged  under  either  mode  or  under  both.      
• There   was   no   substitution   of   information,   the   first   and   second   information   3.  Bonifacio  v.  RTC  of  Makati  (JG)  
charged  the  SAME  offense,  only  the  mode  of  commission  was  modified.     May  5,  2010  
• They  cannot  invoke  the  ruling  in  Villaflor  v.  Vivar  that  they  were  deprived  of  due   J.  Carpio-­‐Morales  
process   because   they   were   given   a   full   blown   preliminary   investigation   where    
they  both  actively  participated.     Petitioners:  Winona  M.  Bonifacio,  Jocelyn  Upano,  Vicente  Oruoste,    Jovencio  Pereche,  Sr.  
• The  giving  undue  injury  and  conferring  unwarranted  benefits  are  NOT  two  distinct   Respondents:  Regional  Trial  Court  of  Makati,  Branch  149,  and  Jessie  John  Gimenez  
violations,   they   are   both   founded   on   the   same   transaction   and   the   evidentiary    
requirements  for  both  parties  remain  the  same.     RECIT-­‐READY  VERSION:  
• People   v.   Lacson   (instances   where   a   new   preliminary   investigation   is   required   Upon  a  complaint  by  Jessie  John  Gimenez,  13  Informations  for  libel  were  filed  with  the  
even  if  the  same  information  is  refiled)   Makati   RTC   against   officers,   trustees,   and   a   member   of   the   Parents   Enabling   Parents  
o Case  where  the  original  witnesses  of  the  prosecution  or  some  of  them  may:   Coalition,  Inc  (PEPCI)  and  the  administrator  of  www.pepcoalition.com.  The  Informations  
 Have  recanted  their  testimonies;   alleged   that   the   accused   maliciously   published   (in   a   forum   for   planholders   of   Pacific  
 May  have  died;   Plans,  Inc.)  defamatory  articles  against  the  Yuchengco  Family  (owner  of  Pacific  Plans)  and  
 No  longer  available   Malayan  Insurance.  The  RTC  allowed  the  prosecution  to  amend  the  Information  to  show  
 AND  new  witnesses  for  the  State  have  emerged   that   the   website   was   “accessible   in   Makati   City”   and   the   defamatory   article   “was   first  
o Aside   from   the   accused,   other   persons   are   charged   under   a   new   criminal   published  and  accessed  by  the  private  complainant  in  Makati  City.”  The  Supreme  Court  
complaint  for  the  same  offense  or  necessarily  included  therein   held  that  the  Amended  Information  was  insufficient  to  vest  jurisdiction  in  Makati  and  the  
o If  under  a  new  criminal  complaint,  the  original  charge  has  been  upgraded   RTC   gravely   abused   its   discretion   in   admitting   such.   Also,   since   the   case   involves   pure  
o Under   new   criminal   complaint,   criminal   liability   of   the   accused   is   upgraded   question  of  law  involving  jurisdiction  in  criminal  complaints  for  libel,  the  petitioners  did  
from  accessory  to  principal   not  violate  the  rule  on  hierarchy  of  courts  by  filing  the  petition  directly  with  the  Supreme  
o (NO  such  circumstance  was  in  this  case)   Court.    
   
   
   
FACTS:   • After   the   RTC   admitted   the   Amended   Information,   several   of   the   accused  
• On   behalf   of   the   Yuchengco   Family   (particularly   former   Ambassador   Alfonso   (petitioners)   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   and   prohibition   with   the   Supreme   Court  
Yuchengco   and   Helen   Y.   Dee   and   of   the   Malayan   Insurance   Co.,   Inc.),   Jessie   John   faulting  the  RTC.  
