TEVES vs.
VAMENTA annulment of all the proceedings
Topic: Crimes which cannot be prosecuted
de officio (ACSAAD)
 Petitioners Milagros Teves and Mannuel
Moreno are accused of and charged
with ADULTERY before the CFI Negros
Oriental.
 It is initiated by a letter-complaint
thumbmarked and sworn to by
complainant Julian Teves, husband of
Milagros Teves, before City Fiscal
Cabahug. Attached to the letter-
complaint, were the affidavits of
witnesses of complainant.
 On the basis thereof, City Fiscal
conducted a preliminary investigation
of the charge of Adultery.
 After termination of cross examination
of complainant, petitioners filed a MTD
assailing the jurisdiction of the City
Fiscal on the ground there was no
proper complaint filed by complainant.
MTD was denied, as well as MR for the
said order of denial.
 Meanwhile, complainant filed a new
letter-complaint, this time attaching his
affidavit thereto.
 At the resumption of the PI, petitioners
filed a Joint Urge Omnibus Motion
praying that portions of the affidavits of
witnesses be ordered stricken out as it
did not fall within the jurisdiction of City
Fiscal.
 With the motion still unresolved, an
INFORMATION to which a complaint
thumbmarked by complainant was filed
before CFI Negros Oriental.
 The day before the scheduled
arraignment, petitioner filed
MTQuash challenging the jurisdiction of
respondent Court and the authority of
City Fiscal to file the Information.
 Respondent Judge issued an order
denying MTQuash for lack of merit, as
well as joint MR.
 Hence, the instant petition for CPM
with preliminary injunction praying for
conducted by City Fiscal that led to the
filing of the challenged Infromation.
 PETITION IS DEVOID OF MERIT.
 Petitioners’ attack against the validity of
the proceedings conducted by the City
Fiscal is anchored on the lack of a valid
complaint by the offended party.
 Adultery, being a private offense,
cannot be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended spouse
who cannot institute the criminal
prosecution without including both the
guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor
in any case, if he shall have consented
or pardoned the offenders.
 This Court has invariably maintained
strict adherence to this jurisdictional
requirement of a complaint by the
offended party, as defined in Section 5
of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court and
Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.
o RPC, Art. 344. Prosecution of
the crimes of adultery,
concubinage, seduction,
abduction, rape and acts of
lasciviousness. — The crimes of
adultery and concubinage shall
not be prosecuted except upon
a complaint filed by the
offended spouse. The offended
party cannot institute criminal
prosecution without including
both the guilty parties, if they
are both alive, nor, in any case,
if he shall have consented or
pardoned the offenders.
o ROC 1985, R110. SEC. 5. Who
a must prosecute criminal
actions.— All criminal actions
either commenced by
complaint or by information
shall be prosecuted under the
direction and control of the
fiscal. However, in the
Municipal Trial Courts or
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
 when there is no fiscal
available, the offended party,
any peace officer or public
charged with the enforcement
of the law violated may
prosecute the case. This
authority ceases upon actual
intervention of the fiscal or
upon elevation of the case to
the Regional Trial Court. The
crimes of adultery and
concubinage shall not be
prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended
spouse. The offended party
cannot institute criminal
prosecution without including
both the guilty parties, if they
are both alive, nor, in any case,
if the offended party has
consented to the offense or
pardoned the offenders.
 However, this legal requirement was
imposed "out of consideration for the
aggrieved party who might prefer to
suffer the outrage in silence rather
than go through the scandal of a public
trial. Thus, the law leaves it to the
option of the aggrieved spouse to seek
judicial redress for the affront
committed by the erring spouse. This
should be the overriding consideration
in determining the issue of whether or
not the condition precedent prescribed
by said Article 344 has been complied
with. For, indeed, it is the spirit rather
than the letter of the law which should
prevail.
 The complaint referred to which is
required by way of initiating the
criminal prosecution of crimes which
cannot be prosecuted de oficio is,
however, that one filed with the Court
and not that which is necessary to start
the required preliminary investigation
by the fiscal's office. 10 In the latter
case, a letter of complaint sufficed for
the purpose.
