Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2


The offended party may not intervene in the

prosecution of the offense through a private prosecutor
1. People vs Bautista- (Physical Injuries) the prescriptive if the offended party a. waves the civil action, b.
period for the offense remains tolled from the time the reserves the right to institute it separately or c.
complaint was filed with the office of the prosecutor
institutes civil action prior to criminal action. (RULE 111)
until such time that the respondent is either convicted
or acquitted by the proper court. 9. Lazarte Jr. vs Sandiganbayan- the crime must be
described in the intelligible terms with such particularity
2. People vs Tayco- The court ruled that complaint or as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of
information referred to in Art 91 is the one file in the
the offense charge.
proper court and not the accusation.
10. P.p. vs Vallejo- Objections relationg to the form of
3. People vs Olarte- the court ruled that filing of the the complaint or information cannot be made for the
complaint before justice of the peace for preliminary first time on appeal.
investigation as sufficient to interrupt the prescriptive
period for the offense. 11. People vs Cinco- The rule provides that it is not
necessary to the state in the complaint or information
4. Zaldiva vs Reyes- The period of prescription shall be the precise date the offense was committed except
suspended when the proceedings are instituted against when the date of the commission is a material element
the guilty person, the proceedings referred to are
of the offense.
judicial proceedings and not administrative
proceedings. 12.People vs Anguac- the nature and the character of
the crime charge are determined not by the designation
5. Sanrio Company Limited vs Lim- the prescriptive of the specific crime, but by the facts allege in the
period fpr violations of special laws starts on the day information. The particularity must be such that a
such offense was committed and is interrupted by the person of ordinary intelligence immediately knows what
institution of proceedings against respondent. the charge is.
6. Panaguiton Jr. vs D.O.J- the prescription for the 13. People vs Amodia- a mistake in the name of the
offenses of B.P. 22 shall interrupt by filing of the accused is not equivalent, and does not necessarily
complaint or information to the office of prosecutors
amount to, mistake in the identity of the accused
for preliminary investigation. especially when sufficient evidence is adduced to show
7. Chua vs Padillo- all criminal actions shall be that the accused is pointed to as one of the
prosecuted under the direction and control of a public perpetrators of the crime.
prosecutor, since a criminal offense is an outrage 14. Sayson vs People- in case of offenses against
against the sovereignty of the state, it follows that a property, the designation of the name of the offended
representative of the state shall direct and control the party is not absolutely indispensable for as long as the
prosecution thereof. criminal act charge in the compliant or information can
The public prosecutor, in the execise of his functions, be properly identified.
has the power and discretion to: a. determine whether 15. People vs Tapus- Every Infrmation must state the
a prima facie case exists, b. decide which of the qualifying and the aggravating circumstances attending
conflicting testimonies should be believed free from the the commission of the crime for them to be considered
interference or control of the offended party, and c.
in the imposition of penalty.
subject only to the right against self-incrimination,
determine which witnesses to present in court. 16. Francisco vs People- the absence of the words
conspiracy, conspired or in conspiracy with in the
complaint or information does not necessarily mean
that the absence of these words would signify that
conspiracy was not alleged.

17. Matrido vs People- no matter how conclusive the

evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be
convicted of any offense unless it is charged in the
information on which he is tried or is necessarily
included therein.\