Rule 116.
Arraignment and Plea
Rationale for Arraignment:
To comply with the Constitutional Right of the
Accused to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusations against him. This right may not be waived.
Arraignment is the stage where the accused is formally
informed of the charges against him. Due to this, strict
compliance with the rules on arraignment is needed.
• *Memorize Sec. 1 of Rule 116.
Rule 116. Sec. 1: Arraignment and plea; how made.
a) The accused must be arraigned before the
court where the complaint or information was
filed or assigned for trial. The arraignment shall
be made in open court by the judge or clerk by
furnishing the accused with a copy of the
complaint or information, reading the same in
the language or dialect known to him, and
asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty.
The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses
other than those named in the complaint or
information.
b) The accused must be present at the
arraignment and must personally enter his plea.
Both arraignment and plea shall be made of
record, but failure to do so shall not affect the
validity of the proceedings.
c) When the accused refuses to plead or makes a
conditional plea, a plea of not guilty shall be
entered for him.
d) When the accused pleads guilty but presents
exculpatory evidence, his plea shall be deemed
withdrawn, and a plea of not guilty shall be
entered for him.
e) When the accused is under preventive
detention, his case shall be raffled and its records
transmitted to the judge to whom the case was
raffled within three (3) days from the filing of the
information or complaint. The accused shall be
arraigned within ten (10) days from the date of
raffle. The pre-trial conference of his case shall be
held within ten (10) days after arraignment. (BUT
see A.M. No. 15-06-10, 9-1-17, Revised
Guidelines
For Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases)
f) The private offended party shall be required to
appear at the arraignment for purposes of plea
bargaining, determination of civil liability, and
other matters requiring his presence. In case of
failure of the offended party to appear despite due
notice, the court may allow the accused to enter a
plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is
necessarily included in the offense charged with
the conformity of the trial prosecutor alone.
g) Unless a shorter period is provided by special
law or Supreme Court circular, the arraignment
shall be held within thirty (30) days from the date
the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of
the accused. The time of the pendency of a motion
to quash or for a bill of particulars or other causes
justifying suspension of the arraignment shall be
excluded in computing the period. (BUT see
A.M. No. 15-06-10, 9-1-17,
Revised Guidelines For Continuous Trial of
Criminal Cases)
Note:
• Always remember that a valid arraignment and
plea will cure defects in the complaint or
information, preliminary investigation, and
illegality of arrest. These issues must be raised
before the accused is arraigned and enters his
plea.
What are the two parts of arraignment? / How is
arraignment done? (Rule 116 Sec. 1)
 The two parts of arraignment are the following: /
Arraignment is done in the following manner:
• 1) The complaint or information furnished and
read to the accused in open court in a language or
dialect known by him.
*Any defect may be a ground to impugn the
validity of arraignment. (BUT see A.M. No. 15-06-10, 9-
1-17, Revised Guidelines For Continuous Trial of
Criminal Cases which allows waiver of the reading of
the information. see slide 452)
2. The accused personally enters his plea.
*The presence of the accused during arraignment is
required by the Rules of Court.
Strict Compliance with the Rules on Arraignment and Plea
is Needed
Note: *Any defect in the arraignment and plea will make
the subsequent proceedings void. But even so, without a
valid plea and arraignment, the right against double
jeopardy may not set in.
Note: *In order to have a valid trial in absencia, the
accused must have been validly arraigned and his plea
validly entered.
But an Accused’s Constitutional Right to Due Process and
Right to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of
Accusation Against Him May be Satisfied even without
Strict Compliance to the Rules of Arraignment and Plea.
Note: *While as a rule, strict compliance with the rules of
arraignment and plea is required, there are exceptional
instances when the Supreme Court ruled that compliance
with the Constitutional Right of the Accused to be
informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him
and to due process has been sufficient despite errors in the
arraignment and plea.
Case: The accused is arraigned after trial when the
prosecution has rested its case and the defense presented
its evidence. In this case, the defense counsel actively
participated in the trial and the Supreme Court ruled that
by such act, the accused was aware of the nature and
charges against him and he was given his day in Court.