Gimenez  filed  a  criminal  complaint  for  13  counts  of  libel  under  Article  355  in  relation    
to   Article   353   of   the   RPC   against   Philip   Piccio,   Mia   Gatmaytan   and   Ma.   Anabella   ISSUES:  
Relova   Santos,   who   are   officers   of   Parents   Enabling   Parents   Coalition,   Inc.   (PEPCI),   (1) Whether  or  nor  the  petitioners,  in  filing  the  petition  directly  to  the  Supreme  Court,  
John   Joseph   Gutierrez,   Jeselyn   Upano,   Jose   Dizon,   Rolanda   Pareja,   Wonina   violated   the   rule   on   hierarchy   of   courts   and   thus   render   the   petition   dismissible   -­‐  
Bonifacio,   Elvira   Cruz,   Cornelio   Zafra,   Vicente   Ortueste,   Victoria   Gomez   Jacinto,   NO  
Jurencio  Pereche,  Ricardo  Loyares  and  Peter  Suchianco,  who  are  trustees  of  PEPCI,   (2) Whether   or   not   the   RTC   gravely   abused   its   discretion   when   it   admitted   the  
Trennie  Monsod,  a  member  of  PEPCI  (collectively,  the  accused),  and  a  certain  John   Amended  Information  -­‐  YES  
Doe,   the   administrator   of   the   website  www.pepcoalition.com,   before   the   Makati    
City  Prosecutor’s  Office.   RULING:  
• The   website   www.pepcoalition.com   provides   a   forum   for   planholders   of   Pacific   (1)  As  a  rule,  strict  observance  of  the  judicial  hierarchy  of  courts  requires  that  recourse  
Plans,   Inc.   –   owned   by   the   Yuchengco   Group   of   Companies   –   to   seek   redress   for   must  first  be  made  to  the  lower-­‐ranked  court  exercising  concurrent  jurisdiction  with  a  
being   able   to   collect   under   their   pre-­‐need   educational   plans   after   PPI   filed   for   higher   court.   Thus,   petitions   for   the   issuance   of   extraordinary   writs   against   the   RTC  
corporate   rehabilitation   with   prayer   for   suspension   of   payments,   due   to   liquidity   should   be   filed   in   the   Court   of   First   Appeals.   The   rule,   however,   admits   of   certain  
concerns.   exceptions   as   when   the   case   involves   purely   legal   questions.   In   this   case,   petitioners  
• The   Informations   alleged   that   the   accused,   holding   legal   title   to   the   said   website,   raised  a  pure  question  of  law  involving  jurisdiction  in  criminal  complaints  for  libel  under  
maliciously   published   on   August   25,   2005   the   following   defamatory   article   against   Article  360  of  the  RPC,  as  amended  by  R.A.  No.  4363:  
the  Yuchengco  Family  and  Malayan:    
  Art.  360.  Persons  responsible.—Any  person  who  shall  publish,  exhibit  
Talagang   naisahan   na   naman   tayo   ng   mga   or   cause   the   publication   or   exhibition   of   any   defamation   in   writing   or  
Yuchengcos.   Nangyari   na   ang   mga   kinatatakutan   by  similar  means,  shall  be  responsible  for  the  same.  
kong  pagbagsak  ng  negotiation.    x  x  x      x  x  x          x  x  x    
    The  author  or  editor  of  a  book  or  pamphlet,  or  the  editor  or  
For   sure   may   tactics   pa   silang   nakabasta   sa   atin.   business   manager   of   a   daily   newspaper,   magazine   or   serial  
Let   us   be   ready   for   it   because   they   had   publication,   shall   be   responsible   for   the   defamations   contained  
successfully  lull  us  and  the  next  time  they  will  try   therein  to  the  same  extent  as  if  he  were  the  author  thereof.  
to  kill  us  na.  x  x  x    
  The  criminal  action  and  civil  action  for  damages  in  cases  of  
• However,   on   appeal,   the   Secretary   of   Justice   directed   the   withdrawal   of   the   written   defamations,   as   provided   for   in   this   chapter   shall   be   filed  
Informations   for   lack   of   probable   cause,   opining   that   the   crime   of   “internet   libel”   simultaneously   or   separately   with   the   Court   of   First   Instance   of   the  
was  not  existent.   province   or   city   where   the   libelous  article   is  printed   and   first  
• On   motion   of   the   accused,   the   RTC,   albeit   finding   probable   cause,   quashed   the   published  or  where  any  of  the  offended  parties  actually  resides  at  the  
Informations  for  failure  to  allege  that  the  offended  parties  were  actually  residing  in   time   of   the   commission   of   the   offense:  Provided,   however,  That  
Makati   at   the   time   the   offense   was   committed   as   in   face   they   listed   their   address   in   where  one  of  the  offended  parties  is  a  public  officer  whose  office  is  in  
Manila,  or  to  allege  that  the  article  was  printed  and  first  published  in  Makati.   the  City  of  Manila  at  the  time  of  the  commission  of  the  offense,  the  
• The   prosecution   moved   for   reconsideration,   arguing   that   even   assuming   the   action  shall  be  filed  in  the  Court  of  First  Instance  of  the  City  of  Manila  
