People vs.
Coquia Issue: WON the statute of limitations was suspended by the filing of the complaint
Facts: On July 11, 1957, David Naval filed a complaint for oral defamation in MTC
against Dolores Coquia.
MTC ordered her arrest.
On July 22, 1957, the MTC forwarded the records of the case to the CFI of
camarines sur for continuance of proceedings since the accused had renounced her
right to the second stage of P.I.
On August 2, 1957, the CFI endorsed the case to the office of the city
attorney for reinformation.
For some unexplained reasons, the case has left unacted by the city fiscal
until January 26,1957 when the fiscal filed with the CFI the information for grave
oral defamation/
The defense filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription
Issue: WON the offense charged already prescribed.
Rulling: under art. 90 of RPC, light offenses prescribed in 2 months. Art.91
provides that the period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on
which the crime has discovered by the offended party, the authorities their agents
and shall be interrupted by the filing of complaint info. And shall commence to run
again when such proceedings terminate w/o the accused being convicted or
acquitted.
The complaint info reffered to in the prescriptive period is that w/c is filed in the
proper court.
People vs Olarte
Facts: Feb 24, 1957, libel was committed
On Jan 7, 1965, miss meris lodge the corresponding charged of libel
against Olarte with the provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan.
On feb 22, 1956, she filed with the justice of the peace court of Puzorrubio,
Pangasinan a complaint for libel.
That the defendant waived her right to a P.I.
On July 3, 1956 the information was filed in the CFI.
The defendant moved to quash the information upon the ground of
prescription
with the justice of peace of court by the filing of the information with the CFI.
#1 the filing of complaint in MTC, although merely for purposes of
precliminary examination interrupts the period for prescription of the offense even if
the court cannot try the case on merits.
The filing of the complaint with the justice of peace court interrupted the
running of the statute of limitations and that the crime is not extinguished by
prescription.
The above ruling become final & executory.
However, Aug 26, 1963, the defense presented a new motion to quash the
information
The defense invoked the subsequent ruling of the SC in PP vs Oquia.
The SC abandoned the first decision
Issue # 2: WON the SC decision w/c became final long ago may he
disturbed because of subsequent reinterpretation of the law
#2 final ruling if the SC constitutes law of the case. Even if, erroneous, is
may no longer be disturbed.
Judicial doctrine have only prospective operation and do not apply to cases
already divided.
Doctrines of SC cannot retroactively be applied to nullify a prior final ruling.
A prior ruling of the SC that an offense has not yet prescribed is binding
and cannot be set aside in subsequent proceedings in the same case.
Francisco vs. CA
Facts: on Feb 6, 1966, complainant angeles, filed a case for intriguing against
honor against Dr. Francisco & Atty. Bernardino
May 3, 1966, Fiscal filed an information in CFI for the crime of slander
On Feb 1, 1973, the trial court rendered its decision convicting the 2
accused for grave oral defamation
On appeal, the CA modified the trial court decision finding the accused
guilty of simple slander
Issue: WON the crime of simple slander found by CA to be the offense committed
by the petitioners has prescribed.
Ruling: the solicitor general contends that has the purpose of determining the
proper prescriptive period, that should be considered is the nature of the offense
charged in the information w/c is grave oral defamation, not the crime of simple
slander w/c was found by CA.
Hence, the period of prescription should be 6 months.
Where an accused has been found to have committed a lesser offense
includible within the offense charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser offense, if
it has already prescribed.
Llanes vs. Dicdican
Facts: Sept 23, 1993 commission of the crime
On Oct 13, 1993, Ginete filed with the ombudsman a complaint for grave
oral defamation allegedly committed on Sept 23, 1993 by Jusan Llanes
On March 28, 1994, City Prosecutor filed with the MTC an information for
grave oral defamation against petitioners.
On May 30, 1994, petitioner filed motion to quash the information on the
ground that the criminal action or Liability has been extinguished.
She contended that grave oral defamation prescribes in months.
Since the information was filed 6 months and 6 days after its alleged
commission.
Issue: WON the offense of grave oral defamation has already prescribed?
Ruling: NO, under art.90 of RPC, graved oral defamation w/c is the subject of the
information prescribes in 6 months.
