You are on page 1of 41

10 mashing her breast, against her will

and without her consent which act


debases, degrades, or demeans the
intrinsic worth and human dignity of
THE PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 186460 said complainant as a human being, to
PHILIPPINES, the damage and prejudice of the said
Present: offended party.
versus
Promulgated:
GUALBERTO CINCO y
SOYOSA, December 4, 2009 Subsequently, on 18 August 1999, two
separate informations5[5] were filed with the RTC
charging appellant with rape. The accusatory portions
of the informations read:

x-------
Criminal Case No. Q-99-89097
DECISION
That on or about the month of
November, 1998 in Quezon City,
Philippines, the said accused, by
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: means of force and intimidation, to wit:
by then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously undressed [AAA], a
minor, 14 years of age, inside her room
of the house located at XXX, and
For review is the Decision1[1] dated 30 January thereafter have carnal knowledge with
2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. [AAA] against her will and without her
01537 which affirmed in toto the Decision, dated 14 consent.
July 2005, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 106,
Quezon City, in Criminal Cases No. Q-98-79944, No. Q-
99-89097 and No. Q-89098,2[2] finding accused-
appellant Gualberto Cinco y Soyosa guilty of two
counts of simple rape. Criminal Case No. Q-99-89098

That on or about the 1st day of


The facts gathered from the records are as November, 1998 in Quezon City,
follows: Philippines, the said accused, by
means of force and intimidation, to wit:
In November 1998, an information 3[3] was filed by then and there willfully, unlawfully
before the RTC accusing appellant of acts of and feloniously undressed [AAA], a
lasciviousness, thus: minor, 14 years of age, in the sala of
their house located at XXX, and
thereafter have carnal knowledge with
[AAA] against her will and without her
consent.
Criminal Case No. Q-98-79944

That on or about the 30 th day of


November 1998, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the said accused with lewd
design, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously commit an Thereafter, the aforementioned cases were
act of sexual abuse upon the person of consolidated. When arraigned on 7 February 2000,
AAA,4[4] a minor, 14 years old, by then appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded not
and there touching her body and guilty to the charges. Trial on the merits followed.

2 The prosecution presented as witnesses Dr.


Mariella Castillo and AAA. Their testimonies, woven
3 together, bear the following:

4 5

1
BBB accompanied AAA to Camp Crame where the
latter underwent physical and genital examination,
Herein private complainant, AAA, was born on which was conducted by Dr. Mariella Castillo (Dr.
21 August 1984 in the province of YYY. When she was Castillo). In the said genital examination, Dr. Castillo
12 years old, her aunt, BBB, took her from the custody found that AAA had an estrogenized hymen with
of her paternal grandmother and brought her to BBBs healed laceration at the 6:00 oclock and 8:00 oclock
residence located at XXX. Since then, AAA lived in the positions. The deep notches, being in the posterior part
said house with BBB and herein appellant (BBBs of the hymen, indicate that the same had been
common-law spouse/live-in partner). lacerated before, but were now healed. The notches
were caused by penetration injuries or by an object
being inserted through the hymen opening to the
vaginal canal.

On 1 November 1998, at around 6:00 p.m., Afterwards, appellant was charged with two
AAA, then 14 years old, was inside the house watching counts of rape.6[6]
television. Appellant entered the house and proceeded
to the kitchen. He took a knife therefrom and poked it
at AAA. He told her not to shout or he would kill her. He The prosecution also proffered documentary
tied her two hands at the back of her head and evidence to buttress the testimonies of its witness, to
removed her skirt and panty. She began to cry, but he wit: (1) provisional medical certificate of AAA issued by
told her to stop doing so. He went on top of her, spread Dr. Castillo (Exhibit A); 7[7] (2) final medical certificate
her thighs, and inserted his penis into her vagina. He of AAA issued by Dr. Castillo (Exhibit B);8[8] (3) sworn
then made push and pull movements. As she felt pain statement of AAA (Exhibit C);9[9] and (4) AAAs birth
in her vagina, she tried to push him away but to no certificate (Exhibit D).10[10]
avail. He pinched her breast which was very painful.
After satisfying his lust, he untied her hands, put on his
shorts and left her. She then stood up and put on her
clothes. She went to the comfort room and saw her For its part, the defense presented the
panty stained with blood. testimonies of appellant, Gregorio Frias and Roel Cinco
to refute the foregoing accusations. No documentary
evidence was adduced. Appellant denied any liability
and interposed an alibi.
In the latter part of November 1998, at about
4:00 p.m., AAA was inside the house while appellant Appellant claimed that he was not in the
was drinking with friends outside. Later, appellant, house when the alleged incidents occurred. He testified
then armed with a knife, entered AAAs room and that from 8:00 a.m. to midnight of 1 November 1998,
approached AAA. He pointed the knife at her neck and he sold ice cream in Cubao, Quezon City. He went
told her not to make noise. He covered her mouth with home in the morning of the following day, 2 November
a handkerchief and tied her hands with a nylon rope. 1998. Also, during the latter part of November 1998,
He then removed his pants and brief, stripped her of he sold ice cream for the whole day in the same place
her shorts and panty, and went on top of her. He and went home in the morning of the following day. He
inserted his penis into her vagina and made up and alleged that AAA had ill motive to fabricate the rape
down movements. Before leaving her, he warned her charges, because he caught her several times stealing
not to tell anyone of the incidents or he would kill her. money from his box inside the house. 11[11]

Gregorio Frias, friend of appellant, narrated


that on 1 November 1998, he and appellant were
Subsequently, AAA went to the barangay hall selling ice cream in Cubao, Quezon City. At about 5:00
to report the incidents. However, upon arriving thereat, p.m. of the same day, he went to appellants house and
she told the barangay officials that she was merely upon arriving therein, he noticed that the people inside
touched and not raped by appellant. She was forced to were arguing about the loss of money. On 30
make such statement because appellants siblings,
namely, Sonia and Roel, threatened to kill her if she
would divulge the truth. Appellant was eventually
arrested and detained. She then filed with the Office of 6
the Prosecutor, Quezon City, a complaint for acts of
lasciviousness against appellant. 7

Thereafter, AAA confided to BBB that appellant 9


raped her. BBB accompanied AAA to the office of the
Department of Social Welfare and Development
(DSWD), Marilac Hills, Alabang, Muntinlupa. Thereupon, 10
AAA disclosed to a social worker that she was raped by
appellant. After the interview, the social worker and 11

2
November 1998, he and appellant were selling ice be stated in the informations; that the informations in
cream in Cubao, Quezon City.12[12] the instant cases do not state the approximate times
and dates of the alleged rapes; that although AAA
testified that the first rape occurred nearly before All
Saints Day of 1998, the information in Criminal Case
No. Q-89098, nonetheless, states that such incident
Roel Cinco, brother of appellant, stated that transpired on 1 November 1998; that the informations
on 1 November 1998, he was watching television are fatally defective; that the times and dates of the
inside appellants house. At around 6:00 p.m., appellant alleged rapes are so indefinite, thereby depriving
arrived at the house. Later that evening, appellant appellant of the opportunity to prepare for his defense;
quarreled with BBB because AAA had several times that appellants constitutional right to be informed of
stolen money from him.13[13] the nature and cause of the accusation against him
was violated; and that by reason of the foregoing,
appellant is entitled to an acquittal.16[16]

After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision


convicting appellant of rape in Criminal Case Nos. Q-
99-89097 and Q-89098. Appellant was sentenced to An information is an accusation in writing
reclusion perpetua in both cases. He was also ordered charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the
to pay AAA in each of the cases the amount of prosecutor and filed with the court. 17[17] To be
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral considered as valid and sufficient, an information must
damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. With state the name of the accused; the designation of the
respect to Criminal Case No. Q-98-79944 for acts of offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions
lasciviousness, appellant was acquitted therein for complained of as constituting the offense; the name of
failure of the prosecution to establish said charge. the offended party; the approximate date of the
Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals. commission of the offense; and the place where the
offense was committed.18[18] The purpose of the
requirement for the informations validity and
sufficiency is to enable the accused to suitably prepare
On 30 January 2008, the Court of Appeals for his defense, since he is presumed to have no
promulgated its Decision affirming in toto the RTC independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the
Decision. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 12 offense.19[19]
February 2008.14[14]