Information  was  deficient,  it  merely  needed  a  formal  amendment.   or  of  the  city  or  province  where  the  libelous  article  is  printed  and  first  
• The  RTC  granted  the  motion  and  ordered  the  prosecution  to  amend  the  Information   published,  and  in  case  such  public  officer  does  not  hold  office  in  the  
to  cure  the  defect  of  improper  venue.   City  of  Manila,  the  action  shall  be  filed  in  the  Court  of  First  Instance  of  
• The  prosecution  amended  the  Information  to  show  that  the  website  was  “accessible   the   province   or   city   where   he   held   office   at   the   time   of   the  
in  Makati  City”  and  the  defamatory  article  “was  first  published  and  accessed  by  the   commission  of  the  offense  or  where  the  libelous  article  is  printed  and  
private  complainant  in  Makati  City.”   first   published   and   in   case   one   of   the   offended   parties   is   a   private  
individual,  the  action  shall  be  filed  in  the  Court  of  First  Instance  of  the  
 province   or   city   where   he   actually   resides   at   the   time   of   the   the   Ombudsman.   A   panel   of   prosecutors   reviewed   the   case   and   recommended   the  
commission   of   the   offense   or   where   the   libelous   matter   is   printed   dismissal   of   the   motion   for   reconsideration,   which   the   Ombudsman   did.   The  
and  first  published.     Ombudsman   also   went   ahead   and   scheduled   an   arraignment.   Ramiscal   then   filed   a  
  second  MR.  Pending  the  resolution  of  the  second  MR,  he  was  arraigned.  The  issue  was  
(2)  The  Amended  Information  was  insufficient  to  vest  jurisdiction  in  Makati.     W/N   Ramiscal   could   be   arraigned   while   an   MR   was   pending.   The   Supreme   Court   held  
For  the  Court  to  hold  that  the  Amended  Information  sufficiently  vested  jurisdiction  in  the   that  under  the  Rules  of  Procedure  of  the  Office  of  the  Ombudsman,  the  filing  of  an  MR  
courts  of  Makati  simply  because  the  defamatory  article  was  accessed  therein  would  open   does   not   bar   the   filing   of   an   information   and   the   institution   of   the   arraignment   of   the  
the   floodgates   to   the   libel   suit   being   filed   in   all   other   locations   where   accused.   Also,   only   one   MR   can   be   allowed,   because   if   subsequent   MR’s   are   to   be  
the  pepcoalition  website   is   likewise   accessed   or   capable   of   being   accessed.   To   credit   allowed,  then  there  will  be  no  end  to  litigation.  
Gimenez’s   premise   of   equating   his   first  access  to   the   defamatory   article   on   petitioners’    
website  in  Makati  with  “printing  and  first  publication”  would  spawn  the  very  ills  that  the   Facts  
amendment   to   Article   360   of   the   RPC   sought   to   discourage   and   prevent.   It   hardly    
requires   much   imagination   to   see   the   chaos   that   would   ensue   in   situations   where   the   During   Ramiscal’s   term   as   president   of   AFP-­‐RSBS,   the   Board   of   Trustees   approved   the  
website’s   author   or   writer,   a   blogger   or   anyone   who   posts   messages   therein   could   be   acquisition   of   land   in   General   Santos   for   development   as   housing   projects.   Ramiscal,  
sued   for   libel   anywhere   in   the  Philippines  that   the   private   complainant   may   have   together   with   his   attorney-­‐in-­‐fact   NiloFlaviano,   executed   and   signed   deeds   of   sale   over  
allegedly  accessed  the  offending  website.   the  property.  The  actual  purchase  price  was  P10,500,  but  the  deeds  only  reflect  P3,000.  
  Transfer  of  certificates  titles  (TCTs)  were  subsequently  issued  by  the  Registry  of  Deeds.  
IN   FINE,   the   public   respondent   committed   grave   abuse   of   discretion   in   denying    
petitioners’  motion  to  quash  the  Amended  Information.   Thereafter,   General   Santos   City   Congresswoman   Luwalhati   Antonio   filed   a   complaint-­‐
    affidavit  against  Ramiscal  in  the  Office  of  the  Ombudsman  for  violations  of  RA  3019  (Anti-­‐
WHEREFORE,  the  petition  is  GRANTED.    The  assailed  Order  of  April  22,  2008  and  the  Joint   Graft   and   Corrupt   Practices   Act)   and   malversation   through   falsification.   After   a  
Resolution  of  August  12,  2008  are  hereby  SET  ASIDE.  The  Regional  Trial  Court  of  Makati   preliminary   investigation,   the   Ombudsman   found   Ramiscal   and   Flaviano   probably   guilty  
City,  Br.  149   is   hereby   DIRECTED   TO   QUASH   the   Amended   Information   in   Criminal   Case   of  twelve  counts  of  falsification  and  a  violation  of  RA  3019.  