(People v Pangilinan, 518 SCRA 358)
Note: This is a very exceptional case so caution must be
taken in answering questions presenting situations where
one is required to look into the validity of the arraignment
and plea. Wait for the circumstances justifying the
exceptions to arise before ruling that the arraignment is
valid.
In what court must arraignment be made?/ Where is
arraignment made? (Rule 116 Sec. 1)
The accused must be arraigned before the court where
the complaint or information was filed or assigned for
trial.
Effect of Accused’s Nonappearance During Arraignment
& Trial on his Bail Bond.
Question: May his bond be forfeited if the accused
does not appear during trial?
Answer: Not necessarily. The accused may waive the
right to be present in court so that failure to appear in court
does not automatically lead to forfeiture of bail.
Question: May his bond be forfeited if the accused
does not appear during arraignment?
Answer: Yes. The presence of the accused is required
by the Rules during Arraignment. As such, he may not
waive his right to be present at all stages of the
proceedings.
Note:Refer to earlier discussions on when is the accused’s
presence required by Court or by the Rules of Court.
The Offended Party’s Presence is Needed During
Arraignment and Plea
 Note: It is not just the accused that must be
present during the arraignment and plea. The
offended party must also be present during
arraignment and plea for purposes of plea
bargaining, determination of the accused’s civil
liability, and other matters requiring his presence.
When an accused pleads not guilty, it constitutes
a joinder of issues in the criminal action.
 Note: But absence of the Offended Party during
Arraignment and Plea will not render subsequent
proceedings void.
Must Accused Personally Enter His Plea?
• General Rule:
 The accused must personally enter his
plea.
• Are there instances where the Court enters a
plea of not guilty for the accused?
 YES. They are:
 1) The accused refuses to enter a plea,
such as in cases where the accused wants
to quash the information or hold in
abeyance the proceedings to conduct
preliminary investigation;
 2) The accused enters a conditional plea
of guilty. A conditional plea of guilty is
not a valid plea.
 Examples of a conditional plea:
 (a) I admit raping the victim but
she seduced me;
 (b) Pleading guilty to an offense
charged but asking for a lesser
penalty to be imposed.
 3) The accused pleads guilty but presents
exculpatory evidence.
 Example: The accused admits
the killing but the defense asks
that the court allow them to
prove the circumstance of
incomplete self-defense.
• Case: Accused was charged with homicide
wherein he pleaded guilty with condition to prove
incomplete self defense. The judge found
evidence for complete self defense and thus
acquitted the accused. In the present case, it is
true, the accused had first entered a plea of guilty.
Subsequently, however, he testified, in the course
of being allowed to prove mitigating
circumstances that he acted in complete self-
defense. Said testimony, therefore — as the court
a quo recognized in its decision — had
• the effect of vacating his plea of guilty and the
court a quo should have required him to plead
anew to the charge, or at least direct that a new
plea of not guilty be entered for him. Acquittal in
such manner deprives the prosecution of due
process. If a subsequent case is filed, it may
proceed. There will be no double jeopardy as he
was not validly arraigned. (People v Balisacan, 17
SCRA 1119)
Effect of Entering Plea
 a) Entering a plea of not guilty constitutes joinder
of issues in the criminal case.
 b) Entering a plea of guilty is a judicial confession
of guilt. All the material facts alleged in the
information, including aggravating circumstances
are admitted. However, conclusions of law are not
admitted. (Note: This is the same effect as that of
filing a demurrer to evidence.)
Effect of a Voluntary Plea and Involuntary Plea:
a) Voluntary Plea:
 A voluntary plea will always cure defects
in the complaint or information,
preliminary investigation, or illegality of
arrest.
b)Involuntary Plea:
 The plea was not made by the accused
but by the Court.
• Problem:
 The accused, who claims that he was illegally
arrested, refused to enter a plea when arraigned;
whereupon, the court entered a plea of not guilty
for him. May he still question the validity of his
arrest?
• Answer:
 Yes. The principle that the accused is precluded
from questioning the legality of his arrest after
arraignment is true only if he voluntarily enters
his plea and participates during the trial, without
previously invoking his objections thereto.