With respect to the date of the commission of


In his Brief, appellant assigns a lone error, thus: the offense, Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure specifically provides that it is not
necessary to state in the information the precise date
the offense was committed except when it is a material
ingredient of the offense, and that the offense may be
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN alleged to have been committed on a date as near as
NOT FINDING THE INFORMATIONS possible to the actual date of its commission.
UNDER CRIMINAL CASE NOS. Q-99-
89097 AND Q-99-89098 AS
INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FOR THE
PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO STATE In rape cases, failure to specify the exact dates
WITH PARTICULARITY THE or times when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto
APPROXIMATE DATES OF THE make the information defective on its face. The reason
COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED is obvious. The date or time of the commission of rape
RAPES.15[15] is not a material ingredient of the said crime because
the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman
through force and intimidation. The precise time when
the rape took place has no substantial bearing on its
commission. As such, the date or time need not be
Appellant maintains that the approximate stated with absolute accuracy. It is sufficient that the
times and dates of the commission of the offense must complaint or information states that the crime has

12 16

13 17

14 18

15 19

3
been committed at any time as near as possible to the
date of its actual commission.20[20] In sustaining the
view that the exact date of commission of the rape is Since the sole issue raised by appellant was
immaterial, we ruled in People v. Purazo21[21] that: resolved by this Court in favor of the validity of the
informations filed against him, then the subsequent
trial court proceedings and the resulting judgment of
conviction against appellant should likewise be
We have ruled, time and again, affirmed, there being no other questions raised by
that the date is not an essential appellant as to them. We further uphold the penalty
element of the crime of rape, for the imposed on appellant by the RTC and the Court of
gravamen of the offense is carnal Appeals.
knowledge of a woman. As such, the
time or place of commission in rape
cases need not be accurately stated.
As early as 1908, we already held that Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the
where the time or place or any other Anti-Rape Law of 1997, was the law pertinent to the
fact alleged is not an essential element rapes committed on 1 November 1998 and in the
of the crime charged, conviction may latter part of November 1998. The law states that
be had on proof of the commission of the death penalty shall be imposed if the rape victim is
the crime, even if it appears that the a minor, and the offender is the common-law spouse of
crime was not committed at the precise the parent of the victim.24[24] The qualifying
time or place alleged, or if the proof circumstances of minority of the victim and her
fails to sustain the existence of some relationship with the offender must be alleged in the
immaterial fact set out in the complaint or information and proved during the trial to
complaint, provided it appears that the warrant the imposition of the death penalty.25[25]
specific crime charged was in fact
committed prior to the date of the filing
of the complaint or information within
the period of the statute of limitations
and at a place within the jurisdiction of The informations in Criminal Case No. Q-99-
the court. 89097 and Q-99-89098 allege that AAA was a minor at
the time she was raped. However, there is no
allegation therein that the offender, herein appellant, is
the common-law spouse of AAAs parent. Thus, the
This Court has upheld complaints and qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship
informations in prosecutions for rape which merely cannot be properly appreciated. In the absence of such
alleged the month and year of its commission.22[22] qualifying circumstances, the rapes in the instant cases
There is no cogent reason to deviate from these are treated as simple rapes. Under Republic Act No.
precedents, especially so when the prosecution has 8353, the penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua.
established the fact that the rape under Criminal Case
No. Q-99-89097 was committed prior to the date of the
filing of the information in the said case. Hence, the
allegation in the information under Criminal Case No. We also sustain the RTC and the Court of
Q-99-89097, which states that the rape was committed Appeals award of civil indemnity in the amount of
on or about November 1998, is sufficient to affirm P50,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of
the conviction of appellant in the said case. P50,000.00 to AAA, pursuant to prevailing
jurisprudence.26[26] Nonetheless, the award of
exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00
should be deleted, as no aggravating circumstance in
Appellants allegation of variance between the the commission of rapes was proven.27[27]
date of the commission of rape in Criminal Case No. Q-
99-89098 and that established by the evidence during
the trial is erroneous. AAA categorically testified that
she was raped by appellant on 1 November 1998. 23[23] WHEREFORE, the Decision, dated 30 January
This is consistent with the allegation in the information 2008, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
under Criminal Case No. Q-99-89098 that appellant 01537, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
raped AAA on 1 November 1998. that the award of exemplary damages is deleted.

20 24

21 25

22 26

23 27

4
SO ORDERED.

11

G.R. NO. 201620 : March 6, 2013

RAMONCITA O. SENADOR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF


THE PHILIPPINES and CYNTHIA JAIME,
Respondents.

DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45


seeking the reversal of the May 17, 2011 Decision 1 and
March 30, 2012 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR. No. 00952.

In an Information dated August 5, 2002, petitioner


Ramoncita O. Senador (Senador) was charged before

5
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32 in Dumaguete Senador refused to testify and so failed to refute any of
City with the crime of Estafa under Article 315, par. 1 the foregoing evidence of the prosecution, and instead,
(b) of the Revised Penal Code, 3 she relied on the defense that the facts alleged in the
viz:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary Information and the facts proven and established
during the trial differ. In particular, Senador asserted
That on or about the 10th day of September 2000 in that the person named as the offended party in the
the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the Information is not the same person who made the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, demand and filed the complaint. According to Senador,
having obtained and received from one Cynthia the private complainant in the Information went by the
Jaime various kinds of jewelry valued in the total name "Cynthia Jaime," whereas, during trial, the
amount of P705,685.00 for the purpose of selling private complainant turned out to be "Rita Jaime."
the same on consignment basis with express obligation Further, Cynthia Jaime was never presented as witness.
to account for and remit the entire proceeds of the sale Hence, citing People v. Uba, et al. 11 (Uba) and United
if sold or to return the same if unsold within an agreed States v. Lahoylahoy and Madanlog (Lahoylahoy), 12
period of time and despite repeated demands therefor, Senador would insist on her acquittal on the postulate
did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously that her constitutional right to be informed of the
fail to remit proceeds of the sale of said items or to nature of the accusation against her has been violated.
return any of the items that may have been unsold to
said Cynthia Jaime but instead has willfully, unlawfully Despite her argument, the trial court, by Decision
and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and dated June 30, 2008, found Senador guilty as charged
converted the same to his/her own use and benefit to and sentenced as follows:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
the damage and prejudice of said Cynthia Jaime in the
aforementioned amount of P705,685.00.4 (Emphasis WHEREFORE, the Court finds RAMONCITA SENADOR
supplied.) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ESTAFA
under Par. 1 (b), Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code,
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded "not guilty." and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of four
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. (4) years and one (1) day of prision correccional as
minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as
The prosecution's evidence sought to prove the maximum and to indemnify the private complainants,
following facts: Rita Jaime (Rita) and her daughter-in- RITA JA[I]ME and CYNTHIA JAIME, the following: 1)
law, Cynthia Jaime (Cynthia), were engaged in a Actual Damages in the amount of P695,685.00 with
jewelry business. Sometime in the first week of interest at the legal rate from the filing of the
September 2000, Senador went to see Rita at her Information until fully paid; 2) Exemplary Damages in
house in Guadalupe Heights, Cebu City, expressing her the amount of P100,000.00; and 3) the amount of
interest to see the pieces of jewelry that the latter was P50,000 as Attorney's fees.
selling. On September 10, 2000, Rita's daughter-in-law
and business partner, Cynthia, delivered to Senador Senador questioned the RTC Decision before the CA.
several pieces of jewelry worth seven hundred five However, on May 17, 2011, the appellate court
thousand six hundred eighty five pesos (PhP rendered a Decision upholding the finding of the RTC
705,685).5chanroblesvirtualawlibrary that the prosecution satisfactorily established the guilt
of Senador beyond reasonable doubt. The CA opined
In the covering Trust Receipt Agreement signed by that the prosecution was able to establish beyond
Cynthia and Senador, the latter undertook to sell the reasonable doubt the following undisputed facts, to wit:
jewelry thus delivered on commission basis and, (1) Senador received the pieces of jewelry in trust
thereafter, to remit the proceeds of the sale, or return under the obligation or duty to return them; (2)
the unsold items to Cynthia within fifteen (15) days Senador misappropriated or converted the pieces of
from the delivery.6 However, as events turned out, jewelry to her benefit but to the prejudice of business
Senador failed to turn over the proceeds of the sale or partners, Rita and Cynthia; and (3) Senador failed to
return the unsold jewelry within the given return the pieces of jewelry despite demand made by
period.7chanroblesvirtualawlibrary Rita.