No.  06-­‐876  and  DISMISS  the  case.    
  Ramiscal   filed   with   the   Ombudsman   a   motion   for   reconsideration   to   reconsider   the  
Ombudsman’s  finding  of  probable  cause  on  February  1999,  with  a  supplemental  motion  
  filed   on   May   1999.The   Ombudsman   disposed   of   Ramiscal’s   first   motion   for  
TOPIC:  Filing  of  Information  if  there  is  pending  Motion  for  Reconsideration   reconsideration.  
   
4.  Ramiscal  v.  Sandiganbayan  (JT)   A  panel  of  prosecutors  reviewed  the  case.  They  found  that  Ramiscal  indeed  participated  
  in  and  affixed  his  signature  on  the  contracts,  deeds,  vouchers  and  checks  pertinent  to  the  
G.R.  Nos.  172476-­‐99                                 allegedly   criminal   transactions.   The   panel   concluded   the   existence   of   a   probable   cause  
September  15,  2010   and   recommended   to   continue   prosecution.   They   recommended   the   dismissal   of  
Carpio,  J.   Ramiscal’s  motion  for  reconsideration.  The  Ombudsman  approved  the  recommendation  
  and   scheduled   Ramiscal’s   arraignment.   Ramiscal   then   filed   another   motion   for  
Petitioner:  Retired  Brigadier  General  Jose  Ramiscal,  Jr.  –  he  served  as  the  president  for   reconsideration.  
the  AFP-­‐Retirement  and  Separation  Benefits  System  (AFP-­‐RSBS)    
Respondents:  Sandiganbayan,  People  of  the  Philippines   Ramiscal  was  arraigned,  and  refused  to  give  a  plea,  so  Sandiganbayan  entered  a  plea  of  
  not   guilty.   Ramiscal   then   filed   a   motion   to   set   aside   his   arraignment,   pending   the  
[NOTE:  Rule  110  was  never  mentioned  in  the  case.]   resolution  of  his  second  motion  for  reconsideration.  The  motion  to  set  aside  was  denied  
  by  the  Sandiganbayan.  It  also  pointed  out  that  the  second  motion  for  reconsideration  is  a  
Recit-­‐ready  version:   prohibited  pleading.  
The   Ombudsman   found   retired   Brigadier   General   Ramiscal   and   his   attorney-­‐in-­‐fact    
Flaviano  probably  guilty  of  a  violation  of  the  Anti-­‐Graft  and  Corrupt  Practices  Act,  and  of   Issue/Held:   Did   the   Sandiganbayan   commit   GADALEJ   when   it   denied   Ramiscal’s   motion  
falsification.  Ramiscal  filed  a  motion  for  reconsideration  (MR),  which  was  disposed  of  by   to  set  aside  pending  the  resolution  of  his  second  motion  for  reconsideration?  –  NO.  
    
Ratio:    
I. Rules  of  Procedure  of  the  Office  of  the  Ombudsman    
A. Section  7,  Rule  II  thereof  provides:   TOPIC:  Prescription  
1. “Only   one   motion   for   reconsideration   or   reinvestigation   of   an   approved    
order  or  resolution  shall  be  allowed.  xxx”   5.  Panaguiton  v.  DOJ  (KL)  
2. “The   filing   of   a   motion   for   reconsideration/reinvestigation   shall   not   bar    
the   filing   of   the   corresponding   information   in   Court   on   the   basis   of   the   G.R.  No.  167571                          November  25,  2008  
finding  of  probable  cause  in  the  resolution  subject  of  the  motion.”   (This  is  the  case  about  prescription  so  take  note  of  the  dates.)  
B. “If  the  filing  of  a  motion  for  reconsideration  of  the  resolution  finding  probable   Ken’s  Keywords:  BP  22,  prescription,  preliminary  investigation  
cause  cannot  bar  the  filing  of  the  corresponding  information,  then  neither  can    
it  bar  the  arraignment  of  the  accused,  which  in  the  normal  course  of  criminal   LUIS   PANAGUITON,   JR.,   petitioner   vs.   DEPARTMENT   OF   JUSTICE,   RAMON   C.   TONGSON  
procedure  logically  follows  the  filing  of  the  information.”   and  RODRIGO  G.  CAWILI,  respondents.  