The filing of the private respondent’s complaint for grave oral defamation
against petitioner with the ombudsman
Visayas tolled the running of period of prescription.
The ombudsman Visayas then has authority to conduct P.I. of the private
respondent’s complaints against petitioner for grave oral defamation. Against public
officers and employees being petitioner, an education supervisor is a public officer.
Accordingly, the filing of the private respondent’s complaint for grave oral
defamation against the petitioner with the ombudsman tolled the running of the
period of prescription.
Since the complaint has filed on Oct 14, 1993, or barely20 days from the
commission of the crime charged, the filing of the information on March 28, 1994
was very well within the 6 months prescriptive period.
Disini vs Sandiganbayan
Facts: First cousin of Imelda Marcos
The Officer of the Ombudsman filed 2 informations (June 30, 2004)
charging Disini in Sandiganbayan with corruption of Public Officials, penalized under
art. 212 in rel. to art.210 RPC and with violation of sec. 4(a) of RA 3019/ Anti-Graft
& corrupt Practices Act.
It is alleged that during the period from 1974 – Feb 1986, Disino conspired
with then Pres. Marcos, did offer, promise and give gifts & presents to Marcos
consisting of Disini’s ownership of 25 Billion shares of stock in Vulcan industrial and
mining corp and share of stock The Energy Corp. etc.
Ferdinand Marcos, taking undue advantage of his position, and committing
the offense in relation its his office in consideration of the gifts and present, did
award or cause to be awarded the Burns and Roe and westing house, the contracts
to do the engineering and architectural design w/c acts constitutes corruption of
public officials and taking advantage of close personal relation, intimacy and free
access.
On August 2, 2004 Disini filed a motion to quash alleging that criminal
actions had been extinguished by prescription and that information did not conform
to prescribed form.
On sept 16, 2004, Disini voluntary submitted himself for arraignment to
obtain the Sandiganbayan’s favorable action on his motion for permission to travel.
He then entered a plea of not guilty to both informations.
On Jan 17, 2005, the sandiganbayan promulgated resolution denying the
motion to quash.
Disini moved for reconsideration but sandiganbayan denied his motion
Issue: 1. WON SB has jurisdiction obe the case.
2. WON the offense has already prescribed.
Ruling:The criminal complaints were filed and their records transmitted by PCGG to
the Office of the Ombudsman on April 8, 1991 for preliminary investigation.
The filing of the criminal complaint in the office of the Ombudsman
effectively interrupted the running of the period of prescription.
In resolving the issue of prescription, the ff. must be considered.
1. The period of prescription of offense
2. The time when the period of prescription starts to run
3. The time when the prescriptive period is interrupted.
GR: Prescriptive period shall commence to run from on the day the crime is
committed/
Penalty – Prision Mayor
Period of Prescription – 15 yrs
Began to run – 1986
Interrupted from April 8, 1991 Transmission of the records from PCGG to OMB
Crespo vs Mogul
Facts: On April 18,1977 assistant Fiscal de Gala filed an information for estafa
against crespo in circuit criminal Court of Lucena.
When the case has set for arraignment the accused filed a motion to defer
arraignment on the ground that there has a pending petition for renew filed with the
secretary of justice.
The presiding judge, Leodegario Mogul, denied the motion but the
arraignment was deferred to Aug 18, 1977
The accused filedpetition for certiorari in CA.
On Aug 17, 1977 the CA restrained judge Mogul from proceeding with the
arraignment of the accused until further orders of the court.
Mean while under secretary of Justice Catalino Malaraig resolved the
petition for review and reversed the resolution of the office of the Provincial Fiscal
and directed the Fiscal to move for immediate dismissal of the information filed
against the accused
But Judge Mogul denied the motion for dismissal of the case and set the
arraignment.
Crespo then filed in the CA a petition for certiorari and mandamus with
TRO be restrain Mogul from enforcing his judgement w/c again issued by CA.
CA rendered a decision & dismissed the petition of dismissed the petition of
Crespo and lifted the TRO.
Issue: WON a fiscal has the authority to file a motion to dismiss on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence after the information has been submitted to court?
Ruling: les. A fiscal who asks for the dismissal of the case for insufficiency of
evidence has authority to do so and courts that grant the same commit no error.