Thus, in a letter dated October 4, 2001, Rita demanded Further, the CA finding that Uba 13 is not applicable
from Senador the return of the unsold jewelry or the since Senador is charged with estafa, a crime against
remittance of the proceeds from the sale of jewelry property and not oral defamation, as in Uba
entrusted to her. The demand fell on deaf ears ruled:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
prompting Rita to file the instant criminal complaint
against Senador.8chanroblesvirtualawlibrary WHEREFORE, the June 30, 2008 Judgment of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Dumaguete City, in
During the preliminary investigation, Senador tendered Criminal Case No. 16010, finding accused appellant
to Rita Keppel Bank Check No. 0003603 dated March guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa is hereby
31, 2001 for the amount of PhP 705,685, 9 as AFFIRMED in toto.
settlement of her obligations. Nonetheless, the check
was later dishonored as it was drawn against a closed SO ORDERED.
account.10chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

6
Senador filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was Lahoylahoy cited by Senador supports the doctrine that
denied in a Resolution dated March 30, 2012. Hence, if the subject matter of the offense is generic or one
the present petition of Senador. which is not described with such particularity as to
properly identify the offense charged, then an
The sole issue involved in the instant case is whether erroneous designation of the offended party is material
or not an error in the designation in the Information of and would result in the violation of the accused's
the offended party violates, as petitioner argues, the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and
accused's constitutional right to be informed of the cause of the accusation against her. Such error,
nature and cause of the accusation against her, thus, Lahoylahoy teaches, would result in the acquittal of the
entitling her to an acquittal. accused, viz:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The petition is without merit. The second sentence of section 7 of General Orders No.
58 declares that when an offense shall have been
described with sufficient certainty to identify the act,
At the outset, it must be emphasized that variance an erroneous allegation as to the person injured shall
between the allegations of the information and the be deemed immaterial. We are of the opinion that this
evidence offered by the prosecution does not of itself provision can have no application to a case where the
entitle the accused to an acquittal, 14 more so if the name of the person injured is matter of essential
variance relates to the designation of the offended description as in the case at bar; and at any rate,
party, a mere formal defect, which does not prejudice supposing the allegation of ownership to be eliminated,
the substantial rights of the the robbery charged in this case would not be
accused.15chanroblesvirtualawlibrary sufficiently identified. A complaint stating, as does the
one now before us, that the defendants "took and
As correctly held by the appellate court, Senador's appropriated to themselves with intent of gain and
reliance on Uba is misplaced. In Uba, the appellant was against the will of the owner thereof the sum of P100"
charged with oral defamation, a crime against honor, could scarcely be sustained in any jurisdiction as a
wherein the identity of the person against whom the sufficient description either of the act of robbery or of
defamatory words were directed is a material element. the subject of the robbery. There is a saying to the
Thus, an erroneous designation of the person injured is effect that money has no earmarks; and generally
material. On the contrary, in the instant case, Senador speaking the only way money, which has been the
was charged with estafa, a crime against property that subject of a robbery, can be described or identified in a
does not absolutely require as indispensable the proper complaint is by connecting it with the individual who
designation of the name of the offended party. Rather, was robbed as its owner or possessor. And clearly,
what is absolutely necessary is the correct when the offense has been so identified in the
identification of the criminal act charged in the complaint, the proof must correspond upon this point
information.16 Thus, in case of an error in the with the allegation, or there can be no conviction. 17
designation of the offended party in crimes against (Emphasis supplied.)
property, Rule 110, Sec. 12 of the Rules of Court
mandates the correction of the information, not its In Lahoylahoy, the subject matter of the offense was
dismissal:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary money in the total sum of PhP 100. Since money is
generic and has no earmarks that could properly
SEC. 12. Name of the offended party. The complaint or identify it, the only way that it (money) could be
information must state the name and surname of the described and identified in a complaint is by
person against whom or against whose property the connecting it to the offended party or the individual
offense was committed, or any appellation or nickname who was robbed as its owner or possessor. Thus, the
by which such person has been or is known. If there is identity of the offended party is material and necessary
no better way of identifying him, he must be described for the proper identification of the offense charged.
under a fictitious name. Corollary, the erroneous designation of the offended
party would also be material, as the subject matter of
(a) In offenses against property, if the name of the the offense could no longer be described with such
offended party is unknown, the property must be particularity as to properly identify the offense
described with such particularity as to properly identify charged.
the offense charged.
The holdings in United States v. Kepner,18 Sayson v.
(b) If the true name of the person against whom or People,19 and Ricarze v. Court of Appeals 20 support the
against whose property the offense was committed is doctrine that if the subject matter of the offense is
thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the court must specific or one described with such particularity as to
cause such true name to be inserted in the complaint properly identify the offense charged, then an
or information and the record. x x x (Emphasis erroneous designation of the offended party is not
supplied.) material and would not result in the violation of the
accused's constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against her. Such
It is clear from the above provision that in offenses error would not result in the acquittal of the accused.
against property, the materiality of the erroneous
designation of the offended party would depend on
whether or not the subject matter of the offense was In the 1902 case of Kepner, this Court ruled that the
sufficiently described and identified. erroneous designation of the person injured by a

7
criminal act is not material for the prosecution of the Interpreting the previously discussed cases, We
offense because the subject matter of the offense, a conclude that in offenses against property, if the
warrant, was sufficiently identified with such subject matter of the offense is generic and not
particularity as to properly identify the particular identifiable, such as the money unlawfully taken as in
offense charged. We held, Lahoylahoy, an error in the designation of the
thus:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary offended party is fatal and would result in the
acquittal of the accused. However, if the subject
The allegation of the complaint that the unlawful matter of the offense is specific and identifiable,
misappropriation of the proceeds of the warrant was to such as a warrant, as in Kepner, or a check, such as in
the prejudice of Aun Tan may be disregarded by virtue Sayson and Ricarze, an error in the designation of
of section 7 of General Orders, No. 58, which declares the offended party is immaterial.
that when an offense shall have been described in the
complaint with sufficient certainty to identify the act, In the present case, the subject matter of the offense
an erroneous allegation as to the person injured shall does not refer to money or any other generic property.
be deemed immaterial. In any event the defect, if Instead, the information specified the subject of the
defect it was, was one of form which did not tend to offense as "various kinds of jewelry valued in the total
prejudice any substantial right of the defendant on the amount of P705,685.00." The charge was thereafter
merits, and can not, therefore, under the provisions of sufficiently fleshed out and proved by the Trust Receipt
section 10 of the same order, affect the present Agreement24 signed by Senador and presented during
proceeding.21 (Emphasis supplied.) trial, which enumerates these "various kinds of jewelry
valued in the total amount of PhP 705,685,"
In Sayson, this Court upheld the conviction of Sayson viz:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
for attempted estafa, even if there was an erroneous
allegation as to the person injured because the subject
Quality Description
matter of the offense, a check, is specific and
sufficiently identified. We held, #1878 1 set rositas w/brills 14 kt. 8.5 grams
thus:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
#2126 1 set w/brills 14 kt. 8.3 grams
In U.S. v. Kepner x x x, this Court laid down the rule #1416 1 set tri-color rositas w/brills 14 kt. 4.1 grams
that when an offense shall have been described in the
complaint with sufficient certainty as to identify the #319 1 set creolla w/brills 14 kt. 13.8 grams
act, an erroneous allegation as to the person injured
shall be deemed immaterial as the same is a mere #1301 1 set creolla 2 colors w/brills 20.8 grams
formal defect which did not tend to prejudice any #393 1 set tepero & marquise 14kt. 14 grams
substantial right of the defendant. Accordingly, in the
aforementioned case, which had a factual backdrop #2155 1 yg. Bracelet w brills ruby and blue sapphire 14 kt
similar to the instant case, where the defendant was grams
charged with estafa for the misappropriation of the
proceeds of a warrant which he had cashed without #1875 1 set yg. w/ choker 14 kt. (oval) 14.6 grams
authority, the erroneous allegation in the complaint to
#2141 1 yg. w/ pearl & brills 14 kt. 8.8 grams
the effect that the unlawful act was to the prejudice of
the owner of the cheque, when in reality the bank #206 1 set double sampaloc creolla 14 kt. 14.2 grams
which cashed it was the one which suffered a loss, was
held to be immaterial on the ground that the subject # 146 1 set princess cut brills 13.6 grams
matter of the estafa, the warrant, was described in the
complaint with such particularity as to properly identify # 2067 1 pc. brill w/ pearl & brill 14 kt. 2.0 grams
the particular offense charged. In the instant suit for #2066 1 pc. earrings w/ pearl & brills 14 kt. 4.5 grams
estafa which is a crime against property under
the Revised Penal Code, since the check, which #1306 1 set creolla w/ brills 14 kt. 12.6 grams
was the subject-matter of the offense, was
described with such particularity as to properly #1851 1 pc. lady's ring w/ brills 14 kt. 7.8 grams
identify the offense charged, it becomes
# 1515 1 set w/ brills 14 kt. 11.8 grams
immaterial, for purposes of convicting the
accused, that it was established during the trial #1881 1 pc yg. ring w/princess cut 14 kt. 4.1 grams
that the offended party was actually Mever Films
and not Ernesto Rufino, Sr. nor Bank of America
as alleged in the information." 22 (Emphasis Thus, it is the doctrine elucidated in Kepner, Sayson,
supplied.) and Ricarze that is applicable to the present case, not
the ruling in Uba or Lahoylahoy. The error in the
designation of the offended party in the information is
In Ricarze, We reiterated the doctrine espousing an
immaterial and did not violate Senador's constitutional
erroneous designation of the person injured is not
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
material because the subject matter of the offense, a
accusation against her.
check, was sufficiently identified with such
particularity as to properly identify the particular
offense charged.23chanroblesvirtualawlibrary Lest it be overlooked, Senador offered to pay
obligations through Keppel Check No. 0003603, which
was dishonored because it was drawn against an