C. The   Ombudsman   had   already   denied   Ramiscal’s   first   motion   for    
reconsideration.     Ponente:  TINGA,  J.  
D. If  the  Ombudsman  would  allow  subsequent  motions  for  reconsideration,  then    
there  will  be  no  end  to  litigation.   RRV:  
II. Arraignment    
A. Arraignment   is   that   stage   where   the   accused   is   formally   informed   of   the   On   1993,   Cawili   and   Tongson   issued   checks   that   were   dishonored   and   on   August   1995,  
charges  against  him,  and  to  which  he  enters  a  plea  of  guilty  or  not  guilty.   petitioner  filed  a  complaint  in  violation  of  BP  22  against  them.  Tongson  was  found  to  be  
B. Under   RA   8493   (Speedy   Trial   Act)   and   Rule   116   of   the   Rules   of   Court,   the   innocent   based   on   the   preliminary   investigation.   On   March   1999,   the   City   Prosecutor  
arraignment  must  commence  within  30  days  from  the  time  the  court  acquires   dismissed   the   complaint   against   Tongson   since   the   prescriptive   period   of   4   years   had  
jurisdiction  over  the  person  of  the  accused.     lapsed.   Petitioner   appealed   to   the   DOJ   and   Usec.   Teehankee   rejected   the   petition   but  
C. Under  Rule  116,  arraignment  can  be  suspended  when:   Usec.   Guiterrez   overturned   his   decision   and   ordered   a   reinvestigation   with   the   QC  
1. The  accused  is  suffering  from  an  unsound  mind   prosecutor.   The   DOJ   overturned   their   previous   decision   and   ruled   that   the   offense   has  
2. There  is  a  prejudicial  question   prescribed.   CA   ruled   against   the   petitioner.   The   SC   ruled   in   favor   of   the   petitioner   and  
3. There   is   a   pending   petition   for   review   at   the   DOJ   or   the   Office   of   the   reversed  the  decision  of  the  CA.  The  prescriptive  period  was  interrupted  by  the  August  
President   1995  preliminary  investigation.  This  ruling  was  based  on  previous  cases  that  any  kind  of  
D. Ramiscal  failed  to  show  a  valid  ground  for  suspension  of  the  arraignment.       investigative  proceeding  instituted  against  the  guilty  person  which  may  ultimately  lead  to  
III. Ombudsman’s  powers   his  prosecution  should  be  sufficient  to  toll  prescription.  
A. The   Supreme   Court   has   consistently   refrained   from   interfering   with   the    
exercise  of  the  Ombudsman  of  his  investigatory  and  prosecutory  powers.   Facts:  
B. Thus,   the   decision   of   the   panel   of   prosecutors,   which   was   upheld   by   the   • This  is  a  petition  for  review  on  the  decision  of  the  CA.  
Ombudsman,  prevails.   • In   1992,   Rodrigo   Cawili   (Cawili)   borrowed   various   sums   of   money   amounting   to  
C. The  Supreme  Court  will  only  step  in  when  there  is  GADALEJ.  In  this  case,  there   P1,979,459.00   from   petitioner.   On   January   8,   1993,   Cawili   and   his   business  
was  none.   associate,  Ramon  C.  Tongson  (Tongson),  jointly  issued  in  favor  of  petitioner  three  (3)  
IV. Suspension  of  proceedings  before  the  Sandiganbayan   checks  in  payment  of  the  said  loans.  
A. The   filing   of   a   certiorari   petition   before   the   Sandiganbayan   does   not   merit   a   • Upon   presentment   for   payment   on   March   18,   1993,   the   checks   were   dishonored,  
suspension  of  the  proceedings  before  it.     either   for   insufficiency   of   funds   or   by   the   closure   of   the   account.   Petitioner   made  
B. Exception:   when   there   a   TRO   or   preliminary   injunction   issued   against   the   formal  demands  to  pay  the  amounts  of  the  checks  upon  Cawili  on  May  23,  1995  and  
Sandiganbayan.   upon  Tongson  on  June  26,  1995,  but  to  no  avail.  
