annotation criminal procedure

8/17/2019 Annotation Criminal Procedure

1/91

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Flores

A N N O T A T I O N

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

1. Complaint and Information

A Duplicity of Offenses

Inclusion of different acts of offenses to complete narration

of facts. —Where the different acts or specifications

charging the accused with having committed the offenses

charged therein were included in the information merely to

describe and to narrate the different and specific acts the

sum total of which constitutes a crime, the validity of the

information cannot be assailed on the ground that itcharges more than one offense, because those different acts

of offenses may serve merely as a basis for the prosecution

of one single crime. People vs. Camerino, 108 Phil. 79.

Defendant not be to be harassed by various prosecutions.

—A defendant should not be harassed with various

prosecutions based on the same act by splitting the same

into various charges, all emanating from the same law

violation, when the prosecution could easily and well

embody them in a single information. ( People vs. Diaz, L-

6518, March 30, 1964). People vs. Silva, 4 SCRA 95. Accused cannot be convicted for a crime higher than that

alleged in the information.—Although two separate crimes

of murder and frustrated murder, both qualified

235

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 235

People vs. Flores


2/91

by treachery, were fully established, however, the

appellants cannot be punished for such crimes, since the

information filed against them is only for attempted

robbery in an inhabited house with homicide and

frustrated homicide and inasmuch as no attempted robbery

in an inhabited house was proven at all, the said appellants

can be held guilty only of homicide and frustrated homicideaggravated by treachery. People vs. Simon, 10 SCRA 280.

Splitting criminal action.— From the viewpoint both of

trial practice and justice, it is doubtful whether the

prosecution should split the action against the defendant,

by filing against him several informations, one for damage

to property and serious and less serious physical injuries,

through reckless negligence, before the Court of First

Instance, and another for slight physical injuries through

reckless negligence, before the justice of the peace or

municipal court. Such splitting of the action would work

unnecesary inconvenience to the administration of justice

in general and to the accused in particular, for it would

require the presentation of substantially the same evidence

before two different courts. In the event of conviction in the

municipal court and appeal to the Court of First Instance,

said evidence would still have to be introduced once more

in the latter court. People vs. Cano, 17 SCRA 237.

Where information charges the defendant with a specific

crime set forth in various counts. —When an informationcharges the defendant with a specific crime set forth in

various counts, each of which may constitute a distinct

offense, it may be allowed without violating the prohibition

against duplicity of offenses as provided in Section 12 of

Rule 110 of the new Rules of Court. The narration in the

information of the specific acts is considered a bill of

particulars of facts upon which the inference of the guilt of

the accused of the crime charged may be based and,

consequently, is not objectionable. The same thing may be

said of the information in the present case. People vs. Yap,

Jr., 22 SCRA 853.

236


People vs. Flores


3/91

B Amendment

When substitution of complaint is permissible. —If the fiscal

finds that the facts can not sustain the allegations of the

complaint, he can present another suitable information

unless the defendant has already been placed in jeopardy

under the first complaint or unless harassment can be

shown. In such a case, there is no amendment, but asubstitution. The situation is not controlled by section 13 of

Rule 106 of the Rules of Court. Calion vs. People, 106 Phil.

943.

Amended information changing ground of responsibility

is not permissible. —The accused was charged with the

crime of estafa based on an information which alleged that

the accused obtained a sum of money from the

complainant, giving as security for its payment the

improvements and products of his property, and that the

accused later on, while the loan was still unpaid,

transferred by way of mortgage to the R.F.C. not only the

improvements and products of his property, but also the

title of said property. The accused pleaded not guilty and

the trial commenced, but the same was suspended because

the accused moved to dismiss the information on the

ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute a

crime. The motion was granted. The Provincial Fiscal

presented a motion to admit an amended information

where it is alleged that the accused gave as security for thepayment of his loan not only the improvements and the

products but also the land, title to which the accused

mortgaged to the R.F.C. while his indebtedness to the

offended party was still unpaid and unsatisfied? Held: No.

The latter information changes the facts or the ground of

responsibility for which the accused is indicted. If the

amended information were to be admitted, the accused

would be deprived of his defense of double jeopardy,

because by the amended information he is sought to be

made responsible for the same act of borrowing on a

mortgage for which he had already begun to be tried and

acquitted by the dismissal of the original information. The

law, Section 13 of Rule 106 of the

237

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 237

People vs. Flores


4/91

Rules of Court, permits amendment only when amendment

can be done without prejudice to the rights of the

defendant. People vs. Labatete, 107 Phil. 697.

When amendment of complaint or information is

allowed. —Section 13 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court

contains two parts: one authorizes the amendment of an

information or complaint, in substance or form, withoutleave of court, at any time before the defendant pleads and

thereafter, only as to matters of form. The other provides

that, if it appears at any time before judgment that a

mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the

court may dismiss the original complaint or information

and order the filing of a new one charging the proper

offense, provided the defendant would not be placed in

double jeopardy. Dimalibot vs. Salcedo, 107 Phil. 843.

Nature of the charge. —Amendment of information may

also be made even if it may result in altering the nature of

the charge so long as it can be done without prejudice to

the rights of the defendant. Id.

Amending of information or filing of new information if

motion to quash is granted. —If the trial court sustains the

motion to quash filed by the defendants on the ground that

more than one offense is charged in the information, it

should order that the information be amended, or if that is

not possible, that a new information be filed wherein the

defects of the previous information may be cured. People vs.Camerino, 108 Phil. 79.

Amended informations are not new informations but a

continuation of the previous one, so that a discharge under

the original information is just as binding upon the

subsequent amended informations.— People vs. Taruc,5

SCRA 132.

Amendment of complaint for physical injuries.— Where a

criminal complaint for physical injuries contained the

general statement that the offended party suffered a

serious physical injury, was made more specific by the

introduction of details and particulars, the amendment

does

238


People vs. Flores


5/91

not change the material facts or the nature of the offense.

It is in fact for the benefit of the accused, as it gives him

the opportunity to deny or contradict the details with his

evidence. Caparas vs. Gonzales, 7 SCRA 182.

Amendment of date of filing of alleged falsifified

document in civil registry is merely formal. —An

amendment of the date of the filing of the alleged falsified

document in the Civil Registry in an information for thecrime of falsification of public documents through false

narration of facts, is merely formal and does not impair the

rights of the accused, because the purpose is merely to

correct a clerical mistake in unessential details. The date of

filing in the Civil Registry was not an element of the crime

charged (falsification by false narration of facts) since the

offense had already been completed before the document

allegedly falsified was filed in the Registry. People vs.

Bautista, 23 SCRA 219.

Amendment of entry number of alleged falsifieddocument in civil registry is merely formal. —The same

reasoning applies to the amendment of the Entry number,

from 907 to 807, the entry numbers being assigned by Civil

Registrar’s Office not being constitutive element of the

offense of falsification by false narration of facts. Id.

Amendment to change date of birth of child stated in the

alleged falsified document is merely formal. —The

amendment of the Information for the offense of

falsification by false narration of facts so as to change thedate of the child’s birth stated in the alleged falsified

document is merely formal. The change of the date of the

birth of the child by one day is immaterial and irrelevant to

the offense. Id.

Amendment of the list of exhibits is proper. —An

amendment of the list of exhibits at the foot of the

information for an offense of falsification by false narration

of facts so as to change the list of exhibits to be produced by

the Civil Registrar from the birth certificate of Susan Dabu

de Vera to that of Quinciano de Vera, Jr. is merely formal

239

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 239

People vs. Flores

and does not alter the body of the information. The

prosecution could call for any exhibit other than those


6/91

enumerated by it at the foot of the information and is not

duty bound to apprise the accused of all the evidence it

intends to produce. Id.

Amendment of complaint may not be made after plea if it

will touch substantial matters. —In substantial amendment

of information, the rule is that after the accused has

pleaded the information may be amended as to all matters

of form by leave and at the discretion of the court, when thesame can be done without prejudice to the rights of the

defendant (Section 13, Rule 110, New Rules of Court).