8
already closed account. The offer indicates her receipt
of the pieces of jewelry thus described and an implied
admission that she misappropriated the jewelries
themselves or the proceeds of the sale. Rule 130,
Section 27 states:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

In criminal cases. except those involving quasi-offenses


(criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
compromised. an offer of compromise by the accused
may he received in evidence as implied admission of
guilt. (Emphasis supplied.)

Taken together, the C A did not err in affirming


petitioner's conviction for the crime of estafa.

In light of current jurisprudence, 25 the Court, however,


finds the award of exemplary damages excessive. Art.
2229 of the Civil Code provides that exemplary
damages may be imposed by way of example or
correction for the public good. Nevertheless,
"exemplary damages are imposed not to enrich one
party or impoverish another, but to serve as a
deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb
socially deleterious actions."26 On this basis, the award
of exemplary damages in the amount of PhP 100,000 is
reduced to PhP 30,000.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated May 17, 2011 and


Resolution dated March 30, 2012 of the Court of
Appeals in C A-G.R. CJ.C No. 00952, finding Ramoncita
Senador guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of ESTAFA under par. 1 (b), Art. 315 of the Revised
Penal Code, are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION
that the award of exemplary damages he reduced to
PhP 30,000.

SO ORDERED

12

G.R. No. 164015 February 26, 2009

RAMON A. ALBERT, Petitioner,


vs.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN, and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari 1 of the Resolutions dated


10 February 20042 and 3 May 20043 of the
Sandiganbayan. The 10 February 2004 Resolution
granted the prosecution’s Motion to Admit the
Amended Information. The 3 May 2004 Resolution
denied the Motion For Reconsideration of petitioner
Ramon A. Albert (petitioner).

9
The Facts On 18 December 2000, pending the resolution of the
Motion to Dismiss, petitioner filed a Motion to Lift Hold
On 24 March 1999, the Special Prosecution Officer Departure Order and to be Allowed to Travel. The
(SPO) II of the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao prosecution did not object to the latter motion on the
charged petitioner and his co-accused, Favio D. Sayson condition that petitioner would be "provisionally"
and Arturo S. Asumbrado, before the Sandiganbayan arraigned.6 On 12 March 2001, petitioner filed an
with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 Urgent Motion to Amend Motion to Lift Hold Departure
(RA 3019) or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in Order and to be Allowed to Travel. The following day, or
Criminal Case No. 25231. The Information alleged: on 13 March 2001, the Sandiganbayan arraigned
petitioner who entered a plea of "not guilty." In the
Resolution dated 16 April 2001, the Sandiganbayan
The undersigned Special Prosecution Officer II of the granted petitioner’s Urgent Motion to Amend Motion to
Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao hereby accuses Lift Hold Departure Order and to be Allowed to Travel.
RAMON A. ALBERT, FAVIO D. SAYSON, and ARTURO S.
ASUMBRADO for (sic) violation of Section 3(e) R.A.
3019, as amended, committed as follows: On 26 November 2001, the Sandiganbayan denied
petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss and ordered the
prosecution to conduct a reinvestigation of the case
That in (sic) or about May 1990 and sometime prior or with respect to petitioner. In a Memorandum dated 6
subsequent thereto, in the City of Davao, Philippines January 2003, the SPO who conducted the
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, reinvestigation recommended to the Ombudsman that
accused RAMON A. ALBERT, a public officer, being then the indictment against petitioner be reversed for lack
the President of the National Home Mortgage and of probable cause. However, the Ombudsman, in an
Finance Corporation, occupying the said position with a Order dated 10 March 2003, disapproved the
salary grade above 27, while in the performance of his Memorandum and directed the Office of the Special
official function, committing the offense in relation to Prosecutor to proceed with the prosecution of the
his office, taking advantage of his official position, criminal case. Petitioner filed a Motion for
conspiring and confederating with accused FAVIO D. Reconsideration of the Order of the Ombudsman.
SAYSON, then the Project Director of CODE Foundation
Inc. and accused ARTURO S. ASUMBRADO, then the
President of the Buhangin Residents and Employees In a Resolution promulgated on 16 May 2003, the
Association for Development, Inc., acting with evident Sandiganbayan scheduled the arraignment of
bad faith and manifest partiality and or gross neglect petitioner on 24 July 2003. However, in view of the
of duty, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and pending motion for reconsideration of the order of the
criminally cause undue injury to the government and Ombudsman, the arraignment was reset to 2 October
public interest, enter and make it appear in Tax 2003.
Declaration Nos. D-3-1-7691 and D-3-1-7692 that two
parcels of real property particularly described in the In a Manifestation dated 24 September 2003, the SPO
Certificate of Titles Nos. T-151920 and T-151921 are informed the Sandiganbayan of the Ombudsman’s
residential lands which Tax Declarations accused denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. On
submitted to the NHMFC when in truth and in fact, as even date, the prosecution filed an Ex-Parte Motion to
accused well knew, the two pieces of real property Admit Amended Information. During the 2 October
covered by Certificate of Titles Nos. T-151920 and T- 2003 hearing, this ex-parte motion was withdrawn by
151921 are agricultural land, and by reason of the prosecution with the intention of filing a Motion for
accused’s misrepresentation, the NHMFC released the Leave to Admit Amended Information. The scheduled
amount of ₱4,535,400.00 which is higher than the arraignment of petitioner was reset to 1 December
loanable amount the land could command being 2003.7
agricultural, thus causing undue injury to the
government. On 7 October 2003, the prosecution filed a Motion for
Leave to Admit Amended Information. The Amended
CONTRARY TO LAW.4 Information reads:

On 26 March 1999, a Hold Departure Order was issued The undersigned Special Prosecution Officer I of the
by the Sandiganbayan against petitioner and his co- Office of Special Prosecutor, hereby accuses RAMON A.
accused. ALBERT, FAVIO D. SAYSON, and ARTURO S.
ASUMBRADO for (sic) violation of Section 3(e) R.A.
On 25 May 1999, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss 3019, as amended, committed as follows:
Criminal Case No. 25231 on the following grounds: (1)
the accused (petitioner) was denied due process of That in (sic) or about May 1990 and sometime prior or
law; (2) the Office of the Ombudsman did not acquire subsequent thereto, in the City of Davao, Philippines
jurisdiction over the person of the accused; (3) the and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
constitutional rights of the accused to a speedy accused RAMON A. ALBERT, a public officer, being then
disposition of cases and to a speedy trial were violated; the President of the National Home Mortgage and
and (4) the resolution dated 26 February 1999 finding Finance Corporation, occupying the said position with a
the accused guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of RA salary grade above 27, while in the performance of his
3019 is not supported by evidence.5 official function, committing the offense in relation to
his office, taking advantage of his official position,
conspiring and confederating with accused FAVIO D.