The fiscal may re-investigate a case and subsequently move for dismissal should
there be re-investigation show either that the defendant is innocent or that his guilt
may not he established beyond reasonable doubt.
Once, an information is filed in court, court’s prior permission must be
secured if fiscal wants to re-investigate the case.
PP vs Pailano
Facts: on Oct 1971, Pailano allegedly raped Anita.
It was reported to the authorities on Dec 24, 1971 and the corresponding
criminal complaint was filed on July 10, 1972
Anita 15 y/o alleged that she was dragged by the accused to a bushy place
and she could not resist because he was threatening her with a scythe.
The accused appellant, however alleged that complaint enticed that
complaint enticed him into the bushes, where she opened herself to him.
He was unable at first be have an erection at his age but Anita rubbed his
organ in hers.
Issue: WON should be convicted of rape?
Under art. 335 of the RPC rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of
a woman under any of the ff. circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation.
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.
3. When the woman is under 12 yrs of age, even though neither of
circumstances mentioned in the 2 proceeding paragraphs shall be
present.
The criminal complaint in this case alleged the commission of the crime
thru the first method although the prosecution sought to establish at the trial that
the complaint was a mental retardate.
Its purpose in doing so is not clear.
If the prosecution was seeking to convict the accused appellant on the
ground that he violated Anita while she was deprived of reason or unconscious, such
conviction could not have been possible under criminal complaint as worded.
This described the offense as having committed by Antonio Pailano being
her provided with a scythe, mean of “violence and intimidation”
Conviction of the accused appellant on the finding that he has raped Anita
while she was unconscious or otherwise deprived of reason and NOT through force
and intimidation would have violated his right to to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him.
 There was also no proof that she was retarded at the time of commission
of the offense to the point that she cannot resist though she had the mentality of 13
year old
Filomeno(witness) also repoted the incident to Anita’s mother but she took
no action.
It was only 2 and half months later that she decided to complain to the
authority SC: definitely it is not rape
PP vs Bugtong
Facts: Irene Cutim, the minor complainant, was allegedly raped and impregnated
by Andres Bugtong.
Luisa, Irene’s mother, together with Irene went to police station to report
the crime which resulted in Irene’s pregnancy. Irene gave birth to a baby boy later
on.
Andres Bugtong was charged, before RTC of La Trinidad Benguet with the
crime of rape allegedly committed as follows:
••• the above name accused by means of force intimidation and threats, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and Feloniously have sexual intercourse and carnal
knowledge of one Irene Cutim, a 15 year old girl against her will and consent.
Appellant contends as rape is a personal offense when under sec 5 rule 110
of rules on crim pro must be prosecuted upon a complaint filed by the offended
party, the trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the case on the basis of the
information signed by the fiscal alone.
ISSUE WON the information filed by the fiscal for the crime of rape is valid and
sufficient
RULING YES. In the case at bar, it is evident that the prosecution for rape was
initiated by the offended party herself with the assistance of her mother.
The InformaTION filed by the fiscal said so that it was sworn originally filed
by the offended party..
It is not necessary for the complainant to sign and verify the Information
for rape filed by the fiscal.
Based on the foregoing, no error can be imputed to the trial court in taking
cognizance of the information filed by fiscal.
It is clear from the information that the offense charged falls under par. 1 if
art 335, to find is vioative of his constitutional right to be informed of the charges
against him
FURTHERMORE, and more importantly, as herein appellant was tied on an
information charging him with rape committed thru force and intimidation, his
conviction for rape committed when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious would be violative of his constitutiona right.
People vs. Bernabe - Pareja
Facts: AAA was 13 years old when the alleged acts of lasciviousness and sexual
abuse took place on 3 different dates.
AAA’s parents were separated, she was living with her mother and
accused-appellant (Bernabe Pareja) , who was cohabiting with her mother,
together with their 3 children.
On May 5, 2004, Pareja was charged with 2 counts of rape and one
attempted rape.
The RTC acquitted Pareja from the charge of attempted rape but convicted
him of the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness.
Pareja appealed to the CA but the CA denied and dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the RTC’s decision.