Amendments that touch upon matters of substance cannot

be permitted after the plea is entered. Reyes vs. People, 27

SCRA 686.

C Designation of Crime by Fiscal

Assault upon a person in authority with disturbance of

public order. —Where it is alleged in the information that

the accused by laying hands upon election inspectors and

watchers in public places had cause serious disturbance

and interrupted or disturbed public performances and

functions, they are thus charged with the complex crime of

assault upon a person in authority with disturbance of

public order. Villanueva vs. Ortiz, 108 Phil. 493.

Discretion of prosecuting officer to determine what

persons appear to be criminally responsible. —It is within

the prosecuting officer’s discretion to determine what

persons appear to be responsible for the commission of anoffense. If for any reason he fails to include the names of

one or more criminals in an information, such persons will

not be relieved if penal liability; nor will the accused who

have been charged with the offense be permitted to escape

punishment merely because it develops in the course of the

trial that there were other guilty participants in the crime.

People vs. Catli, 6 SCRA 642.

240


People vs. Flores

Prosecution of criminal offenses under the city charter of

Cebu. —Under Section 37 of the Cebu City Charter

(Commonwealth Act 58), a criminal charge is first to be

lodged with the fiscal who shall investigate the same; if


7/91

warranted, he shall have the necessary information or

complaint prepared or made against the accused;

thereafter, he shall have charge of the prosecution of the

crime in court. In the case at bar, the complaint was first

lodged with the fiscal, who conducted a preliminary

investigation and found probable cause. He attested to the

complaint verified by the complainant, recommended bail

and caused the complaint to be filed in the city court. Inshort, he adopted the complaint as his own. These

actuations of the fiscal pass the statutory requirement,

because, with the verified complaint, he instituted the

criminal proceedings. (Montelibano vs. Ferrer, 97 Phil. 228,

233). Balite vs. People, 18 SCRA 280.

D Place Where Crime was Committed

Where the claim of appellant that he was apprehended in

another municipality for traffic violation at the time of the

crime was held not credible.—The alibi put up by the

appellant to the effect that on the very occasion the

incident had allegedly taken place he was in Narvacan,

Ilocos Sur, where he was apprehended by a policeman for

his failure to produce his driver’s license and as a result he

was there confined for a while and the same appears

bolstered by the police blotter, is, however, easily dispelled,

taking into account the many circumstances that were

discovered by the trial court which made it reach the

inevitable conclusion that said police blotter was falsifiedand was concocted to serve the purpose of the defense.

People vs. Valera, 15 SCRA 164.

Territorial jurisdiction in a bigamy case where the first

and second marriages occurred in two provinces.—The rule

is that where crimes “committed partly in one province and

partly in another, that is to say, where some acts material

and essential to the crime, and requisite to its consumma-

241

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 241

People vs. Flores

tion, occur in one province and some in another, they are

triable in either province”. (U.S. vs. Santiago, 27 Phil. 411.)

This means that to make the offense triable in more than

one province the acts perpetrated in any of them must be


8/91

impelled by the same criminal purpose or aim. Ganchero

vs. Bellosillo, 28 SCRA 673.

E Delay in Filing Complaint

Meaning of the term “proper court”. —The proper court in

the present litigation was the Court of First Instance of

Camarines Sur. The records of this case clearly show that

no formal complaint or information as contemplated by theaforementioned Article 91 of the Penal Code was ever filed

therein within the reglementary period. As a matter of fact,

the said formal complaint or information was filed only

after the lapse of more than one year. Considering that

under the Code, the prescriptive period for grave oral

defamation is six months (Art. 90, Revised Penal Code), the

only conclusion deducible is that the same has prescribed.

People vs. Coquia, 8 SCRA 349.

Delay in prosecution is not unfavorable where imposed

on the government by causes beyond its control. —The

observation that undue delay in the prosecution of criminal

actions speaks of the suspicious veracity of the state’s

claim, cannot be made where the delay was imposed on the

government by causes over which it has no control. In the

case at bar, the delay was due to the reluctance of

witnesses to testify, overcome as they were by fear of

reprisal by Kamlon and his henchmen. People vs. Hadji, 9

SCRA 252.

Delay of three years and eleven months in trial of criminal case properly considered in dismissal. —By any

fair standard, the lapse of three years and eleven months

from the time a criminal case was filed up to the time it

was actually called for trial on the merits, can hardly be

ignored by a magistrate when he is called upon to rule on a

motion to dismiss grounded on defendant’s constitu-

242


People vs. Flores

tional right to a speedy trial. People vs. Cloribel, 11 SCRA

805.

Delay in prosecution of crime explained by threats on life

of prosecution witnesses. —The delay in the prosecution of

the crime is not unreasonable nor does it reflect any


9/91

insincerity of the prosecution witnesses where it was

explained that the failure to come forward to testify was

due to fear of threats of physical harm issued against them

by the accused, who at that time were quite powerful in the

town. People vs. Evaristo, 13 SCRA 172.

F Failure to Allege Qualifying Circumstances, Etc.

The power of prosecuting officer to determine sufficiency of evidence not absolute. —It is for the prosecuting officer to

determine whether the evidence at hand is sufficient to

engender a reasonable belief that a person committed an

offense. This power and prerogative of the prosecuting

officer is not, however, altogether absolute. It is subject to

judicial review in proper cases, as where from the evidence

submitted and gathered by the prosecuting officer a person

appearing to be responsible for the commission of an

offense is not included in the information. De Castro, Jr. vs.

Castañeda, 1 SCRA 1131.

Court should defer pronouncement of judgment only in

capital punishment. —There being not a single aggravating

circumstance alleged in the information, there was no

possibility that he could have been given the capital

penalty. Such being the case, the lower court should not

have deferred the pronouncement of the judgment. It is

only in cases where, upon a plea of guilty, the accused can

be sentenced to death that the trial court is justified not to

follow the logical and legal consequence of a plea of guilty— namely, the acceptance of the plea of imposition of the

penalty provided by law. People vs. Magcamit, 27 SCRA

450.

243

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 243

People vs. Flores

C Damages

Effect of failure to allege damages in the information or

complaint. —Even if the complaint or information is silent

as to damages or the intention to prove and claim them, the

offender is still liable for them, and the offended has the

right to prove and claim for them in the criminal case,

unless a waiver or the reserving of the civil action is made.


10/91

Roa vs. De la Cruz, 107 Phil. 8. (See also Civil Liability,

infra.)

Former conviction that bars subsequent prosecution. —

Where a person had already been prosecuted for and

convicted of, damage to property and physical injuries, both

caused through reckless imprudence and produced on the

same vehicular incident. The latter offense is necessarily

age to property through reckless imprudence cause by thesame vehicular incident. The latter offense is necessarily

included in the former. People vs. Narvas, 107 Phil. 738.

Where the information does not assert the value of the

damage caused to the property, the same may be assessed at

the minimum penalized by law. — Id.

Information charging damage to property, lesiones

menos graves and lesiones leves through reckless negligence.

—The information alleges that, through reckless negligence

of the defendant, the bus driven by him hit another bus

causing upon some of its passengers, serious physicalinjuries, upon others less serious physical injuries and

upon still others slight physical injuries, in addition to

damage to property. Such information does nor purport to

complex the offense of slight physical injuries with reckless

negligence with that of damage to property and serious and

less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence.

People vs. Cano, 17 SCRA 237.

H Failure of the Accused to Testify

Effect of failure of accused to testify. —While the failure of

the accused to testify in his own behalf cannot be

244


People vs. Flores

considered against him, it may however help indetermining his guilt. Likewise, his flight subsequent to

the commission of the crime can leave no other impression

than that he did so to avoid apprehension. As the Supreme

Court has aptly said: “The wicked fleeth, even if no man

pursueth, but the innocent is as bold as a lion.” People vs.