10
SAYSON, then the Project Director of CODE Foundation the same in the event that the accused had not yet
Inc. and accused ARTURO S. ASUMBRADO, then the undergone a permanent arraignment. And since the
President of the Buhangin Residents and Employees arraignment of petitioner on 13 March 2001 was
Association for Development, Inc., acting with evident merely "provisional," then the prosecution may still
bad faith and manifest partiality and/or gross amend the information either in form or in substance.
inexcusable negligence, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was
government and public interest, enter and make it denied by the Sandiganbayan in its Resolution of 3 May
appear in Tax Declaration Nos. D-3-1-7691 and D-3-1- 2004. Hence this petition.
7692 that two parcels of real property particularly
described in the Certificate of Titles Nos. T-151920 and
T-151921 are residential lands which Tax Declarations The Issues
accused submitted to the NHMFC when in truth and in
fact, as accused well knew, the two pieces of real The issues raised in this petition are:
property covered by Certificate of Titles Nos. T-151920
and T-151921 are agricultural land, and by reason of 1. WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAYAN GRAVELY ABUSED
accused’s misrepresentation, the NHMFC released the ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
amount of ₱4,535,400.00 which is higher than the JURISDICTION IN ADMITTING THE AMENDED
loanable amount the land could command being INFORMATION; AND
agricultural, thus causing undue injury to the
government.
2. WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAYAN GRAVELY ABUSED
8
ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
CONTRARY TO LAW. JURISDICTION IN FURTHER PROCEEDING WITH THE
CASE DESPITE THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF THE
Petitioner opposed the motion, alleging that the ACCUSED TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.
amendment made on the information is substantial
and, therefore, not allowed after arraignment. The Ruling of the Court

The Ruling of the Sandiganbayan The petition has no merit.

In its Resolution of 10 February 2004, 9 the On Whether the Sandiganbayan


Sandiganbayan granted the prosecution’s Motion to Should Admit the Amended Information
Admit Amended Information. At the outset, the
Sandiganbayan explained that "gross neglect of duty"
which falls under Section 3(f) of RA 3019 is different Section 14 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
from "gross inexcusable negligence" under Section Procedure provides:
3(e), and held thus:
Sec. 14. Amendment or Substitution.-- A complaint or
In an information alleging gross neglect of duty, it is information may be amended, in form or in substance,
not a requirement that such neglect or refusal causes without leave of court, at any time before the accused
undue injury compared to an information alleging gross enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a
inexcusable negligence where undue injury is a formal amendment may only be made with leave of
constitutive element. A change to this effect court and when it can be done without causing
constitutes substantial amendment considering that prejudice to the rights of the accused.
the possible defense of the accused may divert from
the one originally intended. xxx

It may be considered however, that there are three Petitioner contends that under the above section, only
modes by which the offense for Violation of Section a formal amendment of the information may be made
3(e) may be committed in any of the following: after a plea. The rule does not distinguish between a
plea made during a "provisional" or a "permanent"
1. Through evident bad faith; arraignment. Since petitioner already entered a plea of
"not guilty" during the 13 March 2001 arraignment,
then the information may be amended only in form.
2. Through manifest partiality;
An arraignment is that stage where in the mode and
3. Through gross inexcusable negligence. manner required by the rules, an accused, for the first
time, is granted the opportunity to know the precise
Proof of the existence of any of these modes in charge that confronts him.11 The accused is formally
connection with the prohibited acts under said section informed of the charges against him, to which he
of the law should suffice to warrant conviction.10 enters a plea of guilty or not guilty. As an indispensable
requirement of due process, an arraignment cannot be
However, the Sandiganbayan also held that even regarded lightly or brushed aside peremptorily.12
granting that the amendment of the information be
formal or substantial, the prosecution could still effect

11
The practice of the Sandiganbayan of conducting (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including
"provisional" or "conditional" arraignments is not the Government, or giving any private party any
sanctioned by the Revised Internal Rules of the unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
Sandiganbayan or by the regular Rules of Court. 13 discharge of his official, administrative or judicial
However, in People v. Espinosa,14 this Court functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith
tangentially recognized such practice, provided that or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall
the alleged conditions attached thereto should be apply to officers and employees of offices or
"unmistakable, express, informed and enlightened." government corporations charged with the grant of
Moreover, the conditions must be expressly stated in licenses or permits or other concessions.
the Order disposing of the arraignment; otherwise, the
arraignment should be deemed simple and This crime has the following essential elements:19
unconditional.15
1. The accused must be a public officer
In the present case, the arraignment of petitioner is discharging administrative, judicial or official
reflected in the Minutes of the Sandiganbayan functions;
Proceedings dated 13 March 2001 which merely states
that the "[a]ccused when arraigned entered a plea of
not guilty. The Motion to Travel is granted subject to 2. He must have acted with manifest partiality,
the usual terms and conditions imposed on accused evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
persons travelling (sic) abroad."16 In the Resolution of negligence; and
16 April 2001,17 the Sandiganbayan mentioned the
arraignment of petitioner and granted his Urgent 3. His action caused any undue injury to any
Motion to Amend Motion to Lift Hold Departure Order party, including the government, or gave any
and to be Allowed to Travel, setting forth the conditions private party unwarranted benefits, advantage
attendant thereto which, however, were limited only to or preference in the discharge of his functions.
petitioner’s itinerary abroad; the setting up of
additional bailbond; the required appearance before The second element provides the different modes by
the clerk of court; and written advice to the court upon which the crime may be committed, that is, through
return to the Philippines. Nothing on record is indicative "manifest partiality," "evident bad faith," or "gross
of the provisional or conditional nature of the inexcusable negligence."20 In Uriarte v. People,21 this
arraignment. Hence, following the doctrine laid down in Court explained that Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be
Espinosa, the arraignment of petitioner should be committed either by dolo, as when the accused acted
deemed simple and unconditional. with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by
culpa, as when the accused committed gross
The rules mandate that after a plea is entered, only a inexcusable negligence. There is "manifest partiality"
formal amendment of the Information may be made when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or
but with leave of court and only if it does not prejudice predilection to favor one side or person rather than
the rights of the accused. another.22 "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad
judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent
Petitioner contends that replacing "gross neglect of and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or
duty" with "gross inexcusable negligence" is a conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill
substantial amendment of the Information which is will.23 "Evident bad faith" contemplates a state of mind
prejudicial to his rights. He asserts that under the affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some
amended information, he has to present evidence that motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior
he did not act with "gross inexcusable negligence," purposes.24 "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to
evidence he was not required to present under the negligence characterized by the want of even the
original information. To bolster his argument, petitioner slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation
refers to the 10 February 2004 Resolution of the where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but
Sandiganbayan which ruled that the change willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference
"constitutes substantial amendment considering that to consequences insofar as other persons may be
the possible defense of the accused may divert from affected.25
the one originally intended."18lawphil.net
The original information filed against petitioner alleged
We are not convinced. that he acted with "evident bad faith and manifest
partiality and or (sic) gross neglect of duty." The
amended information, on the other hand, alleges that
Petitioner is charged with violation of Section 3(e) of RA petitioner acted with "evident bad faith and manifest
3019 which provides as follows: partiality and/or gross inexcusable negligence."
Simply, the amendment seeks to replace "gross
SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.— In neglect of duty" with "gross inexcusable
addition to acts or omissions of public officers already negligence." Given that these two phrases fall under
penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute different paragraphs of RA 3019—specifically, "gross
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby neglect of duty" is under Section 3(f) while "gross
declared to be unlawful: inexcusable negligence" is under Section 3(e) of the
statute—the question remains whether or not the
xxx amendment is substantial and prejudicial to the rights
of petitioner.