 Coming back to the case at bar, the
desire of the offended party Julian L.
Teves to bring his wife and her alleged
paramour before the bar of justice is
only too evident. Such determination of
purpose on his part is amply
demonstrated in the strong and
unequivocal statement contained in his
first complaint making clear and implicit
his purpose, which is no other than "to
file a criminal complaint for ADULTERY
against my wife Milagros Donio-Teves
and her paramour Manuel Moreno"...
plus the fact that he filed no less than
three (3) complaints in order to meet
the objections of the petitioner herein
as to the sufficiency of his first
complaint.
 Petitioners' submission that there is no
sufficient and valid complaint instituted
in the instant case so as to confer
jurisdiction over the offense and
persons of the petitioners hardly
convince Us. The second complaint filed
with the Fiscal's Office and that filed
with the Court are both sufficient and
valid complaints.
o Both state the name of the
defendants;
o the designation of the offense
by the statute;
o the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting
the offense;
o the name of the offended party;
o the approximate time of the
commission of the offense; and
o the place where the offense
was committed which is an
absolute compliance with what
Article 344 of the Revised Penal
Code and Section 5, Rule 110 of
the Rules of Court prescribe.
 Both complaints were also thumb
marked by and under oath of the
complainant. The allegations of the
complaints fully apprised petitioners of
 the facts and acts subject matter
thereof and enables them to fully
comprehend to which acts of theirs it
refers. Both sufficiently identify the
acts constituting the offense, sufficient
enough to enable the Court to
pronounce a valid judgment thereon in
case of conviction.
 As it is, doubt could not have set in and
confusion would not have arisen had
the Fiscal limited himself merely to the
filing of the complaint (thumbmarked
and under oath of the complainant)
instead of an information with the
complaint annexed thereto.
TEEHANKEE v. MADAYAG
Topic: Amendment vs Substitution
 SCA for CPM seeking to nullify the order
of respondent judge admitting the
amended information for murder
 Petitioner Claudio Teehankee Jr was
originally charged in an Information for
FRUSTRATED MURDER
 After the prosecution rested its case,
petitioner was allowed to file Motion
for Leave to File a Demurrer to
Evidence.
 However, before it was filed, offended
party Maureen Navarro Hultman died.
 Consequently, private prosecutor
Vinluan filed Omnibus Motion for Leave
of court to file an AMENDED
information, and to admit the same.
 Petitioner filed an opposition thereto,
as well as rejoinder to the reply of the
prosecution. But the trial court
ADMITTED the amended information.
 Hence, at the schedule arraignment,
petitioner refused to be arraigned on
the amended information for lack of a
preliminary investigation thereon.
 By reason of such refusal, respondent
judged ordered “plea of not guilty” be
entered for Teehankee.
 Respondent judge ordered prosecution
to present its evidence.
 When petitioner’s counsel manifested
that he would not take part in the
proceedings because of the legal issue
raised, the trial court appointed a
counsel de oficio to represent
petitioner.
 Hence, the SCA.
 Whether or not an amended
information involving a substantial
amendment, without preliminary
investigation, after the prosecution has
rested on the original information, may
legally and validly be admitted – YES
Section 14, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure provides
"Sec. 14. Amendment. — The
information or complaint may be
amended, in substance or form, without
leave of court, at any time before the
accused pleads; and thereafter and
during the trial as to all matters of form,
by leave and at the discretion of the
court, when the same can be done
without prejudice to the rights of the
accused.
If it appears at any time before judgment
that a mistake has been made in charging
the proper offense, the court shall
dismiss the original complaint or
information upon the filing of a new one
charging the proper offense in
accordance with Rule 119, Section 11,
provided the accused would not be
placed thereby in double jeopardy and
may also require the witnesses to give
bail for their appearance at the trial."
 The first paragraph provides the rules
for amendment of the information or
complaint, while the second paragraph
refers to the substitution of the
information or complaint.
AMENDMENT SUBSTITUTION
Both amendment and substitution of the
information may be made before or after
the defendant pleads, jeopardy.