Cidro, 105 Phil. 238.

I Lack of Intention


11/91

Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. —Intention

partakes of the nature of a mental process, an internal act.

As a general rule, it can be gathered from and determined

only by the conduct and external acts of the offender and

the results of the acts themselves. Lack of intent to commit

so grave a wrong was not mitigating in a case where the

accused strangled a six-year old girl while raping her.

People vs. Yu, 1 SCRA 199.

J Illegal Fishing

Intent presumed from result of the act. —The act charged in

the information against the appellant that he wilfully,

unlawfully and feloniously exploded one stick of dynamite,

which explosion resulted in disabling, stupefying and

killing a certain kind of fish, comes under the provisions of

Section 12 and paragraph 2 of Republic Act 462 although

the information fails to state that the act was for the

purpose of fishing. To assume that appellant exploded the

dynamite in the water just for fun, and that said

supposedly innocent practice unexpectedly resulted in the

killing of a large fish, would involve an unreasonable

presumption as well an extraordinary coincidence. The

intent may be rightly presumed from the result of the act.

Moreover, the information in the case at bar being entitled

“Illegal Fishing With Explosive,” there could have been no

doubt in the mind of appellant, who was then assisted by

counsel, that he was being charged with explodingdynamite for purposes of fishing illegally. People vs.

Cubelo, 106 Phil. 496.

245

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 245

People vs. Flores

K Estafa

When estafa charge contains allegations regarding illegal

possession of false bank note. —Where the original and

amended complaints for estafa, on which a preliminary

investigation was conducted, contain allegations that the

defendant knowingly had in her possession, with intent to

use, and had actually used, a false bank note, the trial

court erred in dismissing the information charging that


12/91

offense and in holding that the defendant is entitled to

another preliminary investigation. People vs. Casiano, 1

SCRA 478.

L Abduction

Complaint for forcible abduction includes abduction with

consent. —The complaint for forcible abduction includes

abduction with consent. The spirit of Article 344 of theRevised Penal Code is that the assent of the offended party

and her mother to undergo the scandal of a public trial for

forcible abduction necessarily connotes, also, their

willingness to face the scandal attendant to a public trial

for abduction with consent. Valdepeñas vs. People, 16

SCRA 871.

M Libel and Slander

When offended party’s complaint not necessary on grave

slander. —Under the last paragraph of Article 360 of the

Revised Penal Code, only defamations imputing crimes

which may not be prosecuted de oficio under Article 344,

i.e., adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction with rape,

and acts of lasciviousness, must be prosecuted upon

complaint by the offended party (People vs. Juan B. Santos

and Francisco Guballa, 98 Phil. 111; 52 O.G. No. 1, 203;

People vs. Añel, L-8393, April 27, 1956). So that where no

imputation of any of the crimes mentioned in Article 344 is

made, the complaint by the offended party is not necessary(Vda. de Corostiza vs. People, L-9091, August 28, 1956;

People vs. Marquez, 68

246


People vs. Flores

Phil. 506). Likewise, the imputation of a vice or defectwhich does not constitute a crime at all is not within the

exception (People vs. Añel, L-8393, April 27, 1966). As the

grave slander by deed charged in the case at bar does not

impute any crime, public or private, to the offended party,

his complaint was not necessary to confer jurisdiction upon

the court. People vs. Duran, Jr., 107 Phil. 979.

Prosecution for grave slander by deed and slight physical

injuries. —Where accused, after uttering defamatory words


13/91

against the offended party, attacked and assaulted the

latter, resulting in slight physical injuries, two offenses

were committed, for while the insults as well as the assault

were the product of the same criminal impulse, the act of

inflicting physical injuries, although the two offenses may

have taken place on the same occasion, or that one

preceded the other. The act of insulting cannot be deemed

included in that of inflicting physical injuries, because theoffense of insult is an offense against honor, whereas slight

physical injuries is an offense against persons. Hence,

prosecution of the accused for the two offenses cannot place

him in danger of double jeopardy. People vs. Ramos, 2

SCRA 523.

How criminal action is commenced. —The plain import of

the last paragraph of Article 360, Revised Penal Code, is

that where defamation imputes a crime, which cannot be

prosecuted de oficio, the general rule that criminal actions

must be commenced either by complaint or information(Rule 110 of the 1964 Rules of Court) must give way; the

criminal action must have to be brought solely “at the

instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the

offended party.” The converse proposition, however, cannot

be true. Reasonable construction will not permit a

deduction which would constrict criminal prosecution—of

defamation which can be prosecuted de oficio —by means of

information. Balite vs. People, 18 SCRA 280.

247

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 247

People vs. Flores

Slanderous imputation that offended party was a prostitute

can be prosecuted de oficio. —The slanderous imputation

that the offended woman was a prostitute is not one of

those crimes which cannot be prosecuted de oficio. Thereason is that prostitution is a crime against public morals

and can be prosecuted de oficio. Mangila vs. Lantin, 30

SCRA 81.

Slanderous imputation that husband and wife had illicit

relations before their marriage can be prosecuted de oficio.

—The slanderous imputation of the alleged premarital

relations of the offended husband and wife could be a vice

or defect so that Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code does

not apply. The law only exacts that a criminal action for


14/91

defamation be filed at the instance of or upon complaint

signed by the offended party where the crime imputed

cannot be prosecuted de oficio. Id.

Offense of oral defamation is not necessarily included in

that of light threats. —Where the complaint for oral

defamation, when considered in its entirety, strongly

suggests the intention of asserting that the acts therein set

forth were performed for no other purpose than to insultthe complainant, the crime of light threat is not necessarily

included in the charge contained in said complaint.

Acquittal under the first complaint charging oral

defamation does not bar prosecution for the second

complaint charging light threat. People vs. Cervera, 30

SCRA 344.

N Robbery

Accused cannot be convicted for a crime higher than that

alleged in the information. —Although two separate crimes

of murder and frustrated murder, both qualified by

treachery, were fully established, however, the appellants

cannot be punished for such crimes, since the information

filed against them is only for attempted robbery in an

inhabited house with homicide and frustrated homicide,

and inasmuch as no attempted robbery in an inhabited

248


People vs. Flores

house was proven at all, the said appellants can be held

guilty only of homicide and frustrated homicide aggravated

by treachery. People vs. Simon, 10 SCRA 280.

Joint decision of separate cases involving same defense.

Although three offenses or robbery in band with homicide,

robbery, and robbery in band with serious physical injurieswere committed on different dates against different

persons by the same defendant, necessitating separate

trials, however, since the defendants made use of the same

defense in all of them, and the court a quo deemed it proper

to hand down only one consolidated decision sentencing the

defendant to reclusion perpetua in one of said cases, the

Supreme Court, to which said cases were appealed,

following the same pattern, rendered likewise a joint


15/91

decision. People vs. Torino, 11 SCRA 287.

Description of picklock as specially adapted to robbery

unnecessary. —Since picking of locks is one way to gain

entrance to commit robbery, a picklock is per se specially

adapted to the commission of robbery. The description in

the information of a picklock as “specially adapted to the

commission of robbery” is therefore unnecessary for its

sufficiency. People vs. Lopez, 14 SCRA 30.

O Complex Crime

Assault upon a person in authority with disturbance of

public order. —Where it is alleged in the information that

the accused by laying hands upon election inspectors and

watchers in public places had cause serious disturbance

and interrupted or disturbed public performances and

functions, they are thus charged with the complex crime of

assault upon a person in authority with disturbance of

public order. Villanueva vs. Ortiz, 108 Phil. 495.