12
The test as to when the rights of an accused are complaint-affidavit in 1992 to charge accused with the
prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or offense under the Amended Information, in violation of
information is when a defense under the complaint or petitioner’s right to a speedy trial.
information, as it originally stood, would no longer be
available after the amendment is made, and when any Petitioner’s contentions are futile.
evidence the accused might have, would be
inapplicable to the complaint or information as
amended.26 On the other hand, an amendment which The right of an accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed
merely states with additional precision something under Section 16, Article III of the Philippine
which is already contained in the original information Constitution which provides: "All persons shall have the
and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
conviction for the crime charged is an amendment to judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies." This
form that can be made at anytime.27lavvphil right, however, is deemed violated only when the
proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and
oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements
In this case, the amendment entails the deletion of the of the trial are asked for and secured; or when without
phrase "gross neglect of duty" from the Information. cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is
Although this may be considered a substantial allowed to elapse without the party having his case
amendment, the same is allowable even after tried.32 A simple mathematical computation of the
arraignment and plea being beneficial to the accused. 28 period involved is not sufficient. We concede that
As a replacement, "gross inexcusable negligence" judicial proceedings do not exist in a vacuum and must
would be included in the Information as a modality in contend with the realities of everyday life.33
the commission of the offense. This Court believes that
the same constitutes an amendment only in form. In
Sistoza v. Desierto,29 the Information charged the After reviewing the records of the case, we believe that
accused with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, but the right of petitioner to a speedy trial was not
specified only "manifest partiality" and "evident bad infringed upon. The issue on the inordinate delay in the
faith" as the modalities in the commission of the resolution of the complaint-affidavit filed against
offense charged. "Gross inexcusable negligence" was petitioner and his co-accused and the filing of the
not mentioned in the Information. Nonetheless, this original Information against petitioner was raised in
Court held that the said section is committed by dolo petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss, and was duly addressed
or culpa, and although the Information may have by the Sandiganbayan in its Resolution denying the
alleged only one of the modalities of committing the said motion. It appears that the said delays were
offense, the other mode is deemed included in the caused by the numerous motions for extension of time
accusation to allow proof thereof.30 In so ruling, this to file various pleadings and to reproduce documents
Court applied by analogy the pronouncement in filed by petitioner’s co-accused, and that no actual
Cabello v. Sandiganbayan31 where an accused charged preliminary investigation was conducted on petitioner.
with willful malversation was validly convicted of the The Sandiganbayan properly held that a reinvestigation
same felony of malversation through negligence when of the case as to petitioner was in order. Although the
the evidence merely sustained the latter mode of reinvestigation inadvertently resulted to further delay
perpetrating the offense. The Court held that a in the proceedings, this process could not have been
conviction for a criminal negligent act can be had dispensed with as it was done for the protection of the
under an information exclusively charging the rights of petitioner himself. It is well-settled that
commission of a willful offense upon the theory that although the conduct of an investigation may hold
the greater includes the lesser offense. Thus, we hold back the progress of a case, it is necessary so that the
that the inclusion of "gross inexcusable negligence" in accused's right will not be compromised or sacrificed at
the Information, which merely alleges "manifest the altar of expediency.34 The succeeding events
partiality" and "evident bad faith" as modalities in the appear to be parts of a valid and regular course of
commission of the crime under Section 3(e) of RA judicial proceedings not attended by delays which can
3019, is an amendment in form. be considered vexatious, capricious, oppressive, or
unjustified. Hence, petitioner’s contention of violation
of his right to a speedy trial must fail.
On Whether Petitioner’s
Right to a Speedy Trial was Violated
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. We AFFIRM
the Resolutions dated 10 February 2004 and 3 May
Petitioner contends that the complaint-affidavit against 2004 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No.
him was filed on 15 June 1992, but it was resolved by 25231.
the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao only on 26
February 1999, or after a period of almost seven (7)
years. Four (4) years thereafter, the SPO, upon SO ORDERED.
reinvestigation of the case, recommended that the
case against petitioner be dismissed for lack of
probable cause, but this recommendation was denied
by the Ombudsman. A Motion for Leave to Admit
Amended Information was later filed by the prosecution
and granted by the Sandiganbayan in the questioned
Resolution of 10 February 2004. Thus, petitioner
maintains that it took the Office of the Ombudsman
twelve (12) years since the initial filing of the

13
13
UNION BANK OF THE, G.R. No.
192565
PHILIPPINES and DESI
TOMAS,
- versus
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
February 28, 2012
x-------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

BRION, J.:

We review in this Rule 45 petition, the


decision28[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65,
Makati City (RTC-Makati City) in Civil Case No. 09-1038.
The petition seeks to reverse and set aside the RTC-
Makati City decision dismissing the petition for
certiorari of petitioners Union Bank of the Philippines
(Union Bank) and Desi Tomas (collectively, the
petitioners). The RTC found that the Metropolitan Trial
Court, Branch 63, Makati City (MeTC-Makati City) did
not commit any grave abuse of discretion in denying
the motion to quash the information for perjury filed by
Tomas.

28

14
offense because: (a) the third element of perjury the
willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood was not
The Antecedents alleged with particularity without specifying what the
other action or proceeding commenced involving the
same issues in another tribunal or agency; (b) there
was no other action or proceeding pending in another
court when the second complaint was filed; and (c) she
Tomas was charged in court for perjury under was charged with perjury by giving false testimony
Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for making while the allegations in the Information make out
a false narration in a Certificate against Forum perjury by making a false affidavit.
Shopping. The Information against her reads:
The MeTC-Makati City denied the Motion to
That on or about the 13 th day of March 2000 in Quash, ruling that it has jurisdiction over the case since
the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the Certificate against Forum Shopping was notarized
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- in Makati City.31[4] The MeTC-Makati City also ruled that
named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully the allegations in the Information sufficiently charged
and feloniously make untruthful statements under oath Tomas with perjury.32[5] The MeTC-Makati City
upon a material matter before a competent person subsequently denied Tomas motion for
authorized to administer oath which the law requires to reconsideration.33[6]
wit: said accused stated in the
Verification/Certification/Affidavit of merit of a The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari
complaint for sum of money with prayer for a writ of before the RTC-Makati City to annul and set aside the
replevin docketed as [Civil] Case No. 342-00 of the MeTC-Makati City orders on the ground of grave abuse
Metropolitan Trial Court[,] Pasay City, that the Union of discretion. The petitioners anchored their petition on
Bank of the Philippines has not commenced any other the rulings in United States v. Canet34[7] and Ilusorio v.
action or proceeding involving the same issues in Bildner35[8] which ruled that venue and jurisdiction
another tribunal or agency, accused knowing well that should be in the place where the false document was
said material statement was false thereby making a presented.
willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood.29[2]
The Assailed RTC Decision

The accusation stemmed from petitioner Union In dismissing the petition for certiorari, the
Banks two (2) complaints for sum of money with prayer RTC-Makati City held:
for a writ of replevin against the spouses Eddie and
Eliza Tamondong and a John Doe. The first complaint,
docketed as Civil Case No. 98-0717, was filed before
the RTC, Branch 109, Pasay City on April 13, 1998. The [I]nsofar as the petitioners stance is
second complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 342- concerned[,] the more recent case of
000, was filed on March 15, 2000 and raffled to the [Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy] (GR Nos. 174168
MeTC, Branch 47, Pasay City. Both complaints showed & 179438, March 30, 2009) however,
that Tomas executed and signed the Certification reaffirms what has been the long
against Forum Shopping. Accordingly, she was charged standing view on the venue with
of deliberately violating Article 183 of the RPC by respect to perjury cases. In this
falsely declaring under oath in the Certificate against particular case[,] the high court
Forum Shopping in the second complaint that she did reiterated the rule that the criminal
not commence any other action or proceeding action shall be instituted and tried in
involving the same issue in another tribunal or agency. the court of the municipality or territory
where the offense was committed, or
where any of its essential ingredients
occurred. It went on to declare that
Tomas filed a Motion to Quash,30[3] citing two since the subject document[,] the
grounds. First, she argued that the venue was execution of which was the subject of
improperly laid since it is the Pasay City court (where
31
the Certificate against Forum Shopping was submitted
and used) and not the MeTC-Makati City (where the
Certificate against Forum Shopping was subscribed) 32
that has jurisdiction over the perjury case. Second, she
argued that the facts charged do not constitute an 33

29 34

30 35

15
the charge[,] was subscribed and sworn
to in Manila[,] then the court of the said
territorial jurisdiction was the proper Interestingly, Solicitor General Jose Anselmo I.
venue of the criminal action[.] Cadiz shared the petitioners view. In his Manifestation
and Motion in lieu of Comment (which we hereby treat
xxxx as the Comment to the petition), the Solicitor General
also relied on Ilusorio and opined that the lis mota in
the crime of perjury is the deliberate or intentional
giving of false evidence in the court where the
x x x Given the present state of evidence is material. The Solicitor General observed
jurisprudence on the matter, it is not amiss that the criminal intent to assert a falsehood under
to state that the city court of Makati City oath only became manifest before the MeTC-Pasay City.
has jurisdiction to try and decide the case
for perjury inasmuch as the gist of the
complaint itself which constitute[s] the
charge against the petitioner dwells solely The Issue
on the act of subscribing to a false
certification. On the other hand, the
charge against the accused in the case of
Ilusorio v. Bildner, et al., based on the
complaint-affidavits therein[,] was not The case presents to us the issue of what the
simply the execution of the questioned proper venue of perjury under Article 183 of the RPC
documents but rather the introduction of should be Makati City, where the Certificate against
the false evidence through the subject Forum Shopping was notarized, or Pasay City, where
documents before the court of Makati the Certification was presented to the trial court.
City.36[9] (emphasis ours)
The Courts Ruling