  • On   August   24,   1995,   petitioner   filed   a   complaint   against   Cawili   and   Tongson for  
 

WHEREFORE,  we  DENY  the  petition.  We  AFFIRM  the  assailed  5  April  2006  Resolution  of   violating  B.P.  Blg.  22  before  the  QC  City  Prosecutor.  
the  Sandiganbayan  in  Criminal  Case  Nos.  25122-­‐45,  which  denied  petitioner’s  motion  to   • Only   Tongson   appeared   for   the   preliminary   investigation.   Tongson   contends   that   he  
set  aside  his  arraignment.  This  Decision  is  immediately  executory.   was   never   a   business   associate   of   Cawili   and   his   signature   was   falsified.   On  
  
December  6,  1995, City  Prosecutor  III  Lara  found  probable  cause  only  against  Cawili   executive  when  it  involves  the  investigation  phase  and  judicial  when  it  refers  to  the  
and  dismissed  the  charges  against  Tongson.   trial  and  judgment  stage.”  
• Chief  State  Prosecutor  Zuño  directed  the  City  Prosecutor  of  Quezon  City  to  conduct   • Any   kind   of   investigative   proceeding   instituted   against   the   guilty   person   which  
a  reinvestigation  of  the  case  against  Tongson  and  to  refer  the  questioned  signatures   may  ultimately  lead  to  his  prosecution  should  be  sufficient  to  toll  prescription.  
to  the  NBI.   • We  rule  and  so  hold  that  the  offense  has  not  yet  prescribed.  Petitioner  's  filing  of  his  
• On  15  March  1999,  Assistant  City  Prosecutor  Sampaga  (ACP  Sampaga)  dismissed  the   complaint-­‐affidavit   before   the   Office   of   the   City   Prosecutor   on   August   24,   1995  
complaint   against   Tongson   without   referring   the   matter   to   the   NBI   per   the   Chief   signified  the  commencement  of  the  proceedings  for  the  prosecution  of  the  accused  
State  Prosecutor's  resolution.  In  her  resolution,  ACP  Sampaga  held  that  the  case  had   and   thus   effectively   interrupted   the   prescriptive   period   for   the   offenses   they   had  
already   prescribed   pursuant   to   Act   No.   3326   (An   Act   to   Establish   Prescription   for   been  charged  under  B.P.  Blg.  22.  
Violations   of   Special   Acts   and   Municipal   Ordinances   and   to   Provide   When    
Prescription  Shall  Begin)  which  provides  that  violations  penalized  by  B.P.  Blg.  22  shall  
prescribe  after  4  years.  In  this  case,  the  4-­‐year  period  started  on  the  date  the  checks    
were   dishonored,   or   on   January   20,   1993   and   March   18,   1993.   The   filing   of   the   TOPIC:  Control  and  Direction  of  Criminal  Action  
complaint  before  the  Quezon  City  Prosecutor  on  August  24,  1995  did  not  interrupt    
the   running   of   the   prescriptive   period,   as   the   law   contemplates   judicial,   and   not   6.  Pinote  v.  Ayco  (BA)  
administrative  proceedings.   A.M.  No.  RTJ-­‐05-­‐1944  
• Petitioner  appealed  to  the  DOJ  but  then  Undersecretary  Manuel  AJ  Teehankee  said   Petitioner:  State  Prosecutor  Ringcar  B.  Pinote  
the   offense   had   prescribed.   Petitioner   filed   a   motion   for   reconsideration   and   then   Respondent:  Judge  Roberto  L.  Ayco  
Undersecretary  Merceditas  Guiterrez  ruled  that  the  offense  had  not  yet  prescribed   Ponente:  Carpio-­‐Morales,  J.  