Complaint or information for complex crime. —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

249

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 249

People vs. Flores

as defined by law. It is sufficient that the information

contains allegations which state that one offense was a

necessary means to commit the other. The information in

question in the present case contains allegations properly

charging the commission of the complex crime of

incriminatory machinations through unlawful arrest, and

the court a quo committed error when it ordered its

dismissal. People vs. Alagao, 16 SCRA 879.Complex crime favors the accused. —The purpose of

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code in complexing several

felonies resulting from a single act, or one which is a

necessary means to commit another, is to favor the accused

by prescribing the imposition of the penalty for the most

serious crime, instead of the penalties for each of the

aforesaid crimes, which, put together, may be grave than

the penalty for the most serious offense. People vs. Cano, 17


16/91

SCRA 237.

Separate crimes, not complex offense. —Four separate

crimes of murder and a frustrated murder result from the

firing of several shots at five victims. The crimes are not

complex. Five informations should be filed. People vs.

Pineda, 20 SCRA 749.

Illustrations complex crime. —There is a complex crime

where one shot from a gun results in the death of two ormore persons, or where one stabbed another and the

weapon pierced the latter’s body and wounded another, or

where a person plants a bomb in an airplane and the bomb

explodes, with the result that a number of persons are

killed. Id.

Separate crimes if distinct acts results in death of several

victims. —When various victims expire from separate shots,

such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes. Id.

P Crimes Against Chastity

Effect of absence of offended party’s signature on

information. —Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code re-

250


People vs. Flores

quires for crimes against chastity the filing by the

“offended party or her parents, grandparents or guardian”

of the complaint, and not of the information. The absence,

therefore, of the signature on the information of either of

the aforementioned persons, is not a valid ground for

contesting the jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject

matter. People vs. Cerena, 106 Phil. 570.

Complaint for acts of lasciviousness must alleged lewd

design. —A complaint charging acts of lasciviousness which

does not allege lewd design, an essential element of allcrimes against chastity, is fatally defective. People vs. Gilo,

10 SCRA 753.

The words “feloniously and criminally” cannot supply

omission of “lewd design”. —The words “feloniously and

criminally” that are alleged in the complaint are mere

general terms which do not necessarily connote the idea of

lust needed in the commission of a crime against chastity

and cannot serve to supply the omission of allegation of


17/91

“lewd design” in a complaint for acts of lasciviousness. Id.

Defective complaints in crimes against chastity can be

cured only by offended party. —Where the complaint

charging a crime against chastity is fatally defective for not

alleging lewd design, such defect cannot be cured by the

information filed by the provincial fiscal but only by

making the proper correction in the complaint filed by the

offended party. Id.

Q Adultery and Concubinage

Rules of information charging bigamy. —The wrong

averment made in the information charging bigamy as to

the person that solemnized the second marriage is

considered unsubstantial and immaterial, for it matters not

who solemnized the marriage, it being sufficient that the

information charging bigamy alleges that a second

marriage was contracted while the first still remained

251

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 251

People vs. Flores

undissolved. The information filed in the case at bar having

properly stated the time and place of the second marriage,

was sufficient to apprise the defendant of the crimeimputed. People vs. Bustamante, 105 Phil. 65.

The crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction,

abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness may be prosecuted

only upon complaint filed by the offended party or by

parents, grandparents, or guardian. — People vs. Aranda,

106 Phil. 1008.

One of the accused in a prosecution for adultery may be

separately tried in the absence of the other accused where

both the prosecution and the other accused are ready to go

to trial. — People vs. Oplado, 12 SCRA 147.

R Self-Defense

Where appellant’s theory of self-defense is negatived by the

nature and location of the victim’s wounds. —Appellant’s

theory of self-defense, in the case at bar, is negatived by

the nature and location of the victim’s wound which,

having a right to left direction, could not have possibly

been inflicted by a right-handed person in front of the


18/91

victim with a two-feet long bolo. People vs. Labis, 21 SCRA

875.

S Miscellaneous

Authority of special prosecutors to sign informations and

conduct prosecutions.— A lawyer appointed by the

Secretary of Justice, pursuant to Section 1686 of the

Revised Administrative Code, as amended, to assist theCity Fiscal, is authorized to sign informations, make

investigations and conduct prosecutions. People vs.

Henderson III, 105 Phil. 859. (See also Preliminary

Investigation and Fiscal, supra.)

When complaint or information is sufficient. —A

complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name

252


People vs. Flores

of the defendant; the designation of the offense by the

statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting

the offense; the name of the offended party; the appropriate

time of the commission of the offense, and the place where

the offense was committed (Sec. 5, Rule 110, Revised Rules

of Court). People vs. Rodrigo, 16 SCRA 475. Allegations in the indictment characterize the crime

charged. —The averments in the complaint or information

characterize the crime to be prosecuted and the court

before which it must be tried. (U.S. vs. Lim San, 17 Phil.

273, 278; U.S. vs. Mallari, 24 Phil. 366, 368; U.S. vs.

Pompeya, 31 Phil. 245, 256-257; People vs. Co Hiok, 62

Phil. 501, 503). Balite vs. People, 18 SCRA 280.

Discretion as to filing of informations. —A prosecution

attorney, by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion

to file a particular information where he is not convincedthat he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof, or

that the evidence on hand points to a different conclusion.

His discretion cannot be controlled by the offended party.

People vs. Pineda, 20 SCRA 749.

A widow may be considered an offended party within the

meaning of the applicable Rules of Court provision, entitled

to file a complaint for the murder of her deceased husband.

— Del Rosario, Jr. vs. Vda. de Mercado, 29 SCRA 116.


19/91

Where prosecution was allowed to introduce rebuttal

evidence on new matter not covered directly by evidence of

prosecution. —The prosecution presented evidence to show

that the accused killed the persons mentioned in the

information, as well as wounded several other specified

persons. The accused presented evidence to establish the

contrary—that he did not kill or wound said persons. He,

however, went further, by testifying that it was AH whokilled and wounded the persons abovementioned. May the

prosecution present the testimony of MA as rebuttal

evidence to show that it was the accused, not AH, who com-

253

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 253

People vs. Flores

mitted the crime alleged in the information? Held: Yes. The

evidence of the accused that it was AH who killed and

wounded the persons mentioned in the information was a

new matter not covered directly by the evidence for the

prosecution. It is true that if it was the accused who caused

the deaths and the injuries alleged, it would follow that AH

was not the author of strict legal right, to introduce

positive evidence to this effect, instead of relying upon a

mere inference from its evidence in chief. People vs. Abalos,

30 SCRA 599.

2. Variance Between Allegation and Proof

Conviction of crime different from the crime charged. —

Where the crime charged was for attempted robbery with

homicide and frustrated homicide, the defendant may not

be convicted of consummated robbery with homicide.

Moreover, where, as in the case at bar, there were no overt

acts pointing to robbery or even an attempt thereof have

been established, the killing of one passenger and the

wounding of two should be considered as plain murder,

frustrated murder, and physical injuries respectively.

People vs. Olaes, 105 Phil. 502. (See also Robbery, supra.)

Variance between allegation and proof. —An accused

may be convicted of an offense proved provided it is

included in the charge, or of an offense charged which is

included in that proved. Stated differently, an accused can


20/91

be convicted of an offense only when it is both charged and

proved. If it is not charged although proved, or if it is not

proved although charged, the accused can not be convicted

thereof. In other words, variance between the allegation

and proof cannot justify conviction for either the offense

charged or the offense proved unless either is included in

the other. Esguerra vs. People, 108 Phil. 1078.

Variance between the allegations of the information andthe evidence offered by the prosecution in support thereof

does not of itself entitle the accused to an acquittal. — People

vs. Catli, 6 SCRA 642.

254


People vs. Flores

3. Preliminary Investigation

Who are entitled to be heard in preliminary investigation. —

The statute concerning preliminary investigations merely

requires that the accused shall be given a chance to be

heard where such accused can be subpoenaed and appears

before the investigating fiscal, with the right to cross-

examine the complainant and his witnesses. Where theaccused is abroad and can not be subpoenaed, it is not

necessary to give him such chance. People vs. Henderson

III, 105 Phil. 859. (See also Fiscal, infra.)