The RTC-Makati City ruled that the MeTC-Makati


City did not commit grave abuse of discretion since the We deny the petition and hold that the
order denying the Motion to Quash was based on MeTC-Makati City is the proper venue and the
jurisprudence later than Ilusorio. The RTC-Makati City proper court to take cognizance of the perjury
also observed that the facts in Ilusorio are different case against the petitioners.
from the facts of the present case. Lastly, the RTC-
Makati City ruled that the Rule 65 petition was
improper since the petitioners can later appeal the
decision in the principal case. The RTC-Makati City
subsequently denied the petitioners motion for Venue of Action and Criminal Jurisdiction
reconsideration.37[10]

The Petition
Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in
criminal cases. It determines not only the place where
the criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court
The petitioners pray that we reverse the RTC- that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case. The
Makati City decision and quash the Information for reason for this rule is two-fold. First, the jurisdiction of
perjury against Tomas. The petitioners contend that the trial courts is limited to well-defined territories such
Ilusorio ruling is more applicable to the present facts that a trial court can only hear and try cases involving
than our ruling in Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy Chim. 38[11] They crimes committed within its territorial jurisdiction. 39[12]
argued that the facts in Ilusorio showed that the filing Second, laying the venue in the locus criminis is
of the petitions in court containing the false statements grounded on the necessity and justice of having an
was the essential ingredient that consummated the accused on trial in the municipality of province where
perjury. In Sy Tiong, the perjurious statements were witnesses and other facilities for his defense are
made in a General Information Sheet (GIS) that was available.40[13]
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC).

Unlike in civil cases, a finding of improper


36 venue in criminal cases carries jurisdictional

37 39

38 40

16
consequences. In determining the venue where the person authorized to administer oath that: (a) he or
criminal action is to be instituted and the court which she has not theretofore commenced any action or filed
has jurisdiction over it, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the any claim involving the same issues in any court,
2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
or her knowledge, no such other action or claim is
pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending
(a) Subject to existing laws, the action or claim, a complete statement of the present
criminal action shall be instituted status thereof; and (c) if he or she should thereafter
and tried in the court or learn that the same or similar action or claim has been
municipality or territory where the filed or is pending, he or she shall report that fact
offense was committed or within five days therefrom to the court wherein his or
where any of its essential her aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been
ingredients occurred. [emphasis filed. In relation to the crime of perjury, the material
ours] matter in a Certificate against Forum Shopping is the
truth of the required declarations which is designed to
guard against litigants pursuing simultaneous remedies
in different fora.41[14]

The above provision should be read in light of


Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure which states:
In this case, Tomas is charged with the crime of
perjury under Article 183 of the RPC for making a false
Certificate against Forum Shopping. The elements of
perjury under Article 183 are:
Place of commission of the offense.
The complaint or information is
sufficient if it can be understood from
its allegations that the offense was
committed or some of its essential (a) That the accused made a
ingredients occurred at some place statement under oath or
within the jurisdiction of the court, executed an affidavit upon a
unless the particular place where it material matter.
was committed constitutes an
essential element of the offense (b) That the statement or
charged or is necessary for its affidavit was made before a
identification. competent officer, authorized
to receive and administer oath.

(c) That in the statement or


affidavit, the accused made a
Both provisions categorically place the venue willful and deliberate assertion
and jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in the of a falsehood.
court where the offense was committed, but also
where any of its essential ingredients took place. In (d) That the sworn statement or
other words, the venue of action and of jurisdiction are affidavit containing the falsity
deemed sufficiently alleged where the Information is required by law or made for
states that the offense was committed or some of its a legal purpose.42[15]
essential ingredients occurred at a place within the (emphasis ours)
territorial jurisdiction of the court.

Where the jurisdiction of the court is being


Information Charging Perjury assailed in a criminal case on the ground of improper
venue, the allegations in the complaint and information
must be examined together with Section 15(a), Rule
110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
On this basis, we find that the allegations in the
Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Information sufficiently support a finding that the crime
Procedure, as amended, contains the requirement for a of perjury was committed by Tomas within the
Certificate against Forum Shopping. The Certificate territorial jurisdiction of the MeTC-Makati City.
against Forum Shopping can be made either by a
statement under oath in the complaint or initiatory
pleading asserting a claim or relief; it may also be in a
sworn certification annexed to the complaint or
initiatory pleading. In both instances, the affiant is 41
required to execute a statement under oath before a
duly commissioned notary public or any competent
42

17
The first element of the crime of perjury, the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure as all the essential
execution of the subject Certificate against Forum elements constituting the crime of perjury were
Shopping was alleged in the Information to have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Makati
committed in Makati City. Likewise, the second and City, not Pasay City.
fourth elements, requiring the Certificate against
Forum Shopping to be under oath before a notary Referral to the En Banc
public, were also sufficiently alleged in the Information
to have been made in Makati City:

The present case was referred to the En Banc


th
primarily to address the seeming conflict between the
That on or about the 13 day of division rulings of the Court in the Ilusorio case that is
March 2000 in the City of Makati, Metro cited as basis of this petition, and the Sy Tiong case
Manila, Philippines and within the that was the basis of the assailed RTC-Makati City
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the ruling.
above-named accused, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously make untruthful statements
under oath upon a material matter
before a competent person authorized The Cited Ilusorio and Sy Tiong Cases
to administer oath which the law
requires to wit: said accused stated in
the Verification/Certification/Affidavit x
x x.43[16]
The subject matter of the perjury charge in
Ilusorio involved false statements contained in
verified petitions filed with the court for the
issuance of a new owners duplicate copies of
We also find that the third element of willful certificates of title. The verified petitions containing the
and deliberate falsehood was also sufficiently alleged false statements were subscribed and sworn to in Pasig
to have been committed in Makati City, not Pasay City, City, but were filed in Makati City and Tagaytay City.
as indicated in the last portion of the Information: The question posed was: which court (Pasig City,
Makati City and/or Tagaytay City) had jurisdiction to try
and hear the perjury cases?

[S]aid accused stated in the


Verification/Certification/Affidavit of
merit of a complaint for sum of money We ruled that the venues of the action were in
with prayer for a writ of replevin Makati City and Tagaytay City, the places where the
docketed as [Civil] Case No. 342-00 of verified petitions were filed. The Court reasoned out
the Metropolitan Trial Court[,] Pasay that it was only upon filing that the intent to assert an
City, that the Union Bank of the alleged falsehood became manifest and where the
Philippines has not commenced any alleged untruthful statement found relevance or
other action or proceeding involving materiality. We cited as jurisprudential authority the
the same issues in another tribunal or case of United States. v. Caet45[18] which ruled:
agency, accused knowing well that said
material statement was false thereby
making a willful and deliberate
assertion of falsehood.44[17]
(underscoring ours) It is immaterial where the affidavit was
subscribed and sworn, so long as it
appears from the information that the
defendant, by means of such affidavit,
Tomas deliberate and intentional assertion of "swore to" and knowingly submitted
falsehood was allegedly shown when she made the false evidence, material to a point at
false declarations in the Certificate against Forum issue in a judicial proceeding pending
Shopping before a notary public in Makati City, despite in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo
her knowledge that the material statements she Province. The gist of the offense
subscribed and swore to were not true. Thus, Makati charged is not the making of the
City is the proper venue and MeTC-Makati City is the affidavit in Manila, but the intentional
proper court to try the perjury case against Tomas, giving of false evidence in the Court of
pursuant to Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 First Instance of Iloilo Province by
means of such affidavit. [emphasis and
underscoring deleted]
43

44 45

18
Tiong is entirely based on rulings rendered after the
present RPC took effect.49[22]
In Sy Tiong, the perjured statements were
made in a GIS which was subscribed and sworn to in
Manila. We ruled that the proper venue for the perjury
charges was in Manila where the GIS was subscribed The perjurious act in Caet consisted of an
and sworn to. We held that the perjury was information charging perjury through the
consummated in Manila where the false statement was presentation in court of a motion accompanied by a
made. As supporting jurisprudence, we cited the case false sworn affidavit. At the time the Caet ruling was
of Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice46[19] that, in turn, rendered, the prevailing law on perjury and the rules
cited an American case entitled U.S. v. Norris.47[20] We on prosecution of criminal offenses were found in
ruled in Villanueva that Section 3, Act No. 1697 of the Philippine Commission,
and in Subsection 4, Section 6 of General Order No.
5850[23] for the procedural aspect.