citing   Ingco   v.   Sandiganbayan.   Based   on   this,   on   July   8,   2003,   the   QC   City    
Prosecutor's  Office  filed  an  information  charging  Tongson  with  3  counts  of  violation   Emergency  Recit:  
of  B.P.  Blg.  22.   On  Aug  13  and  20,  2004,  Judge  Ayco  of  Branch  26  of  RTC  of  South  Cotabato  allowed  the  
• Tongson   appealed   and   the   DOJ   reversed   their   earlier   decision   based   on   the   ruling   in   defense   in   a   criminal   case   to   present   evidence   consisting   of   the   testimony   of   2   witnesses  
Zaldivia   v.   Reyes,   Jr,   which   says   that   the   prescriptive   period   is   tolled   only   upon   filing   without   the   presence   of   State   Prosecutor   Pinote   who   was   prosecuting   the   case.   Pinote  
of   the   information   in   court.   They   ordered   the   withdrawal   of   the   3   informations   was   absent   becausehe   underwent   medical   treatment   during   the   said   dates.   He   refused  
against  Tongson.   to  cross-­‐examine  the  2  witnesses,  insisting  that  the  proceedings  on  the  said  dates  are  null  
• The   CA   affirmed   the   DOJ’s   decision   due   to   lack   of   merit   and   non   compliance   of   and  void.  He  filed  a  manifestation  before  the  trial  court  explaining  his  absence  and  that  
formal  requirements.   Judge   Ayco’s   act   was   erroneous   and   highly   irregular.   The   Office   of   the   Court  
  Administrator   said   that   Ayco   breached   Rule   110   sec   5   of   Revised   Rules   on   Criminal  
Issue:  W/N  the  offense  has  prescribed.  (No.)   Procedure.   ”All   criminal   actions   commenced   by   a   complaint   or   information   shall   be  
Held:   WHEREFORE,   the   petition   is   GRANTED.   The   resolutions   of   the   Court   of   Appeals   prosecuted  under  the  direction  and  control  of  the  prosecutor.”  and  recommended  that  
dated  29  October  2004  and  21  March  2005  are  REVERSED  and  SET  ASIDE.  The  resolution   he  be  reprimanded.  The  SC  agreed  that  Judge  Ayco  transgressed  the  Rules  and  said  that  
of  the  Department  of  Justice  dated  9  August  2004  is  also  ANNULLED  and  SET  ASIDE.  The   criminal   cases   are   affront   to   the   People   of   the   Philippines   as   a   whole   and   public  
Department  of  Justice  is  ORDERED  to  REFILE  the  information  against  the  petitioner.   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  
Ratio:   people.  The  SC  ordered  Judge  Ayco  to  pay  a  fine  of  P5,000  with  a  warning  that  repetition  
• In  Ingco  v.  Sandiganbayan  and  Sanrio  Company  Limited  v.  Lim,  which  involved   of  this  act  or  anything  similar  will  be  dealt  with  more  severely.  
violations   of   the   Anti-­‐Graft   and   Corrupt   Practices   Act   (R.A.   No.   3019)   and   the    
Intellectual   Property   Code   (R.A.   No.   8293),   which   are   both   special   laws,   the   Facts:  
Court   ruled   that   the   prescriptive   period   is   interrupted   by   the   institution   of   • On  Aug  13  and  20,  2004,  Judge  Roberto  L.  Ayco  of  Branch  26,  RTC  of  South  Cotabato  
proceedings  for  preliminary  investigation  against  the  accused.   allowed  the  defense  in  the  criminal  case  of  “People  v.  Vice  Mayor  Salvador  Ramos,  
• Based   on   the   SC’s   ruling   in   Securities   and   Exchange   Commission   v.   Interport   et  al.,”  for  violation  of  Sec  3  of  PD  No.  1866,  to  present  evidence  consisting  of  the  
Resources   Corporation,   et   al.,   “the   investigation   of   the   charge   for   purposes   of   testimony   of   2   witnesses,   even   in   the   absence   of   State   Prosecutor   Ringcar   B.  
prosecution   has   become   the   exclusive   function   of   the   executive   branch,   the   term   Pinotewho   was   prosecuting   the   case.   On   said   dates,   Pinote   was   undergoing   medical  
"proceedings"  should  now  be  understood  either  executive  or  judicial  in  character:   treatment  at  the  Philippine  Heart  Center  in  Quezon  City.  
• On   the   subsequent   scheduled   hearings   of   the   criminal   case,   Pinote   refused   to   cross-­‐ the   trial   ofcriminal   cases   is   necessary   to   protect   vital   state   interests,   foremost   of  
examine   the   2   defense   witnesses,   despite   being   ordered   by   Judge   Ayco,   he   which  is  its  interestto  vindicate  the  rule  of  law,  the  bedrock  of  peace  of  the  people.  
maintaining   that   the   proceedings   conducted   on   August   13   and   20,   2004   in   his   • Respondent’s   act   of   allowing   the   presentation   of   the   defense   witnesses   in  
absence  were  void.   theabsence   of   complainant   public   prosecutor   or   a   private   prosecutor   designated   for  
• Pinote  filed  a  Manifestation  before  the  trial  court,  stating  why  he  was  not  present   thepurpose   is   thus   a   clear   transgression   of   the   Rules   which   could   not   be   rectified  
on  the  said  dates  and  reiterating  his  position  that  Judge  Ayco’s  act  of  allowing  the   bysubsequently  giving  the  prosecution  a  chance  to  cross-­‐examine  the  witnesses.  
