RULE 110

Topic: Form of Complaint or Information

FILEMON A. VERZANO, JR., Petitioner, vs.
FRANCIS VICTOR D. PARO, ET.AL., Respondents
GR 171643 August 28, 2010
 Only a counter-affidavit subscribed and sworn to by the respondent before the Public
Prosecutor can dispute or put at issue the allegations in the complaint thus, a respondent
who fails to submit his counter-affidavit within the required period is deemed not to have
controverted the complainant’s evidence.
 The justice secretary's power of review may still be availed of despite the filing of
information in court. 
ELISEO R. FRANCISCO, JR., Petitioner, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
GR 177720 February 18, 2009
 A crime is an offense against the State, and hence is prosecuted in the name of the People
of the Philippines. The participation of the private offended party is not essential to the
prosecution of crimes, except in the crimes stated above, or in the prosecution of the civil
action deemed instituted with the criminal action. A complaint for purposes of preliminary
investigation by the prosecutor need not be filed by the "offended party" but may be filed
by any competent person, unless the offense subject thereof cannot be prosecuted de
oficio.
 Except in cases that cannot be prosecuted de oficio, namely adultery, concubinage,
seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness, a complaint filed by the offended party is
not necessary for the institution of a criminal action. The Information filed by the
prosecutor with the proper court is sufficient.
Topic: Sufficiency of Complaint or Information
BENILDA N. BACASMAS, Petitioner. vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 189343 July 10, 2013
 An information is deemed sufficient if it contains the following: (a) the name of all the
accused; (b) the designation of the offense as given in the statute; (c) the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense; (d) the name of the offended party; (e) the
approximate date of the commission of the offense; and (f) the place where the offense
was committed.
 Not necessary to state the precise date when the offense was committed, except when it is
a material ingredient thereof. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a
date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs.
EDGARDO DIMAANO, Appellant.
GR 168168 September 14, 2005
 The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable
a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and
enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. No information for a crime will be
sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged.
Every element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts and
circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to
the definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the
elements of a crime in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of the
 accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense. The
presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.

CASTOR BATIN, Accused-Appellant.
GR 177223 November 28, 2007
 As a general rule, matters of evidence, as distinguished from facts essential to the
description of the offense, need not be averred. For instance, it is not necessary to show
on the face of information for forgery in what manner a person is to be defrauded, as that
is a matter of evidence at the trial.
 The fact that the qualifying circumstances were recited in the second paragraph and not in
the first paragraph of the Information, as commonly done, is a matter of form or style for
which the prosecution should not be faulted. That the Provincial Prosecutor decided to
write the Information differently did not impair its sufficiency. Nothing in the law prohibits
the prosecutor from adopting such a form or style. As long as the requirements of the law
are observed, the Information will pass judicial scrutiny.
 The test of sufficiency of Information is whether it enables a person of common
understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment
properly. 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.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.
LARRY CACHAPERO y BASILIO, appellant.
GR 153008 May 20, 2004
 The time of occurrence is not an essential element of rape. This being so, its precise date
and hour need not be alleged in the complaint or information.
 "Sometime in March 1998", being reasonably definite and certain, this approximation
sufficiently meets the requirement of the law. After all, Section 6 of Rule 11015 of the
Rules of Court merely requires that the information must state, among others, the
approximate time of the commission of the offense.
 Objections as to the form of the complaint or information cannot be made for the first
time on appeal. If the present appellant found the Information insufficient, he should have
moved before arraignment either for a bill of particulars, for him to be properly informed
of the exact date of the alleged rape; or for the quashal of the Information, on the ground
that it did not conform with the prescribed form. Having failed to pursue either remedy, he
is deemed to have waived objection to any formal defect in the Information.
Topic: Name of the Accused
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
ADRIAN ENRIQUEZ y GARCES, accused-appellant.
GR 102955 March 22, 1993
 The law makes it a legal duty for prosecuting officers to file the charges against
whomsoever the evidence may show to be responsible for an offense. This does not mean,
however, that they shall have no discretion at all; their discretion lies in determining
whether the evidence submitted justify a reasonable belief that a person has committed
an offense.