Amendment may Substitution
involve either necessarily involves  In determining, therefore, whether
formal or a substantial there should be an amendment under
substantial changes change from the the first paragraph of Section 14, Rule
original charge; 110, or a substitution of information
Amendment Substitution of under the second paragraph thereof,
before plea has information must the rule is that where the second
been entered can be with leave of information involves the same offense,
be effected court as the or an offense which necessarily includes
without leave of original or is necessarily included in the first
court information has to information, an amendment of the
be dismissed information is sufficient, otherwise,
Where the In substitution of where the new information charges an
amendment is only information, offense which is distinct and different
as to form, there is another from that initially charged, a
no need for preliminary substitution is in order.
another investigation is  There is identity between the two
preliminary entailed and the offenses when the evidence to support
investigation and accused has to a conviction for one offense would be
the retaking of the plead anew to the sufficient to warrant a conviction for the
plea of the accused new information other, or when the second offense is
An amended substitution exactly the same as the first, or when
information refers requires or the second offense is an attempt to
to the same presupposes that commit or a frustration of, or when it
offense charged in the new necessarily includes or is necessarily
the original information included in, the offense charged in the
information or to involves a different first information. In this connection, an
an offense which offense which does offense may be said to necessarily
necessarily not include or is include another when some of the
includes or is not necessarily essential elements or ingredients of the
necessarily included in the former, as this is alleged in the
included in the original charge, information, constitute the latter. And,
original charge, hence the accused vice-versa, an offense may be said to be
hence substantial cannot claim necessarily included in another when
amendments to double jeopardy. the essential ingredients of the former
the information constitute or form a part of those
after the plea has constituting the latter.
been taken cannot  In the case at bar, it is evident that
be made over the frustrated murder is but a stage in the
objection of the execution of the crime of murder,
accused, for if the hence the former is necessarily included
original in the latter. It is indispensable that the
information would essential element of intent to kill, as
be withdrawn, the well as qualifying circumstances such as
accused could, treachery or evident premeditation, be
invoke double alleged in both an information for
frustrated murder and for murder,
 thereby meaning and proving that the
same material allegations are essential
to the sufficiency of the informations
filed for both. This is because, except
for the death of the victim, the essential
elements of consummated murder
likewise constitute the essential
ingredients to convict herein petitioner
for the offense of frustrated murder.
 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 of the nature of different
offenses charge, but only a change in
the stage of execution of the same
offense from frustrated to
consummated murder.
 This 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.
 As earlier indicated, S14 of R110
provides that an amendment, either of
form or substance, may be made at any
time before the accused enters a plea
to the charge and, thereafter, as to all
matters of form with leave of court.
 A substantial amendment consists of
the recital of facts constituting the
offense charged and determinative of
the jurisdiction of the court.
o All other matters are merely of
form.
o Thus, the following have been
held to be merely formal
amendments,
o (1) new allegations which relate
only to the range of the penalty
that the court might impose in
the event of conviction;
o (2) an amendment which does
not charge another offense
different or distinct from that
charged in the original one;
o (3) additional allegations which
do not alter the prosecution’s
theory of the case so as to
cause surprise to the accused
and affect the form of defense
he has or will assume; and
o (4) an amendment which does
not adversely affect any
substantial right of the accused,
such as his right to invoke
prescription.
 We repeat that 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 YES, amendment is of form
and not of substance]
 An objective appraisal of the amended
information for murder filed against
petitioner readily show that the nature
of the offense originally charged was
not actually changed.
o Instead, an additional allegation
– the supervening fact of the
death of the victim was merely
supplied to aid the trial court in
determining the proper penalty
for the crime.
o That the accused committed a
felonious act with intent to kill
the victim continues to be the
prosecution’s theory.
 There is no question that whatever
defense petitioner may adduce under
the original information for frustrated
 murder equally applies to the amended
information for murder. Under the
circumstances, it is irremissible that the
amended information for murder is, at
most, an amendment as to form which
is allowed even during the trial of the
case.