(Borlongan Jr. v. Pena, et al. G.R. No. 143591,
Nov. 23, 2007). Thus, the accused may still
question the legality oh his arrest, etc. where, at
the arraignment, it is the court that entered the
plea of not guilty for him.
• Plea of Guilty in a Capital Offense:
• Note: (Rule 116 Sec. 3) *There is no rule
requiring automatic conviction upon plea of guilty
for a capital offense. Instead, the court shall
conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness
and full comprehension of the consequences of
his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove
his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The
accused may present evidence in his behalf.
• Plea of Guilty to a Non-Capital Offense:
 (Rule 116, Sec. 3) When the accused
pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, the court
may receive evidence from the parties to
determine the penalty to be imposed.
• Plea Bargaining :
 In a plea bargaining, the accused pleads
guilty to a lesser offense necessarily included in
the offense charged or pleads guilty to an account
involved in multiple accounts.
 Example: An accused is charged of rape.
He pleads guilty to seduction or acts of
lasciviousness.
• What are the requisites of a valid plea bargain?
(Sec. 2, Rule 116):
• They are:
 a) Consent of the offended party;
 b)Consent of the prosecutor;
 c) Approval of the court.
• May a plea for a lesser offense with the consent
of the prosecutor be valid even without the
consent of the offended party? (Rule 116 Sec. 1
[f])
 Yes, provided the offended party is duly
notified of the arraignment but
notwithstanding the notice, he failed to
appear for arraignment.
• When is plea bargaining allowed?
 Plea bargaining is allowed in the
following instances.
• 1) During arraignment; and
• 2) After arraignment but before
trial
• May plea bargain be allowed even after the trial
has begun? (Daan v. Sandiganbayan GR No.
163972-77, March 28, 2008 citing People v.
Villarama, GR No. 99287, June 23, 1992, 210
SCRA 4266)
 Yes, plea bargaining is valid even after
the prosecution rested its case provided that the
prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to
convict the accused of the crime charged. This is
an exception to the rule that plea bargaining is
only allowed during arraignment or after
arraignment but before trial.
• Is there Double Jeopardy in Plea Bargaining?
 None.
• Is there a need to amend the complaint or
information in Plea Bargaining? (Rule 116 Sec.
2)
 No, amendment of the complaint or
information is not necessary.
• Suspension of Arraignment
• May arraignment be suspended? (Rule 116 Sec.
11)
 Yes, arraignment may be suspended on
the following grounds:
 a) The accused appears to be suffering
from an unsound mental condition which
effectively renders him unable to fully
understand the charge against him and to
plead intelligently thereto;
 b) Existence of a prejudicial question;
 c) Pendency of a petition for review of
the resolution of the prosecutor either at
the DOJ of the Office of the President.
The period of suspension shall not
exceed sixty (60 days) counted from the
filing of the petition with the reviewing
office.
Bill of Particular (Rule 116 Sec. 9)
•
• If the complaint or information is vague, the
accused may move or file a motion for bill of
particulars to enable himself to properly plead and
prepare for trial.

• When may a bill of particular be filed?
 A Bill of particular is filed before
arraignment.
• What is the ground for filing a bill of particular?
• A bill of particular is filed when the
complaint or information is vague, or any matter
is not averred with sufficient definiteness or
particularity to enable the accused to properly
plead and prepare for trial.
• *Note:
• The material matter is averred but it is not averred
with sufficient definiteness or particularity. In
other words, the material averment is complete
but unclear. If the material matter is not averred,
the complaint or information may or may not be
defective.
• What is the purpose of a Bill of Particular in a
Criminal Case?
 A bill of particular in a criminal case
enables the accused to properly plead and prepare
for trial. In civil case, its purpose is to enable a
party to properly prepare his responsive pleading.
• Is a bill of particular a mode of discovery?
 No, a bill of particular is not mode of discovery.
• May a bill of particular cure any defects in the
complaint or information?
 No. It is not the office of a bill of
particulars to supply material allegations
necessary to the validity of a pleading, or to
change a cause of action or defense stated in the
pleading, or to state a cause of action or defense
other than the one stated.