 What the rule demands is that all persons who appear responsible shall be charged in the
information, which implies that those against whom no sufficient evidence of guilt exists
 are not required to be included.
Topic: Designation of the Offense
GODOFREDO ENRILE AND DR. FREDERICK ENRILE, Petitioners, vs.
HON. DANILO A. MANALASTAS (AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
MALOLOS BULACAN, BR. VII), HON. ERANIO G. CEDILLO, SR., (AS PRESIDING
JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, BR.1) AND PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
GR 166414 October 22, 2014
 The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the averments in a complaint or
information is, therefore, whether the facts alleged therein, if hypothetically admitted,
constitute the elements of the offense.
 To meet the test of sufficiency, therefore, it is necessary to refer to the law defining the
offense charged. Based on the law, the elements of the crime of less serious physical
injuries are, namely: (1) that the offender inflicted physical injuries upon another; and (2)
that the physical injuries inflicted either incapacitated the victim for labor for 10 days or
more, or the injuries required medical assistance for more than 10 days.
 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. 
Topic: Cause of the Accusation
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
CARLOS VILLAMOR, accused-appellant.
GR 124441 October 7, 1998
 The general rule is that defective information cannot support a judgment of conviction
unless the defect was cured by evidence during the trial and no objection appears to have
been raised.
 The failure to state the age of the complainant in the information cannot be considered as
a violation of the right of the accused to be informed of the charge against him.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs.
MARTIN ALAGAO, et al., defendants-appellees.
GR L-20721    April 30, 1966
 It is the general rule that in resolving the motion to quash a criminal complaint or
information the facts alleged in the complaint or information should be taken as they are.
The exceptions to this general rule are those cases where the Rules of Court expressly
permit the investigation of facts alleged in the motion to quash.
 For a criminal complaint or information to charge the commission of a complex crime, the
allegations contained therein do not necessarily have to charge a complex crime as
defined by law. It is sufficient that the information contains allegations which show that
one offense was a necessary means to commit the other.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
CAPT. MARCIAL LLANTO Y LEUTERIO, accused-appellant.
GR 146458    January 20, 2003
 While the rape in the case at bar was committed on November 12, 1999, we shall give
retroactive application to Secs. 8 and 9, supra, as they are favorable to the accused.
 Well-settled is the doctrine that the prosecution bears the burden of proving all the
elements of a crime, including the qualifying circumstances, thus the testimonies of the
defense witnesses cannot be used to benefit the prosecution, to the disadvantage of the
accused.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
ROGER RINGOR UMAWID, Accused-Appellant.
GR 208719     June 9, 2014
 In criminal cases, where the life and liberty of the accused is at stake, due process requires
that the accused be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. An
accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or
information. To convict him of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or
information would be a violation of this constitutional right.

Topic: Date, Place & Time of the Commission of the Offense

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
DOMINGO MABUYO, defendant-appellant.
GR L-29129 May 8, 1975
 It is a settled rule that unless the particular place of commission is an essential element of
the offense charged, conviction may be had even if it appears that the crime was
committed not at the place alleged in the information, provided the place of actual
commission was within the jurisdiction of the court.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
CHARITO ISUG MAGBANUA, accused-appellant.
GR 128888 December 3, 1999
 Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not ipso
facto make the information defective on its face. The reason is obvious. The date or time
of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the said crime because the
gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. In fact,
the precise time when the rape takes place has no substantial bearing on its commission. 
 An information can withstand the test of judicial scrutiny as long as it distinctly states the
statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
FREDDIE LIZADA & FREDIE LIZADA, accused-appellant.
GR 143468-71    January 24, 2003
 Failure to specify the exact date when the rape was committed does not render the
Information defective.
 As long as it is alleged that the offense was committed at any time as near to the actual
date when the offense was committed information is sufficient. In previous cases, we ruled
that allegations that rapes were committed "before and until October 15, 1994,"
"sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter," "sometime in November 1995 and
some occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto" and "on or about and sometime in the
year 1988" constitute sufficient compliance with Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure. (People v. Salalima)
Topic: Name of the Offended Party
RAMON F. SAYSON, petitioner, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
GR L-51745 October 28, 1988
 The rules on criminal procedure require the complaint or information to state the name
and surname of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was
committed or any appellation or nickname by which such person has been or is known and
if there is no better way of Identifying him, he must be described under a fictitious name.