An accused is not entitled to cross-examine the witnesses

presented against him in the preliminary investigation

before his arrest, this being a matter that depends on the

sound discretion of the judge or investigating officer

concerned ( People vs. Ramilo, 98 Phil. 545; 52 O.G. 1431;

Dequito vs. Arellano, 81 Phil. 128; Bustos vs. Lucero, 81

Phil. 640 ). Abrera vs. Muñoz, 108 Phil. 1124.

Waiver of preliminary investigation. —A defendant is

deemed to have waived the preliminary investigation upon

his failure to invoke it prior to, or at least at, the time of

the entry of his plea in the Court of First Instance. People

vs. Casiano, 1 SCRA 478.

Right of the fiscal to conduct another preliminary

investigation. —Where the justice of the peace, after

preliminary investigation, dismisses the charge against the


21/91

accused, the case stands as if no charge had been made.

The Provincial Fiscal may conduct his own preliminary

investigation, making it in the presence of the accused if

and when the latter so requests. If the fiscal files an

information against the accused, the same cannot be

quashed on the ground that the justice of the peace had

previously absolved the accused. People vs. Reginaldo, 1

SCRA 1307.City fiscal’s power and authority to investigate. —Un-der

the provisions of the law, the city fiscal and his as-

255

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 255

People vs. Flores

sistants, in the same manner as provincial fiscal, arevested with the power and authority to investigate all

charges of crimes and violations of ordinances irrespective

of whether the person who complains is the offended party

or not. Said provisions do not require that a sworn written

complaint be first filed before the city fiscal in order that he

may investigate the case complained of, except of course if

the offense is one which cannot be prosecuted de oficio, or is

private in nature, where the law requires that it be started

by a complaint sworn to by the offended party, or when it

pertains to those cases which need to be endorsed by

specified public officers as required in Section 2, Rule 106

of the Rules of Court. Hernandez vs. Albano, 2 SCRA 607.

Time to ask suspension of criminal proceedings. —The

time to ask for the suspension of the criminal proceedings

on the ground that there is a prejudicial question raised in

a civil action that is pending trial is not during the period

of preliminary investigation of the criminal complaint by

the prosecuting officer but after such investigation and

after he shall have filed the corresponding information. Dasalla vs. City Attorney, 5 SCRA 193. (See also

Prejudicial question, infra.)

Authority of judge to conduct preliminary examination

and investigation. —Under Section 13, Rule 112 of the

Rules of Court, when a complaint is filed directly with a

court of first instance the judge himself may conduct both

the preliminary examination and investigation

simultaneously, and if he finds reasonable ground to

believe that the crime has been committed he shall refer


22/91

the case to the fiscal for the filing of the corresponding

information. Albano vs. Arranz, 15 SCRA 518.

Purpose of preliminary examination. —A preliminary

examination conducted by the justice of the peace has for

its purpose the determination of whether a crime has been

committed and whether there is probable cause to

256


People vs. Flores

believe the accused guilty thereof (Lozada vs. Hernandez,

92 Phil. 1051), and if so, the issuance of a warrant of

arrest. Mayuga vs. Maravilla, 18 SCRA 1115.

Prosecution of criminal offenses under the city charter of

Cebu. —Under Section 37 of the Cebu City Charter(Commonwealth Act 58), a criminal charge is first to be

lodged with the fiscal who shall investigate the same; if

warranted, he shall have the necessary information or

complaint prepared or made against the accused;

thereafter, he shall have charge of the prosecution of the

crime in court. In the case at bar, the complaint was first

lodged with the fiscal, who conducted a preliminary

investigation and found probable cause. He attested to the

complaint verified by the complainant, recommended bail

and caused the complaint to be filed in the city court. In

short, he adopted the complaint as his own. These

actuations of the fiscal pass the statutory requirement,

because, with the verified complaint, he instituted the

criminal proceeding. (Montelibano vs. Ferrer, 97 Phil. 228,

233). Balite vs. People, 18 SCRA 280.

Stages of a preliminary investigation. —A preliminary

investigation has two stages: First, a preliminary

examination of the complaint and his witnesses prior to the

arrest of the accused; and Second, the reading to theaccused, after his arrest, of the complaint or information

filed against him and his being informed of the substance

of the evidence against him, after which, he is allowed to

present evidence in his favor, if he desires (Rule 108, Sec.

11, old Rules of Court, now Rule 112, Sec. 10, with

modifications). Mayuga vs. Maravilla, 18 SCRA 1115.

Ascertainment of probable cause.— Probable cause, in

regard to the first stage of the preliminary investigation,

depends on the discretion of the judge or magistrate


23/91

empowered to issue the warrant of arrest. If suffices that

facts are presented to him to convince him, not that the

person has committed the crime, but that there

257

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 257

People vs. Flores

is probable cause to believe that such person committed the

crime charged (U.S. vs. Ocampo, 118 Phil. 1). Mayuga vs.

Maravilla, 18 SCRA 1115.

Ex parte nature of proceeding in preliminary

examination. —The proceeding in a preliminary

examination is generally ex parte (People vs. Moreno, 77

Phil. 540), unless the defendant desires to be present and,

while under the old Rules of the justice of the peace orinvestigating officer must take the testimony of

complainant and the latter’s witnesses under oath, only the

testimony of the complainant shall be in writing and only

an abstract or brief statement of the substance of the

testimony of the other is required (Rule 108, Sec. 6 of old

Rules of Court, now Rule 112, Sec. 5 with modification.) Id.

Nature of evidence to presented at preliminary

investigation. —A preliminary investigation is not the

occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties’

evidence; it is for the presentation of such evidence only as

may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has

been committed and that the accused is probably guilty

thereof (Hasmin vs. Boncan, 71 Phil. 216). Accordingly, it

has been ruled a justice of the court is not prohibited by

any law from reaching the conclusion that probable cause

exists from the statement of the prosecuting attorney alone

or any other person entitled to credit in the opinion of the

judge or magistrate. Id.

Section 38-C, Revised Charter of Manila authorizes filing of information without preliminary investigation. —

Petitioner alleges that the filing of the amended

information against him is illegal because he was not given

the chance to be heard in a preliminary investigation,

invoking the provision of paragraph 1, Section 38-C of the

Revised Charter of Manila (Rep. Act No. 1201). Held: The

contention is untenable. Petitioner was already in the legal

custody of the police from the time he was arrested; hence,

the first part of Section 38-C of the Charter does not apply


24/91

to him, and the fiscal could file an information against him

even without previous prelimina-

258


People vs. Flores

ry investigation. This step is expressly authorized by the

first proviso of Section 38-C of the Manila Charter. Being

under arrest, all petitioners had to do in order to obtain a

preliminary investigation was to sign a waiver of the

prescriptions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as

amended. Since he did not sign any such waiver, the Fiscal

perforce had to surrender him to the Court, by filing an

amended information including him as an accused in

Criminal Case No. 82116 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, even without first completing a preliminary

investigation, because the law fixes a time of 18 hours for

the Fiscal to do so (Art. 125, Rev. Penal Code). It is

nowhere contended that this period was exceeded. Catelo

vs. Chief of the City Jail, 21 SCRA 29.

Where the alleged irregularity in the preliminary

investigation merits no consideration. —Where the trial of

the case was fairly conducted and the rights of the accused

were protected, the alleged irregularity, consisting in

failure to conduct the first stage of the preliminary

investigation before his arrest despite his objection against

being held in custody without such procedure being

followed, merits no further consideration. People vs.

Gumahin, 21 SCRA 729.