• Note: prohibited pleadings under A.M. No. 15-
06-10, 9-1-17:
• Prohibited motions shall be DENIED
OUTRIGHT before the arraingment without need
of comment and/or opposition:
 i. Motion for judicial determination of
probable cause;
 ii. Motion for preliminary investigation
filed beyond the five-day reglementary
period in inquest proceedings under Sec.
6, Rule 112, or when preliminary
investigation is required under Sec. 8,
Rule 112, or allowed in inquest
proceedings and the accused failed to
participate in the preliminary
investigation despite due notice;
 iii. Motion for reinvestigation of the
prosecutor recommending the filing of
information once the information has
been filed before the court (1) if the
motion is filed without prior leave of
court; (2) when preliminary investigation
is not required under Sec. 8, Rule 112;
and (3) when the regular preliminary
investigation is required and has been
actually conducted, and the grounds
relied upon in the motion are not
meritorious, such as issues of credibility,
admissibility of evidence, innocense of
the accused, or lack of due procees when
the accused was actually notified among
others;
 iv. Motion to quash information when the
ground is not one of those stated in Sec.
3, Rule 117;
 v. Motion for bill of particulars that does
not conform to Sec. 9, Rule 116;
 vi.Motion to suspend the arraignment
based on grounds not stated under Sec.
11, Rule 116;
 vii. Petition to suspend the criminal
action on the ground of prejudicial
question, when no civil case has been
filed, pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 117.
• Mode of Discovery in Criminal Case:
• Production or Inspection of Material Evidence
in Possession of the Prosecution. (Rule 116 Sec.
10)
 Upon motion of the accused showing
good cause and with notice to the parties, the
court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression or
alteration, may order the prosecution to produce
and permit the inspection and copying or
photographing of any written statement given by
• the complainant and other witnesses in any
investigation of the offense conducted by the
prosecution or other investigating officers as well
as any designated documents, papers, books,
accounts, letters, photographs, objects or other
tangible things, not otherwise privileged, which
constitute or contain evidence material to any
matter involved in the case and which are under
the possession or control of the prosecution,
police, or other law investigating agencies.
• Is it necessary that the accused allege that he
intends to use as evidence the material evidence
in possession of the prosecution, police, or other
law investigating agencies?
 No. There is no rule requiring that the
accused must aver and intend to use the pieces of
evidence he intends to be produced by the
prosecution. In fact, he may not even use or copy
any of the material evidence that he moves to be
produced by the prosecution.
 Note: The other modes of discovery available in
a civil case may be availed of in a criminal case.
• Are there evidence that the prosecution, police,
or other law investigating agencies may not
 produce despite motion by the accused and order
of the court?
 Yes. These are documents, papers,
books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects, or
tangible things which are privileged. The
prosecution, police, or other law investigating
agency though must show the nature of such
evidence as privileged.
• shall be immediately rendered in the
Note: A.M. No. 15-06-10, 9-1-17; Revised
Guideline on Continuous Trial in Criminal
Cases
 Applicability: Revised Guidelines shall apply to
all newly-filed criminal cases, including those
governed by Special Laws and Rules, in the 1st
and 2nd Level Courts, the Sandiganbayan and the
Court of Tax Appeals as of effectivity date. It
shall also apply to pending cases with respect to
the remainder of the proceedings.
 Unless otherwise specifically provided in the
guidelines, the Revised Guidelines shall not apply
to criminal cases filed under the Rule on
Summary Procedure.
• (a) Schedule of Arraignment & Pre-trial.-
1. Detained : within10 calendar days from the
date of the court's receipt of the case;
2. Non-detained: within 30 calendar days from
the date the court acquires jurisdiction over a non-
detained accused.
Note:
Court must set the arraignment of the accused in the
commitment order as to a detained accused, or in the order
of approval of bail, in any other case. For this
purpose, where the Executive Judge act on bail
applications in cases assigned to other courts, they shall
coordinate with the courts to which the cases are actually
as for scheduling purposes.
(b) Notice of Arraignment & Pre-trial.- shall be
sent to the accused, his counsel, private
complainant or complaining law enforcement
agent, public prosecutor, and witnesses whose
names appear in the information for purposes of
plea-bargaining, arraignment and pre-trial.