 In case of offenses against property, the designation of the name of the offended party is
 not absolutely indispensable for as long as the criminal act charged in the complaint or
information can be properly identified.
RAMONCITA O. SENADOR, Petitioner, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and CYNTHIA JAIME, Respondents.
GR 201620 March 6, 2013
 Offenses against property, the materiality of the erroneous designation of the offended
party would depend on whether or not the subject matter of the offense was sufficiently
described and identified.
 The holdings in United States v. Kepner, Sayson v. People, and Ricarze v. Court of
Appeals support the doctrine that if the subject matter of the offense is specific or one
described with such particularity as to properly identify the offense charged, then an
erroneous designation of the offended party is not material and would not result in the
violation of the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against her. Such error would not result in the acquittal of the accused.
 In offenses against property, if the subject matter of the offense is generic and not
identifiable (i.e money), an error in the designation of the offended party is fatal and
would result in the acquittal of the accused. However, if the subject matter of the offense
is specific and identifiable (i.e warrant), an error in the designation of the offended party is
immaterial.
Topic: Duplicity of the Offense
HILARIO P. SORIANO and ROSALINDA ILAGAN, Petitioners, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS (BSP), and
PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (PDIC), Respondents.
GR 159517-18 June 30, 2009
 Duplicity of offense in a single information is a ground to quash the information under the
Rules of Criminal Procedure with states that a complaint or information must charge but
one offense except only those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment
for various offenses. 
 A single act or incident might offend against two or more entirely distinct and unrelated
provisions of law thus justifying the prosecution of the accused for more than one offense.
The only limit to this rule is the Constitutional prohibition that no person shall be twice put
in jeopardy of punishment for "the same offense." (Loney v. People)
JASON IVLER y AGUILAR, Petitioner, vs.
HON. MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, Judge of the Metropolitan Trial
Court, Branch 71, Pasig City, and EVANGELINE PONCE, Respondents.
GR 172716 November 7, 2010
 The notion that quasi-offenses, whether reckless or simple, are distinct species of crime,
separately defined and penalized under the framework of our penal laws, is nothing new. 
 The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself
and not merely a means to commit other crimes such that conviction or acquittal of such
quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of its
various resulting acts, undergirded this Court’s unbroken chain of jurisprudence on double
jeopardy as applied to Article 365.
 The reason for this consistent stance of extending the constitutional protection under the
Double Jeopardy Clause to quasi-offenses was best articulated by Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes in
Buan, where, in barring a subsequent prosecution for "serious physical injuries and
damage to property thru reckless imprudence" because of the accused’s prior acquittal of
"slight physical injuries thru reckless imprudence," with both charges grounded on the
 same act, the Court explained: Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted
or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted
again for that same act. For the essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence under
article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act
that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the
negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only
taken into account to determine the penalty; it does not qualify the substance of the
offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one
person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence) remains one and the same,
and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions.
 Prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from a single charge regardless of the
number or severity of the consequences. In imposing penalties, the judge will do no more
than apply the penalties under Article 365 for each consequence alleged and proven. In
short, there shall be no splitting of charges under Article 365, and only one information
shall be filed in the same first level court.
Topic: Amendment of the Complaint or Information
JOCELYN E. CABO, Petitioner, vs.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN, FOURTH DIVISION, THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OF THE
OMBUDSMAN and THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REGION XIII, Respondents.
GR 169506 June 16, 2006
 It is elementary that for double jeopardy to attach, the case against the accused must have
been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of
competent jurisdiction, upon valid information sufficient in form and substance and the
accused pleaded to the charge.
 Double jeopardy did not attach by virtue of petitioner’s "conditional arraignment" on the
first information. It is well-settled that for a claim of double jeopardy to prosper, the
following requisites must concur: (1) there is a complaint or information or other formal
charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the same is filed before
a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) there is a valid arraignment or plea to the charges;
and (4) the accused is convicted or acquitted or the case is otherwise dismissed or
terminated without his express consent. The first and fourth requisites are not present in
the case at bar.