defense  to  present  evidence  in  his  absence  was  erroneous  and  highly  irregular.  He   • Respondent’s   intention   to   uphold   the   right   of   the   accused   to   a   speedy   disposition  
thus   prayed   that   he   should   not   be   “coerced”   to   cross-­‐examine   those   2   defense   ofthe  case,  no  matter  how  noble  it  may  be,  cannot  justify  a  breach  of  the  Rules.  If  
witnesses   and   that   their   testimonies   be   stricken   off   the   record.   Judge   Ayco,   glossing   theaccused  is  entitled  to  due  process,  so  is  the  State.  
over  the  Manifestation,  considered  the  prosecution  to  have  waived  its  right  to  cross-­‐ • Respondent’s  lament  about  complainant’s  failure  to  inform  the  court  of  hisinability  
examine  the  2  defense  witnesses.   to   attend   the   Aug   13   and   20,   2004   hearings   or   to   file   a   motion   forpostponement  
• Hence,   arose   the   present   administrative   complaint   lodged   by   State   Prosecutor   thereof   or   to   subsequently   file   a   motion   for   reconsideration   of   his   Ordersallowing  
Pinote  (complainant)  against  Judge  Ayco  (respondent),  for  “Gross  Ignorance  of  the   the  defense  to  present  its  two  witnesses  on  said  dates  may  be  mitigating.  It  doesnot  
Law,  Grave  Abuse  of  Authority  and  Serious  Misconduct.”   absolve  respondent  of  his  utter  disregard  of  the  Rules.  
• Ayco   brands   the   Manifestation   as   “misleading”   and   “highly   questionable,”    
complainant’s   having   undergone   medical   treatment   at   the   Philippine   Heart   Center   WHEREFORE,  respondent  Judge  Roberto  L.  Ayco  is  hereby  ordered  to  pay  afine  P5,000.00  
on   Aug   13   and   20   having   been   relayed   to   the   trial   court   only   on   said   date.   He   with   warning   that   a   repetition   of   the   sameor   similar   acts   in   the   future   shall   be   dealt   with  
proffers  that  the  prosecution  suffered  no  substantial  prejudice  for  complainant  was   more   severely.Respecting   the   counter-­‐complaint   against   complainant   State   Prosecutor  
permitted  to  cross-­‐examine  the  2  defense  witnesses  but  he  refused  to  do  so.  By  way   Ringcar   B.Pinote,   respondent   is   advised   that   the   same   should   be   lodged   before   the  
of   counter-­‐complaint,   respondent   charges   complainant   with   “Contempt   of   Court”   Secretary  ofJustice.  
and   “Grave   Misconduct”   and/or   “Conduct   Unbecoming   of   a   Member   of   the   Bar   and   SO  ORDERED.  
as  an  Officer  of  the  Court.”    
• On  evaluation  of  the  case,  the  Office  of  the  Court  Administrator  (OCA),  citing  Section    
5,   Rule   110   of   the   Revised   Rule   on   Criminal   Procedure,   finds   respondent   to   have    
breached  said  rule  and  accordingly  recommends  that  he  be  reprimanded  therefor,    
with   warning   that   a   repetition   of   the   same   or   similar   act   shall   be   dealt   with   more    
severely.    
• Rule  110,  Section  5  of  the  Revised  Rules  of  Criminal  Procedure  reads:  
o 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  theprosecutor.  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  Officeor  the  Regional  State  Prosecution  Office  to  
prosecute  the  case  subject  to  the  approval  of  theCourt.  Once  so  authorized  to  
prosecute   the   criminal   action,   the   private   prosecutor   shallcontinue   to  
prosecute   the   case   up   to   the   end   of   the   trial   even   in   the   absence   of   a  
publicprosecutor,  unless  the  authority  is  revoked  or  otherwise  withdrawn.  
 
Issue/Held:   W/N   Respondent   Judge   Aycoviolate   Rule   110   sec   5   of   the   Revised   Rule   on  
Criminal  Procedure.  –  YES.  
 
Ratio:  
• Violation   of   criminal   laws   is   an   affront   to   the   People   of   the   Philippines   as   a  
wholeand   not   merely   to   the   person   directly   prejudiced,   he   being   merely   the  
complainingwitness.It  is  on  this  account  that  the  presence  of  a  public  prosecutor  in