(c) Waiver of Reading of the Information.- In
multiple cases, the court, upon personal
examination of the accused, may allow a waiver
of the reading of the information upon full
understanding and express consent of the accused
and his counsel, which consent shall be expressly
stated in both the minutes/certificate of
arreaignment and the order of arraignment. The
court shall explain the waiver to the accused in the
language or dialect known to him, and ensure the
accused's full understanding of the consequences
of the waiver before approving the same.
(d) Arraignment Proper:
 i. Plea Bargaining.-If the accused
desires to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser
offense, plea bargaining shall
immediately proceed, provided the
private offended party in private crimes,
or the arresting officer in victimless
crimes, is present to give his consent with
the conformity of the public prosecutor to
the plea bargaining. Thereafter, judgment
same proceedings.
 ii. Plea of Guilty to the Crime Charged
in the Information.- If the accused
pleads guilty to the crime charged in the
information, judgment shall be
immediately rendered, except in those
cases involving capital punishment.
 iii. Where No Plea Bargaining or Plea
of Guilty Takes Place.- the court
immediately proceed with the
arraignment and the pre-trial, in
accordance with the succeeding
provisions on pre-trial.
 The schedule of the trial dates, for both
the prosecution and the accused, shall be
continuous and within the periods
provided in the Regular Rules/Special
Rules. The dates may be shortened
depending on the number of witnesses to
be presented. In this regard, a flowchart
shall be prepared by the court which shall
serve as the final schedule of hearings.
Sample flowcharts:
A. Regular Rules (10 months):
B. Special Laws/Rules
1. Drug Cases: (2.5 months)
2. Environmental Cases (10 months):
3. Intellectual Property Rights Cases (9 months)
4. Arraingment & Pre-trial of cases Referred to
Mediation (10 months)
(e) Arraignment & Preliminary Conference of
Mediatable Cases Subject to the Rule on Summary
Procedure.- Arraignment and pre-trial shall be
simultaneously held, and the court shall take up all the
matters required under Sec. 14, Rule on Summary
Procedure during the preliminary conference.
 i. If the accused pleads guilty to the
crime charged in the information, follow
same procedure earlier discussed.
 ii. If the accused pleads guildty to a lesser
offense, follow same procedure earlier
discussed.
 iii. If accused does not enter a plea of
guilty, whether to a lesses offense or to
the offense charged in the information,
the court shall immediately proceed to
arraignment and preliminary conference,
and thereafter refer the case to mediation.
Sample flowchart:
• Rule on Summary Procedure of Criminal
Cases referred to Mediation(4 months):
Rule 117 – Motion to Quash
Note: When to file a motion to quash and effect of not
filing a motion to quash (refer to earlier discussions)
What is the form of a motion to quash?
It is in writing(Rule 117, Sec. 2)
Who files a motion to quash?
It is only the accused or his counsel who files the
motion(Rule 117, Sec.2)
What is the nature of a motion to quash?
 A motion to quash is a class by itself/sue generis.
It is filed only upon the grounds mentioned in
Rule 117, Sec. 3. There can never be any other
grounds for a motion to quash criminal
informations except those provided under Rule
117, Sec. 3.
Note: Under A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, the Revised
Guideline for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases
(Sept. 1, 2017), a Motion to Quash is a prohibited
pleading when the ground is not one of those
stated in Sec. 3, Rule 117.
Consequently, the court shall deny it outright
before the scheduled arraignment without need of
comment and/or opposition.
Grounds for Filing a Motion to Quash (Rule 117, Sec.
3)
Note: These grounds are exclusive. It is a MUST
to memorize these grounds.
The grounds are:
1) The facts charged do not constitute an offense;
2) The court trying the case has no jurisdiction
over the offense (Lack of jurisdiction over the
offense);
3) The court trying the accused has no jurisdiction
over the person of the accused (Lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused);
4) The officer who filed the information had no
authority to do so;
5) The complaint or information does not conform
substantially to the prescribed form;
6) More than one offense is charged except when
a single punishment for various offenses is
prescribed by law;
7) The criminal action or liability has been
extinguished (Extinction of penal action);
8) The complaint or information contains
averments which, if true, would constitute a legal
excuse or justification, and;
Eg. The information avers that the
accused is insane or a minor.