 In Poblete v. Sandoval, the Court explained that an amendment is only in form when it
merely adds specifications to eliminate vagueness in the information and does not
introduce new and material facts. Amendment of an information after the accused has
pleaded thereto is allowed, if the amended information merely states with additional
precision something which is already contained in the original information and which,
therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged.
JOSE ANTONIO C. LEVISTE, Petitioner, vs.
HON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA, HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, HON. EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO,
HEIRS OF THE LATE RAFAEL DE LAS ALAS, Respondents.
GR 182677 August 3, 2010
 The principle that the accused is precluded after arraignment from questioning the illegal
arrest or the lack of or irregular preliminary investigation applies "only if he voluntarily
enters his plea and participates during trial, without previously invoking his objections
thereto."
 There must be clear and convincing proof that petitioner had an actual intention to
relinquish his right to question the existence of probable cause. When the only proof of
 intention rests on what a party does, his act should be so manifestly consistent with, and
indicative of, an intent to voluntarily and unequivocally relinquish the particular right that
no other explanation of his conduct is possible. 2
 A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged
and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form.
The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment is whether a defense
under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is
made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the
information in the one form as in the other. 
 An amendment to an information which does not change the nature of the crime alleged
therein does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused
of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to be one of form and
not of substance. There is no substantial distinction between a preliminary investigation
and a reinvestigation since both are conducted in the same manner and for the same
objective of determining whether there exists sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty
thereof and should be held for trial.
 What is essential is that petitioner was placed on guard to defend himself from the charge
of murder after the claimed circumstances were made known to him as early as the first
motion. Petitioner did not, however, make much of the opportunity to present
countervailing evidence on the proposed amended charge.  Despite notice of hearing,
petitioner opted to merely observe the proceedings and declined to actively participate,
even with extreme caution, in the reinvestigation.
Topic: Substitution of the Complaint or Information
QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA and SPO2 FIEL E. GENIO, Petitioners, vs.
The HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, 4th DIVISION and the PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
GR 184537 April 23, 2010
 There is no substitution and/or substantial amendment. Section 3. Corrupt practices of
public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by
existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful: x x x x (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including
the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. R.A. 3019, Section 3,
paragraph (e), as amended, provides as one of its elements that the public officer should
have acted by causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or by
giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of
his functions. The use of the disjunctive term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a
violation of Section 3 paragraph (e), or as aptly held in Santiago, as two (2) different modes
of committing the offense. That there are two (2) different modes of committing the
offense: either by causing undue injury or by giving private person unwarranted benefit.
This does not however indicate that each mode constitutes a distinct offense, but rather,
that an accused may be charged under either mode or under both. Hence a new
preliminary investigation is unnecessary.
CLAUDIO J. TEEHANKEE, JR., petitioner, vs.
HON. JOB B. MADAYAG and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
GR 103102 March 6, 1992
 In determining, therefore, whether there should be an amendment under the first
paragraph of Section 14, Rule 110, or a substitution of information under the second
paragraph thereof, the rule is that where the second information involves the same
offense, or an offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first
information, and amendment of the information is sufficient; otherwise, where the new
information charges an offense which is distinct and different from that initially charged, a
substitution is in order.
 In the present case, therefore, there is an identity of offenses charged in both the original
and the amended information. What is involved here is not a variance in the nature of
different offenses charged, but only a change in the stage of execution of the same offense
from frustrated to consummated murder. This is being the case, we hold that an
amendment of the original information will suffice and, consequent thereto, the filing of
the amended information for murder is proper.
 After arraignment and during the trial, amendments are allowed, but only as to matters of
form and  provided  that no prejudice is caused to the rights of the accused. The test of
whether an amendment is only of form and an accused is not prejudiced by such
amendment has been said to be whether or not a defense under the information as it
originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made, and whether or
not any evidence the accused might have would be equally applicable to the information
in the one form as in the other; if the answer is in the affirmative, the amendment is one
of form and not of substance.