Preliminary examination and investigation by the judge

of the court of first instance. —Pursuant to the provisons of

Section 13, in relation to Section 2, of Rule 112 of the Rules

of Court, when a criminal complaint is filed directly with

the court of first instance, said court may either conductthe preliminary investigation or refer the complaint to the

proper municipal or city court for preliminary examination

and investigation. If the court of first instance chooses the

first alternative, it must “conduct both the preliminary

examination and the preliminary investigation

simultaneously.” If the second alternative is taken, the

municipal court or the city court to which the complaint,

has been referred, shall act in conformity with sections 5, 6

and 10 of said Rule 112. Pureza vs. Averia,25 SCRA 269.


25/91

259

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 259

People vs. Flores

Filing of information in court a quo made the issue of

validity of complaint in the justice of the peace courtacademic. —Under the Rules, a criminal action may also be

initiated by the fiscal filing an information with the proper

court. (Sec. 3, Rule 110) On the other hand, as already

stated, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the

defense of absence of a preliminary investigation must be

raised before the entry of the plea, otherwise, it is waived.

Accordingly, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that

the complaint in the justice of the peace court was void, as

contended by appellee, on the other hand, the filing of the

information in question with the court a quo made the

issue of validity of said complaint already academic,

considering that the said complaint had already been

superseded by the said information. And since the said

information is sufficient in form and substance, and the

absence of a preliminary investigation may only be raised

before the accused enters his plea, otherwise, it is waived,

if follows that appellee forfeited his right to question both

the complaint and the information under discussion by

entering his plea of not guilty and otherwise submitting tothe jurisdiction of the court for trial. People vs. Marquez, 27

SCRA 808. (See Plea of Guilty, supra.)

When plea constitutes waiver of irregularity in

preliminary investigation. —Where the accused has already

entered a plea of not guilty to the information, he is

deemed to have foregone his right to preliminary

investigation and to have abandoned his right to question

any irregularity that surrounds it. Zacariaz vs. Cruz, 30

SCRA 728.

Absence of preliminary investigation. —The absence of a

preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of a

criminal information, does not otherwise render it

defective, does not affect the jurisdiction of the court over

the case. Id.

260



26/91

People vs. Flores

4. Jurisdiction

Complaint filed by a person who claims as guardian. —

Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the

offenses of rape can only be prosecuted upon complaint

filed by the offended party, her parents, grandparents, or

guardian, and that unless this requirement is complied

with the prosecution may fail on the ground of lack of

jurisdiction. However, if a person, of his own accord and

free will, and as guardian of the victim, files an action for

rape, the complaint is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on

the court. People vs. Ponelas, 105 Phil. 712.

Information or complaint not having been subscribed by

offended party. —Where the criminal complaint for“trespass to dwelling with unjust vexation and grave oral

slander” filed in the justice of the peace court was

subscribed and sworn to by the Chief of Police and the

information for “acts of lasciviousness” filed in the Court of

First Instance was subscribed by the first Assistant

Provincial Fiscal and not by the offended party, and neither

was the complaint subscribed and sworn to by the offended

party attached to the record of the case transmitted by the

Justice of the Peace Court to the Court of First Instance,

nor was it offered in evidence at the trial in the lattercourt, such an omission or failure is fatal. Without the

complaint of the offended party, the court of first instance

acquired no jurisdiction to hear, determine and render

judgment in the case. People vs. Aranda, 106 Phil. 1008.

Provincial for appeals in criminal cases does not affect

appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court. —The provision in

the Rules of Court, that the prosecution cannot appeal if

the defendant would placed thereby in double jeopardy,

does not impair the appellate jurisdiction of the SupremeCourt, since the Rules of Court cannot modify the

constitutional and legal provisions regarding jurisdiction

nor increase, diminish or modify substantive rights. The

261

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 261

People vs. Flores


27/91

prosecution may appeal to the Supreme Court in cases

involving pure questions of law. This is the rule in elections

cases. People vs. Casiano, 1 SCRA 478. (See also Double

Jeopardy, infra.)

Conflicting positions of defendant.— A defendant, after

attacking the court’s jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss,

cannot thereafter invoke double jeopardy, which pleaassumes that the court has jurisdiction. A party cannot be

allowed to take inconsistent positions. People vs. Casiano, 1

SCRA 478.

Basis of authority to order release on bail of an accused.

—The authority to order the release on bail of one accused

of a crime before a court of justice, springs from the

jurisdiction of the latter (1) over the accused, acquired by

virtue of his arrest, (2) over the party detain-ing him, by

authority of the warrant of arrest issued by said court, and,

consequently, an agent of the latter. When the detaining

officer holds the accused in pursuance of a warrant issued

by another court, in connection with another case, whether

the latter be criminal or civil, said detaining officer is not

bound to release said accused by order of the court first

mentioned, and defendant’s continued deprivation of

liberty, despite such order, upon the authority of the

warrant issued by the latter court, will not be illegal and

would not justify the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

Galang vs. Court of Appeals, 2 SCRA 234.The dismissal of the first charge, in the municipal court

did not alter the case at bar since under the law then in

force said court had no jurisdiction over the offense, which

was properly cognizable in the courts of first instance.

People vs. Nery, 10 SCRA 244.

A justice of the peace court has concurrent original

jurisdiction of a criminal case for theft of large cattle where

the value of such property does not exceed P200.00.

—Brecinio vs. Papica, 12 SCRA 349.

Jurisdiction of court is determined by law in force at

time of institution of action. —The jurisdiction of a court

262


People vs. Flores


28/91

to try a criminal action is determined not by the law in

force at the time of the commission of the offense, but by

the law in force at the time of the institution of the action.

People vs. Adolfo, 13 SCRA 599.

Concurrent jurisdiction of city courts.— When it was

provided in Sec. 87(c) of Rep. Act 296, as amended by Rep.

Act 2613, that the city courts of chartered cities have like

jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance to try partiescharged with an offense in which the penalty provided by

law does not exceed prisión correccional or imprisonment

for not more than six years or fine not exceeding P3,000.00

or both, the city court thereby acts as a Court of First

Instance and its decisions are appealable directly to the

Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court, as the case may

be. When the city court tries cases of this nature and it acts

as a Court of First Instance, it must perforce act as a court

of record. The very law itself provides that in the exercise

of this jurisdiction by the municipal courts of provincialcapitals and by city courts the proceedings must be

recorded. Aquino vs. Estenzo, 14 SCRA 18.

Jurisdiction of court is determined by allegations in

information. —What determines the jurisdiction and

competence of a court is that which is alleged in the

information. For purposes of determining jurisdiction in an

estafa case the question of where the accused allegedly

received the money has to be resolved by the allegations in

the information. People vs. San Antonio, 14 SCRA 63. Allegations of information in estafa not supporting

affidavit or receipt determines court’s jurisdiction. —In a

estafa case, the allegations in the information specifying a

particular municipality as the place where the accused

received the money malversed determines the jurisdiction

of the court, and not the receipt attached to the supporting

affidavit of complainant mentioning another place,

263

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 263

People vs. Flores

especially where said affidavit explains that said receipt

was executed merely to confirm the delivery of the money

previously made in the municipality alleged in the

information. Id.

Place of undertaking in estafa may determine


29/91

jurisdiction of court. —In estafa, even if the money was

delivered to the accused in another place outside the

jurisdiction of the court a quo, but the express undertaking

of the accused, stated in the information was to deliver the

commodity purchased therewith or return the money in a

place within the jurisdiction of said court, the alleged

failure to comply with said undertaking, an element of

estafa, takes place within the jurisdiction of said court Id.Waiver of objection to courts jurisdiction. —Jurisdiction

over the person of an accused is acquired upon either his

apprehension, with or without warrant, or his submission

to the jurisdiction of the court. In the case at bar, the

petitioner was brought before the bar of justice, first, before

the justice of the peace court, then before the Court of First

Instance, later before the Court of Appeals; thereafter back

before said Court of First Instance, and then, again, before

the Court of Appeals, and never, within the period of six

years that had transpired until the Court of Appealsrendered its decision, had he questioned the judicial

authority of any of these three courts over his person. He is

deemed, therefore, to have waived whatever objection he

might have had to the jurisdiction over his person, and,

hence, to have submitted himself to the Court’s

jurisdiction. What is more, his behavior and every single

one of the steps taken by him before said courts—

particularly the motions therein filed by him—implied, not

merely a submission to the jurisdiction thereof, but, alsothat he urged the courts to exercise the authority thereof

over his person. Valdepeñas vs. People, 16 SCRA 871.