9) The accused has been previously convicted or
acquitted of the offense charged, or the case
against him was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent (Double
jeopardy).
Test for Sufficiency of the Complaint or Information
• By way of Jurisprudence: An information is
sufficient if its averments, if hypothetically
admitted, whether the facts alleged would
establish the essential elements of the offense as
defined by law without considering matters
aliunde.
Note: This is very similar to the test to determine the
sufficiency of a petition or complaint in a civil action.
Note: Only the ultimate, and not evidentiary facts are
considered. Ultimate facts are those that allege the cause
of action or elements of a crime. Evidentiary facts are
those that support the allegations of the ultimate facts.
Example:
• In a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
for absence of essential requisites, the following
will be the ultimate facts:
 a)The parties were married;
 b) At the time the parties were married,
either or both of them do not possess all
the essential elements for marriage – ie
consent, contracting capacity such as
legal age, former marriage that has not
been nullified or annulled, etc.;
 c) If applicable, the following are added:
• (i) Allegations as to having
children and their custody;
• (ii) Allegations as to acquisition
of property;
The evidentiary facts will be the following:
a)How the parties met;
b)Making allegations as to psychological
incapacity;
c)Describing their life and feelings before
and after the marriage, etc.
Simply said:
 Sufficiency of Criminal Information: A
criminal information is complete, if by just
looking at it, a judgment of conviction may be
had. It can sustain a judgment of conviction.
 Sufficiency of a Complaint/Petition in a Civil
Action/ Special Proceeding: A complaint is
sufficient, if just by itself, judgment may be
rendered in favor of the plaintiff and granting the
prayers therein.
• Are there grounds for a motion to quash that
may not be waived?
Yes. As a rule, failure to file a motion to
quash constitutes a waiver over its grounds.

However, the following grounds may not be waived:
• 1) The facts averred do not constitute an
offense;
• 2) Jurisdiction over the offense is absent;
• 3) Extinction of Criminal Liability; and
• 4) Double Jeopardy
• Is the court mandated to grant a motion to
quash?
 No. A court may grant or deny a motion
to quash upon its discretion.
• What is the implication of a court’s denial of a
motion to quash?
 The Court is not persuaded by the
accused’s argument.
• What is the remedy of an accused whose
motion to quash has been denied?
 The accused whose motion to quash has
been denied must enter his plea and go
to trial.
What if the accused still wants to question the order of
the Court denying his Motion to Quash?
 The accused may resort to a Rule 65
petition/ Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65.
Note: Appeal is not the proper remedy in case the motion
to quash is denied. There being no appeal, if the accused
still wants to question the order denying the motion to
quash, he must resort to a Rule 65 Petition/Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65. Nonetheless, before such petition
may be acted upon, two things need to be alleged and
shown, to wit:
 a) first, there is no appeal, or any other
plain, adequate, and speedy remedy
provided for by law and;
 b) second, the grounds for the petition
must be alleged and shown – grave or
abuse of discretion resulting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction or lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
Note: Courts are given a wide array of discretion. It is only
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess or
jurisdiction that is condemned by the rules.
By simply alleging and invoking the grounds and
requisites for a Rule 65 petition, is the Court mandated
to entertain such petition?
 No. Claiming that the court acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction, lack or
excess of jurisdiction, or invoking
substantial justice, liberal application of
rules are never magic words that will
automatically warrant the Courts to
review its findings.
Granting a Motion to Quash
What is the prosecution’s remedy in case a motion to
quash is granted?
The following are the remedies available to the
prosecution when a motion to quash has been granted:
1) Amend the complaint or information if such
cures the defect.
Eg. (i) Duplicity of complaint or
information; (ii) The facts charged
do not constitute an offense.
2) Refile the complaint or information.
Eg. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense.
3) Appeal from the order granting the motion to
quash. This is applicable only if the motion to quash is
sustained on the grounds of extinction of criminal
liability and double jeopardy.
WHY???
• Answer: Sustaining a motion to quash over the
said grounds constitutes a final order or an
adjudication by merits, which is the proper
subject of an appeal. Appeal is available only for
a final order or an adjudication by merits, and not
for interlocutory orders.