 It consequently follows that since only
a formal amendment was involved and
introduced in the second information, a
preliminary investigation is
unnecessary and cannot be demanded
by the accused. The filing of the
amended information without the
requisite preliminary investigation does
not violate petitioner’s right to be
secured against hasty, malicious and
oppressive prosecutions, and to be
protected from an open and public
accusation of a crime, as well as from
the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a
public trial. The amended information
could not conceivably have come as a
surprise to petitioner for the simple and
obvious reason that it charges
essentially the same offense as that
charged under the original information.
Furthermore, as we have held, if the
crime originally charged is related to
the amended charge such that an
inquiry into one would elicit
substantially the same facts that an
inquiry into the other would reveal, a
new preliminary investigation is not
necessary.
ROJAS v. PEOPLE
Topic: Prejudicial Question
Doctrine: There is a prejudicial question only
when the matter that has to be priorly decided
by another authority is one where the
cognizance of which pertains to that authority
and should not, under the circumstances, be
passed upon by the court trying the criminal
case.
 Certiorari and Prohibition proceeding,
praying for the nullification of 2 orders
of respondent Judge Alikpala, one for
petitioner’s arraignment and the other
for his trial.
 CMS Estate filed with Manila City Fiscal
5 charges of ESTAFA against petitioner
Eufracio Rojas.
 This resulted in an Information being
filed against petitioner for for violation
of Art.319 for executing a new chattel
mortgage on personal property in favor
of another party without the consent of
the previous mortgagee and duly noted
in the record of the Register of Deeds.
 Respondent Judge ordered:
o first for arraignment and then
o after plea of not guilty, fixed for
the date for trial,
notwithstanding an opposition
by petitioner on the ground of
prejudicial question – the civil
case for revocation of
management contract
 Included in such complaint was an 11 th
COA, namely the execution by
petitioner of a chattel mortgage on a
Caterpillar tractor, with his explicit
affirmance that it was free from all liens
and encumbrances, when such was not
the case at all, as the very same tractor
was the subject of a chattel mortgage in
favor of the Davao Lumber Company, of
Davao City, to secure petitioner’s
obligation, still valid and subsisting as of
the date of his entering into the second
mortgage.
 Then came this petition for certiorari
and prohibition.
 PETITION MUST FAIL – no prejudicial
question in this case
 In a fairly recent decision, Zapanta v.
Montesa, Justice Dizon, speaking for the
Court, stated: "We have heretofore
defined a prejudicial question as that
which arises in a case, the resolution of
which is a logical antecedent of the
issue involved therein, and the
cognizance of which pertains to another
 tribunal. . . . The prejudicial question - fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action
we further said - must be determinative for damages, entirely separate and
of the case before the court, and distinct from the criminal action shall
jurisdiction to try the same must be proceed independently of the criminal
lodged in another court." prosecution, and shall require only a
 It is indispensable then for this petition preponderance of evidence." Here,
to succeed that the alleged prejudicial fraud is the basis for both the civil and
question must be determinative of the the criminal actions. They are,
criminal case before respondent Judge. according to law, to proceed
It is not so in this case. independently.
 In the case at bar, the Court held that
the alleged prejudicial question is not DUTERTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN
determinative of the criminal case. The Topic: Right to Preliminary Investigation;
resolution of the liability of Rojas in the Right to Speedy Trial
civil case based on his fraudulent  http://
misrepresentation (that the chattel politicallawreviewblog.blogspot.com
mortgage he executed in favor of CMS
/2014/10/case-digest.html
Estate was free from all liens and
encumbrances) will not determine his
criminal liability in the criminal case for
violation of par. 2, Art. 319.
 As examples, the Court cited a number
cases.
o Pisalbon vs. Tesoro where it
held that: the CFI of Pangasinan
erred in holding that the
criminal case should be
suspended. In the present
proceedings, the civil case does
not involve a question
prejudicial to the criminal case,
for to whomsoever the land
may be awarded after all the
evidence has been presented in
the civil case, may not affect the
alleged crime committed by the
notary public, which is the
subject of the criminal case.
But, even supposing that both
the civil and the criminal case
involve the same question and
one must precede the other, it
should be the civil case which
should be suspended rather
than the criminal, to await the
result of the latter. 4.
 Moreover, Art. 33 of the Civil Code
provides: "In cases of defamation,