Jurisdiction over crime of abduction with consent.— It is

well-settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter of an

action—in this case the crime of abduction with con-

264


People vs. Flores

sent—is and may be conferred only by law; that the

jurisdiction over a given crime, not vested by law upon a

particular court, may not be conferred thereto by the

parties involved in the offense; and that, under an

information for forcible abduction, the accused may be

convicted of abduction with consent. Id.

A complaint is not a condition precedent for the exercise


30/91

or jurisdiction. —The third paragraph of Article 344 of the

Revised Penal Code does not determine the jurisdiction of

the courts over the offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or

acts of lasciviousness. It could not affect said jurisdiction,

because the same is governed by the Judiciary Act of 1948,

not by the Revised Penal Code, which deals primarily with

the definition of crimes and the factors pertinent to the

punishment of the culprits. The complaint required in said Article 344 is merely a condition precedent to the exercise by

the proper authorities of the power to prosecute the guilty

parties. And such condition has been imposed “out of

consideration for the offended woman and her family who

might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go

through with the scandal of a public trial.” (Samilin vs.

Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, 57 Phil. 298, 304).

Id.

Proper procedure for the Court of First Instance. —There

being no question that the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction and can properly try the defendant for damages

to property and serious or less physical injuries through

reckless negligence, the proper procedure for the said court

was to reserve the resolution on the issue of whether

misdemeanors can be complexed with grave or less grave

felonies, until after the case has been heard on the merits,

when decision is rendered thereon. People vs. Cano, 17

SCRA 237.

Court where case is filed should resolve issue of jurisdiction. —Where a criminal case is prosecuted in the

municipal court of the place where the offense was

committed, as alleged in the complaint, the question of

juris-

265

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 265

People vs. Flores

diction in the light of such allegation must be passed upon

and decided in the first instance by the municipal court

itself in the criminal case before it. The place where the

accused was arrested is of no moment. What is important is

the allegation in the complaint that the crime was

committed in the place which is within the court’s

territorial jurisdiction. Mediante vs. Ortiz, 19 SCRA 832.

Exercise by Court of First Instance of original


31/91

jurisdiction in criminal case appealed from inferior court. —

Where the defendant is tried by an inferior court and

sentenced therein for a crime beyond that court’s

jurisdictional boundaries two courses of action are open to

him in the court of First Instance, on appeal. First, he may

assail the appellate jurisdiction of the court and seek to

nullify the proceedings in, and judgment of, the inferior

court. Such jurisdictional objection he must assert. Andthis for the potent reason that should the Court of First

Instance find the same to be well-founded, then the only

jurisdiction acquired by the latter court is to dismiss the

case. Second, defendant has the other choice of voluntarily

submitting himself to the Court of First Instance in the

exercise of its original jurisdiction. He is deemed to have

thus submitted himself if he does not object to the appellate

jurisdiction of the Court. In which case, no error of

jurisdiction dimensions may be tagged to that Court. The

same rule obtains in civil cases. Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, 20 SCRA 803.

Where trial court has jurisdiction despite initial

complaint in the justice of the peace court was not signed by

offended party. —The trial court’s questioned order of

dismissal is erroneous it being based on the ground that it

had no jurisdiction over this case because the initial

complaint filed with the justice of the peace court was not

signed by the offended party and was, therefore, invalid. It

may be conceded that, as appellee argues, apart from whatis provided in the Rule cited, there are precedents to the

effect that, except as to the government officers authorized

by said Rule, the filing of a complaint is personal to the

offended party. (U.S. vs. Malabon, 1 Phil. 731; Guevara

266


People vs. Flores

vs. Del Rosario, 77 Phil. 615). This is not, however, the only

principle involved under the complete factual setting of this

case. It must be remembered that appellee did not attack

the said complaint while his case was still in the justice of

the peace court, where, on the contrary, he waived the

preliminary investigation proper; he allowed the case to be

remanded to the court of first instance and folded his arms

when the provincial fiscal filed the corresponding


32/91

information; and, he did not object to his being arraigned,

instead he merely entered a plea of not guilty at said

arraignment. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court

held that the initial complaint has lost its importance and

the case can be viewed only in the light of the information

subsequently filed by the provincial fiscal, as suggested by

the Solicitor General. People vs. Marquez, 27 SCRA 808.

(See also Designation of crime by fiscal, supra.) Discretion of the trial court. —The granting or refusal of

an application for continuance or postponement of the trial

lies within the sound discretion of the court (U.S. vs.

Lorenzana, 12 Phil. 64). This rule is, even independently of

statute, universally recognized. In this jurisdiction, the

rule finds expression in Section 2, Rule 119 of the Rules of

Court. People vs. Mendez, 28 SCRA 881.

When failure of quash information constitutes waiver of

lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. —Where

nothing in the record suggests that petitioner ever movedto quash the information upon the ground that by the

defective arrest the court acquired no jurisdiction over her

person, the accused is deemed to have waived lack of

jurisdiction over his person. Zacarias vs. Cruz, 30 SCRA

728.

Where accused flees the jurisdiction pending the appeal.

—In the absence of a statute regulating the practice, it is

within the sound discretion of the appellate court to

determine whether the case shall be postponed to await therecapture of the accused, or the appeal shall be dismissed.

And this rule applies whether the accused escapes

267

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 267

People vs. Flores

from custody in jail or is constructively in custody by beingadmitted to bail. The principle upon which this role rests is

that a party appealing who flees the jurisdiction, pending

the appeal, is in contempt of the authority of the court and

of the law and places himself in position to speculate on the

chances for a reversal, meanwhile keeping out of the reach

of justice and preparing to render the judgment nugatory

or not, at his option. Such conduct will cause the court to

consider that the right of the accused to appeal from the

merits of the case is deemed waived. Longao vs. Fakat, 30


33/91

SCRA 866.

5. Venue

Venue of offense holding a prohibited interest. —Where the

petitioner, as Secretary of Finance and Chairman of the

Monetary Board, holding office in Manila, was charged

with the offense of having a financial interest thecorporations which secured dollar allocations from the

Monetary Board, the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila can

investigate the charges although some of the corporations

were domiciled outside Manila. Hernandez vs. Albano, 19

SCRA 96.

Venue of criminal action. —It is a fundamental principle

that the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the

court of the municipality or province wherein the offense

was committed or any of its essential ingredients tookplace. A court cannot try an offense committed outside the

territorial limits where it operates. One cannot be held to

answer for any crime except in the jurisdiction where it

was committed. Hernandez vs. Albano, 19 SCRA 96;

Mediante vs. Ortiz, 19 SCRA 832.

6. Fiscal

Provincial fiscal has no exclusive right to investigate a

charge filed with him. —There is nothing in the law which

grants to a provincial fiscal exclusive right to investigate

268


People vs. Flores

a charge that is submitted to him for action. Of course, it ishis duty under the law to undertake the investigation

during the period his situation may permit. But when he is

guilty of inaction or acts in a manner that may jeopardize

the right of a complainant or offended party, there is

nothing that may prevent the latter from taking action to

protect his right. To hold otherwise would place his fate at

the mercy of the prosecuting official. De la Cruz vs.

Sagales, 107 Phil. 673.

Duty of fiscal to file information after preliminary


34/91

investigation. —Upon the filing of the complaint charging a

person with a criminal offense, it is the duty of the Fiscal to

conduct an investigation thereof and thereafter file the

corresponding information should the evidence presented

to him sufficiently prove that a criminal offense had been

committed and that the party charged was probably guilty

thereof. University of the Philippines vs. City Fiscal of

Quezon City, 2 SCRA 980. (See also Designation of Crimeby Fiscal, supra.)