Void and Defective Information
 A void information may be assailed
anytime while a defective information
may only be assailed before arraignment.
 A void information does not confer any
jurisdiction to the courts over the offense
while the defects in a defective
information may be waived and the
courts may still acquire jurisdiction over
the offense.
Rule on Supervening Facts (Rule 117 Sec. 7)
Note: Rule 117, Sec 7 is otherwise known as the
Supervening Fact Doctrine.
 The conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to
another prosecution for an offense which
necessarily includes the offense charged in the
former complaint or information under any of the
following instances:
• a) The graver offense developed due to
supervening facts arising from the same
act or omission constituting the former
charge.
• b) The facts constituting the graver
charge became known or were
discovered only after a plea was entered
in the former complaint o information; or
• c) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense
was made without the consent of the
prosecutor and offended party except as
provided under in Sec. 1(f),Rule 116.
Note: this is an exception to the general rule on Double
Jeopardy.

Note:
Where after the first prosecution, a new fact
supervenes for which the accused is responsible,
which changes the character of
theoffense and, together with the facts existing at the
time, constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused
cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the
second offense.
A new fact supervenes which, would change the
nature of the crime.
Origin of the Rule
 This present rule was brought about as a result
of jurisprudence.
People vs. Tarok, 73 Phil. 260; People vs.
Villasis, 46 O.G. 268; Carmelo vs People, G.R.
No. L-3580, March 22, 1950; Melo vs. People,
85 Phil. 766; People vs. Buling, 107 Phil. 712;
People vs. Adil, 76 SCRA 462; People vs. Tac-an,
182 SCRA 601; and People vs. City Court of
Manila, 121 SCRA 637.
• Prior to this rule, in a case, a former charge of
grave physical injuries was not allowed to be
amended to Homicide. In this case, the charge for
Grave Physical Injuries was filed while the victim
is still in the hospital. The accused was arraigned,
and he entered a plea of not guilty. Subsequently,
the victim died of his injuries. When the
prosecutor expressed his desire to upgrade the
former charge, the Court ruled that it may not be
allowed as Double Jeopardy has set in. In another
case, an accused was charged with serious
physical injuries, for which he was convicted.
When the victim, who happens to be his own wife,
died from meningitis contracted from her injuries,
the Court did not allow the second charge of
parricide to prosper (People vs. Villasis, 46 O.G.
268; People vs. Tarok, 73 Phil. 260;)
• Melo v. People, Melo vs. People, 85 Phil.
766: (The SC abandoned the Tarok doctrine)
This has already repealed the doctrine laid down
in the Tarok case as contrary to the real meaning
of double jeopardy as intended by the
Constitution and the Rules of Court and
"obnoxious to the administration of justice," and
has reverted to the rule that "where after the first
prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the
defendant is responsible, which changes the
character of the offenses and together with the
facts existing at the time, constitutes a new and
distinct offense." That rule applies to the present
case where, after the first prosecution for a lesser
crime, new facts have supervened which, together
with those already in existence at the time of the
first prosecution, have made the offense graver
and the penalty first imposed legally inadequate.
(PEOPLE vs.
MAXIMO MANOLONG, G.R. No. L-2288, March
30, 1950)
 Melo v. People (ibid): it was held that an accused
who pleaded guilty to the offense of frustrated
homicide, the offended party thereafter dying in
the evening of the same day, could not rely on a
plea of double jeopardy if, as a result thereof, the
information was amended to charge him with
homicide. As was clarified in the opinion of this
Court through the then Chief Justice Moran, one
of the dissenters in the Tarok case:
"This rule of identity does not apply, however,
when the second offense was not in existence at the
time of the first prosecution, for the simple reason that
in such case there is no possibility for the accused,
during the first prosecution, to be convicted for an
offense that was then inexistent. Thus, where the
accused was charged with physical injuries and after
conviction the injured person dies, the charge for
homicide against the same accused does not put him
twice in jeopardy."
Stated differently, if after the first prosecution "a
new fact supervenes on which defendant may be held
liable, resulting in altering the character of the crime and
giving rise to a new and distinct offense, "the accused
cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the
new offense."