Issue: WON Pareja can be convicted for the crime not charged in the information
Ruling: No, since the charge in the information is rape through carnal knowledge,
Pareja cannot be found guilty of rape by sexual assault even though it was proven
during trial.
This is due to the material indifferences and substantial distinctions
between the 2 modes of rape.
Consequently, to convict Pareja of rape by sexual assault when what he
was charged with has rape through carnal knowledge would be violative to his
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against
him.
Nevertheless, Pareja may be convicted of the lesser crime of acts of
lasciviousness under the variance doctrine embodied in sec.4 in rel. to sec. 5, rule
120 of Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Thus, even though the crime charged against Pareja was for rape through
carnal knowledge, he can be convicted of crime acts of lasviousness w/o violating
any of his constitutional rights because said crime is included in the crime of rape.
Bernabe Pareja Y Cruz guilty of 2 counts of acts of lasciviousness
Teehankee vs Madayag
Facts: petitioner was originally charged on July 19, 1991 in an information for the
ccrime of frustrated murder
After the prosecution had rested its case, petitioner was allowed to file a
motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence. However, before the said motion
could be filed, Maureen(victim) Navarro Hultman died.
Consequently, private prosecutor filed an omnibus motion for leave of court
to file an amended and information which reads:
That on or about July 13, 1991, teehankee, armed with a gun, with intent
to kill and evident premeditation and by means of treachery, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully attack and shoot with the handgun Maureen Navarro Hultman
who was hit in the head, thereby, inflicting mortal wounds w/c directly caused the
death of Mauleen.
Petitioner refused to be arraigned on the amended information for lack of
preliminary investigation.
Issue: WON an amended information involving a substantial a substantial
amendment w/o preliminary investigation, after the prosecution has rested on the
original information may be legally and validly be admitted.
Yes. It is evident that frustrated murder is a stage in the execution of
murder, hence the former is necessarily included in the latter.
What is involved here is not and 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.
We hold that an amendment of the original information will suffice and
consequent thereto, the filing of the amended information for murder is proper.
Villaflor vs Vivar
Facts: An information for sight physical injuries, was filed against respondent
Vivar. The case stemmed from the alleged mauling of petitioner Villaflor by
respondent.
When the injuries sustained by petitioner turned out to be more serious
than they had appeared at first, an information for serious physical injuries, was
filed against respondent.
The charge of sight physical injuries was withdrawn. Another information
for grave threats was filed against petitioner.
Respondent filed a motion to quash the information(grave threats). He
contended that the threats should have been absorbed by the serious physical
injuries.
Thus, he concluded, the grave threats case should be dismissed, as the
trial court did not acquired jurisdiction over it.
MTC denied the motion to quash, MR filed by respondent also denied.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with RTC. RTC ruled in favor of
respondent and ruled that information should be dismissed for being filed without
preliminary investigation
Issue: Can the court order the dismissal of the criminal cases on the ground that
public prosecutor filed to conduct P.I?
Ruling: NO. A component part due process in criminal justice, preliminary
investigation I a statutory and substantive right accorded to the accused before
trial. To deny their claim to a preliminary investigation would be to deprive them of
the full measure of their right to due process.
However, the absence of preliminary investigation does not impair the
validity of the information. Neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court or
constitute a ground for quashing the information.
The trial court , instead of dismissing the information, ordered the public
prosecutor to conduct P.I.
Even if the information is amended to charge serious physical injuries
instead of the earlier slightly physical injuries, the accused cannot demand a new
preliminary investigation relative to the serious physical injuries where he already
had one in relation to charge slight physical Injuries since the charge made is only a
formal amendment.
People vs Borromeo
Facts: The city Fiscal orally amended the information for grave coercion against
private respondent Joaquin Borromeo by changing the date of commission of the
crime from “on or about June 24, 1981” to “August 28, 1981” after the accused had
been arraigned and plead not guilty
In an order the respondent judge denied the verbal motion to amend on
the ground that if will impair the substantial rights of the accused.
Issue: WON the amendment of date impairs the rights of accused?
Ruling: As opined by the solicitor general, the change of date of the commission of
the crime is more formal than substantial and would not prejudice the rights of the
accused, as it would not alter the nature of the offense of grave coercion
The difference in the dates is only about 2 months and 5 days.