Review by a fiscal of a case where another fiscal of same

office merely recommended dismissal. —There is no

provision requiring a reviewing Fiscal to subpoena and

hear anew the same witnesses who appeared before

another Fiscal of the same office in a case where the latter

has merely recommended dismissal. It is enough, for

purposes of complying with Section 38-C of Republic Act

No. 409, as amended, that the accused is heard or given the

chance to be heard, with the right to cross-examine thecomplainant and his witnesses, at any time prior to the

filing of the information in court. Unless and until a case is

finally dropped or dismissed by the City Fiscal,

recommendations or actions taken subsequent to the close

of the preliminary investigation are mere incidents in the

same investigation. People vs. Yu Go Kee, 3 SCRA 522.

Power of city fiscal to designate or fiscal to review the

findings and recommendations of another fiscal of lower

rank. —The last paragraph of Section 38-A of Republic Act

269

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 269

People vs. Flores

No. 409 vests the City Fiscal with the power to “effect, from

time to time, such changes in the organization of the said

three divisions as the exigencies of the service demand.” Hecan, for instance, properly designate a Fiscal to review, for

and on his behalf, the findings and recommendations of

another Fiscal of a lower court. This is purely internal

office procedure which does not in any way detract from the

organization of the office into three divisions. People vs. Yu

Go Kee, 3 SCRA 522.

Authority of provincial fiscal to conduct a subsequent

investigation. —“If the charge for a crime cognizable by the

Court of First Instance is filed by a competent party or


35/91

officer in the Justice of the Peace Court, and the accused

waives preliminary investigation therein, or the Justice of

the Peace, after preliminary investigation, finds that a

prima facie case exists, and consequently, elevated the

records to the Court of First Instance, the Provincial Fiscal

is now called upon to conduct another preliminary

investigation, and may forthwith file the information in the

Court of First Instance. Republic Act 732 does not apply insuch case. But if the Justice of the Peace, after due

investigation, dismissed the charge, then, the case stands

as if on charge had been made, and the Provincial Fiscal

may thereafter conduct his own investigation of the same

charge under the aforementioned Republic Act 1799

(amending R.A. 723), making it in the presence of the

accused if and when the latter so requires”. (People vs.

Pervez, L-15231, Nov. 29, 1960). People vs. Tan, 7 SCRA

981.

City attorney may file new information before court of first instance where proceeding in city court is null and

void. —When criminal proceedings had before a city court

in the exercise of its concurrent jurisdiction are null and

void for lack of record of its proceedings, the city attorney

may file a new information in the court of first instance

charging the same offense, and the court of first instance

takes cognizance of the case in the exercise of its original,

270


People vs. Flores

not appellate, jurisdiction. Consequently, the latter court

commits no excess of jurisdiction nor abuse of discretion in

denying a motion to quash on the ground that the appeal

was directed to the Court of Appeals, because the appellate

court will have no record on which to base its reviews. Aquino vs. Estenzo, 14 SCRA 18.

City attorney may use same preliminary investigation

had before in filing new information before court of first

instances. —Where the record shows that before the city

attorney filed the information for grave coercion in the city

court he had previously conducted the necessary

preliminary investigation, it is held that the same

preliminary investigation that was conducted by the said

city attorney can serve as the basis for the filing of the


36/91

information in a criminal case in the court of first instance.

Id.

Special prosecutor may prosecute offenses without fiscal’s

intervention. —A lawyer, appointed by the Secretary of

Justice to assist the City Fiscal, is authorized to sign

informations, make investigations and conduct

prosecutions. He does not need to secure the consent of the

corresponding fiscal to start a prosecution. Hence, the fiscalneed not be present at any investigation conducted by the

special prosecutor.Secretary of Justice vs. Maglanoc, 20

SCRA 683.

Where fiscal cannot be compelled by mandamus to file

information for estafa.— Since the City Fiscal is entitled to

use his judgment and a measure of discretion in the

appreciation of the evidence presented to him, it is clear

that the exercise of such judgment and discretion, under

the facts and circumstances already adverted, may not be

controlled by mandamus to file an information for estafa.Gonzales vs. Serrano, 25 SCRA 64.

Discretion of fiscal in determining the persons who

“appear to be responsible” for the commission of an offense

—It is the law in this jurisdiction that the prosecuting

officer is in duty bound to prosecute “all persons who

appear to be responsible” for the commission of the offense

271

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971 271

People vs. Flores

charged, while on the other hand, all criminal prosecutions

shall be “under the direction and control of the Fiscal”

(Rule 110, Secs. 1 & 4, formerly Rule 106, Rules of Court).

These provisions, however, should not be construed to

abridge the discretion of the prosecuting officer not to file

any criminal charge against a person whose guilt he maynot be able, in his opinion, to establish with sufficient

evidence. In determining who are the persons “who appear

to be responsible” for the commission of the offense

complained of, the prosecuting officer has to consider,

examine and evaluate the incriminatory evidence

submitted to him. Needless to say, the weighing and

evaluation thereof requires the exercise of discretion on his

part—discretion that, for obvious reasons, must be free

from prossure and other irrelevant considerations. It is not


37/91

fair to compel the prosecuting officer to prosecute a person

whose guilt may not, in his opinion, be established with the

evidence submitted to him for consideration. People vs.

Santos, 30 SCRA 100.

Fiscal may re-investigate case and move for its dismissal,

if re-investigation shows that defendant is innocent. —

Under Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the Fiscal has “the

direction and control” of the prosecution (Section 4). In theexercise of this authority the Fiscal may re-investigate the

case and subsequently move for its dismissal should the re-

investigation show either that the defendant is innocent or

that his guilt may not be established beyond reasonable

doubt. People vs. Jamisola, 30 SCRA 555.

7. Intervention of Offended Party

When offended party may intervene in the prosecution of thecriminal case. —An offended party in a criminal case may

intervene, personally or by attorney, in the prosecution of

the offense, only if he has not waived the civil action or

expressly reserved his right to institute it, subject, always,

to the direction and control of the prosecuting fiscal. Roa

vs. De la Cruz, 107 Phil. 8.

272


People vs. Flores

Purpose of intervention. —The right of intervention reserved

to the offended party is for the sole purpose of enforcing the

civil liability born of the criminal act and not of demanding

punishment of the accused. Id.

8. Prescription

Delay to bring matter to prosecuting authorities. —The fact

that it took the offended spouses until February, 1954 to

bring the matter to the attention of the police and

prosecuting authorities, white the incident happend on

June 19, 1951, has been satisfactorily explained by the

spouses. In 1951 they were staying in the barrio. Peace and

order at that time were still unsolved problems; many

people disappeared without any clue or trace; and there


38/91

were many Huks in the vicinity causing a lot of trouble, let

alone the fear that the malefactors might carry out their

threat to liquidate them should they report it to the

authorities. In 1954, when the matter was brought to the

affection of the prosecuting attorney and an agent of the

Philippine Constabulary there was already peace and there

were no more bulary, these was already peace and there

were no more Huks in the locality. People vs. Castillo, 2SCRA 1.

Interruption by complaint or information filed in the

proper court, not in the fiscal’s office. —Conformably to the

doctrine, of the People vs. Del Rosario, L-15140, Dec. 29,

1960, the prescriptive period for the case at bar was never

interrupted. In the said case, We declared that—under

Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, light offenses

prescribe in two months. Article 91 of the same Code

provides that the period of prescription commence to run

from the day on which the crime was discovered by theoffended party, the authorities or their agents, and shall be

interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information,

and shall commence to run again when such proceedings

terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted,

or are justifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to

him, the complaint or information referred to in the above

prescriptive period, as ruled in the case of People vs. Tayco

(73 Phil. 509), is that which is filed in the proper court

273

annotation criminal procedure

Documents