People vs. Yorac, 42 SCRA, 230:
 Stated differently, if after the first
prosecution 'a new fact supervenes on
which defendant may be held liable,
resulting in altering the character of the
crime and giving rise to a new and
distinct offense, 'the accused cannot be
said to be in second jeopardy if indicted
for the new offense
In People vs. Buling, 107 Phil. 112, We explained how a
deformity may be considered as a supervening fact.
Referring to the decision in People vs. Manolong, 85 Phil.
829, We held:
No finding was made in the first examination that the
injuries had caused deformity and the loss of the use of the
right hand. As nothing was mentioned in the first medical
certificate about the deformity and the loss of the use of
the righthand, we presumed that such fact was not apparent
or could have been discernible at the time the first
examination was made. The course (not the length) of the
healing of an injury may not be determined before hand; it
can only be definitely known after the period of healing
has ended. That is the reason why the court considered that
there was a supervening fact occurring since the filing of
the original information.
PEOPLE vs.RENATO TAC-AN Y HIPOS, G.R. No.
76338-39 February 26, 1990:
• The claim of double jeopardy.
 • It is contended by appellant that because he had
already been charged with illegal possession of a
firearm and ammunition in Criminal Case No.
4007, aggravated by the use of such unlicensed
firearm to commit a homicide or murder, he was
unconstitutionally placed in jeopardy of
punishment for the second time when he was
charged in Criminal Case No. 4012 with murder
"with the use of an unlicensed [firearm]," in
violation of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
in relation to Section 17 of B.P. Blg. 179.
• Ruling:
• It is elementary that the constitutional right
against double jeopardy protects one against a
second or later prosecution for the same
offense, and that when the subsequent information
charges another and different offense, although
arising from the same act or set of acts, there is no
prohibited double jeopardy. In the case at bar, it
appears to us quite clear that the offense charged
in Criminal Case No. 4007 is that of unlawful
possession of an unlicensed firearm penalized
under a special
• statute, while the offense charged in Criminal
Case No. 4012 was that of murder punished under
the Revised Penal Code. It would appear self-
evident that these two (2) offenses in themselves
are quite different one from the other, such that in
principle, the subsequent filing of Criminal Case
No. 4012 is not to be regarded as having placed
appellant in a prohibited second jeopardy.
Court ruled that there will be double jeopardy if
the accused is unaware that the victim is dead
while entering the plea. But if the accused is
aware that the victim died and still he entered a
guilty plea, there will be no double jeopardy.
People v City Court of Manila, 121 SCRA 637
• The victim died on the day that the first
information for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries was
filed. 2 days later, the accused was arraigned,
pleaded guilty, and was sentenced. The prosecutor
though, received information that the victim died.
He moved to hold in abeyance the arraignment
and proceedings in the first charge to allow
amendment of the information.
• The court did not allow it. When the amended
information was filed, the Court dismissed it. It
made this pronouncement, “the accused was
arraigned, pleaded guilty and sentenced
accordingly. Thus, jeopardy had attached and
no new fact supervened after the arraignment
and conviction of the accused.”

People v Espino, 69 Phil 471:

• In this case, an accused was charged for Grave
Physical Injuries. His arraignment was scheduled
in the afternoon. On the morning of the day of his
arraignment, the victim died and the accused was
informed of it. The accused kept silent and never
informed the prosecutor or the court. The
prosecutor and court were unaware that the victim
died. Arraignment and plea proceeded as
scheduled.

• Upon learning that the victim died, the prosecutor

expressed his desire to upgrade the offense from
Grave Physical Injuries to Homicide. This time,
the Court allowed it. It pointed out that the
accused knowingly pleaded to the lesser offense.

• This was reiterated in another case (People v City

Court of Manila 121 SCRA 637 – compare this
with the Ivler Doctrine). The accused was charged
with Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Serious
Physical Injuries and the accused pleaded to such.
However, the victim died on the day that the first
information was filed. The information was
amended into a charge for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting In Homicide.

• On the issue whether double jeopardy has set in

preventing the amended charge to prosper, the