Perjury is an obstruction of
justice; its perpetration well may affect
the dearest concerns of the parties Section 3 of Act No. 1697 reads:
before a tribunal. Deliberate material
falsification under oath constitutes the
crime of perjury, and the crime is
complete when a witness' statement
has once been made. Sec. 3. Any person who, having
taken oath before a competent
tribunal, officer, or person, in any case
in which a law of the Philippine Islands
authorizes an oath to be administered,
The Crime of Perjury: A Background that he will testify, declare, depose, or
certify truly, or that any written
testimony, declaration, disposition, or
certificate by him subscribed is true,
To have a better appreciation of the issue willfully and contrary to such oath
facing the Court, a look at the historical background of states or subscribes any material
how the crime of perjury (specifically, Article 183 of the matter which he does not believe to be
RPC) evolved in our jurisdiction. true, is guilty of perjury, and shall be
punished by a fine of not more than
two thousand pesos and by
imprisonment for not more than five
years; and shall moreover, thereafter
The RPC penalizes three forms of false be incapable of holding any public
testimonies. The first is false testimony for and office or of giving testimony in any
against the defendant in a criminal case (Articles 180 court of the Philippine Islands until
and 181, RPC); the second is false testimony in a civil such time as the judgment against him
case (Article 182, RPC); and the third is false is reversed.
testimony in other cases (Article 183, RPC). Based on
the Information filed, the present case involves
the making of an untruthful statement in an
affidavit on a material matter.
This law was copied, with the necessary
These RPC provisions, however, are not really changes, from Sections 539251[24] and 539352[25] of
the bases of the rulings cited by the parties in their the Revised Statutes of the United States. 53[26] Act No.
respective arguments. The cited Ilusorio ruling, 1697 was intended to make the mere execution of a
although issued by this Court in 2008, harked back to false affidavit punishable in our jurisdiction.54[27]
the case of Caet which was decided in 1915, i.e.,
before the present RPC took effect.48[21] Sy Tiong, on 49
the other hand, is a 2009 ruling that cited Villanueva, a
2005 case that in turn cited United States v. Norris, a 50
1937 American case. Significantly, unlike Canet, Sy
51

46 52

47 53

48 54

19
strict than those of Act 1697 on perjury.
[italics ours]
In turn, Subsection 4, Section 6 of General
Order No. 58 provided that the venue shall be the court
of the place where the crime was committed.
With this background, it can be appreciated
As applied and interpreted by the Court in that Article 183 of the RPC which provides:
Caet, perjury was committed by the act of
representing a false document in a judicial
proceeding.55[28] The venue of action was held by the
Court to be at the place where the false document was The penalty of arresto mayor in its
presented since the presentation was the act that maximum period to prision
consummated the crime. correccional in its minimum period
shall be imposed upon any person, who
The annotation of Justices Aquino and Grio- knowingly makes untruthful statements
Aquino in their textbook on the RPC56[29] interestingly and not being included in the
explains the history of the perjury provisions of the provisions of the next preceding
present RPC and traces as well the linkage between Act articles, shall testify under oath, or
No. 1697 and the present Code. To quote these make an affidavit, upon any material
authors:57[30] matter before a competent person
authorized to administer an oath in
cases in which the law so requires.
[emphasis supplied; emphases ours]
Art. 180 was taken from art.
318 of the Old Penal Code and art. 154
of Del Pans Proposed Correctional
Code, while art. 181 was taken from in fact refers to either of two punishable acts (1) falsely
art. 319 of the old Penal Code and Art. testifying under oath in a proceeding other than a
157 of Del Pans Proposed Correctional criminal or civil case; and (2) making a false affidavit
Code. Said arts. 318 and 319, together before a person authorized to administer an oath on
with art. 321 of the old Penal Code, any material matter where the law requires an oath.
were impliedly repealed by Act 1697,
the Perjury Law, passed on August 23,
1907, which in turn was expressly
repealed by the Administrative Code of As above discussed, Sy Tiong decided under
1916, Act 2657. In view of the express Article 183 of the RPC essentially involved perjured
repeal of Act 1697, arts. 318 and 321 statements made in a GIS that was subscribed and
of the old Penal Code were deemed sworn to in Manila and submitted to the SEC in
revived. However, Act 2718 expressly Mandaluyong City. Thus, the case involved the making
revived secs. 3 and 4 of the Perjury of an affidavit, not an actual testimony in a proceeding
Law. Art. 367 of the Revised Penal Code that is neither criminal nor civil. From this perspective,
repealed Act Nos. 1697 and 2718. the situs of the oath, i.e., the place where the oath was
taken, is the place where the offense was committed.
It should be noted that perjury By implication, the proper venue would have been the
under Acts 1697 and 2718 includes City of Mandaluyong the site of the SEC had the charge
false testimony, whereas, under the involved an actual testimony made before the SEC.
Revised Penal Code, false testimony
includes perjury. Our law on false
testimony is of Spanish origin, but our
law on perjury (art. 183 taken from sec.
3 of Act 1697) is derived from In contrast, Caet involved the presentation in
American statutes. The provisions of court of a motion supported and accompanied by an
the old Penal Code on false testimony affidavit that contained a falsity. With Section 3 of Act
embrace perjury committed in court or No. 1697 as basis, the issue related to the submission
in some contentious proceeding, while of the affidavit in a judicial proceeding. This came at a
perjury as defined in Act 1697 includes time when Act No. 1697 was the perjury law, and made
the making of a false affidavit. The no distinction between judicial and other proceedings,
provisions of the Revised Penal Code on and at the same time separately penalized the making
false testimony are more severe and of false statements under oath (unlike the present RPC
which separately deals with false testimony in criminal,
civil and other proceedings, while at the same time
55 also penalizing the making of false affidavits).
Understandably, the venue should be the place where
56 the submission was made to the court or the situs of
the court; it could not have been the place where the
57

20
affidavit was sworn to simply because this was not the taken as this is the place where the oath was made, in
offense charged in the Information. this case, Pasig City.

The case of Ilusorio cited the Caet case as its Procedurally, the rule on venue of criminal
authority, in a situation where the sworn petitions filed cases has been subject to various changes from the
in court for the issuance of duplicate certificates of title time General Order No. 58 was replaced by Rules 106
(that were allegedly lost) were the cited sworn to 122 of the Rules of Court on July 1, 1940. Section 14,
statements to support the charge of perjury for the Rule 106 of the Rules of Court provided for the rule on
falsities stated in the sworn petitions. The Court ruled venue of criminal actions and it expressly included, as
that the proper venue should be the Cities of Makati proper venue, the place where any one of the essential
and Tagaytay because it was in the courts of these ingredients of the crime took place. This change was
cities where the intent to assert an alleged falsehood followed by the passage of the 1964 Rules of Criminal
became manifest and where the alleged untruthful Procedure,60[33] the 1985 Rules of Criminal
statement finds relevance or materiality in deciding the Procedure,61[34] and the 2000 Revised Rules of
issue of whether new owners duplicate copies of the Criminal Procedure which all adopted the 1940 Rules of
[Certificate of Condominium Title] and [Transfer Criminal Procedures expanded venue of criminal
Certificates of Title] may issue. 58[31] To the Court, actions. Thus, the venue of criminal cases is not only in
whether the perjurious statements contained in the the place where the offense was committed, but also
four petitions were subscribed and sworn in Pasig is where any of its essential ingredients took place.
immaterial, the gist of the offense of perjury being the
intentional giving of false statement, 59[32] citing Caet
as authority for its statement.
In the present case, the Certification against
Forum Shopping was made integral parts of two
complaints for sum of money with prayer for a writ of
The statement in Ilusorio may have partly led replevin against the respondent spouses Eddie
to the present confusion on venue because of its very Tamondong and Eliza B. Tamondong, who, in turn, filed
categorical tenor in pointing to the considerations to be a complaint-affidavit against Tomas for violation of
made in the determination of venue; it leaves the Article 183 of the RPC. As alleged in the Information
impression that the place where the oath was taken is that followed, the criminal act charged was for the
not at all a material consideration, forgetting that execution by Tomas of an affidavit that
Article 183 of the RPC clearly speaks of two situations contained a falsity.
while Article 182 of the RPC likewise applies to false
testimony in civil cases.

Under the circumstances, Article 183 of the


RPC is indeed the applicable provision; thus,
The Ilusorio statement would have made jurisdiction and venue should be determined on the
perfect sense had the basis for the charge been Article basis of this article which penalizes one who make[s]
182 of the RPC, on the assumption that the petition an affidavit, upon any material matter before a
itself constitutes a false testimony in a civil case. The competent person authorized to administer an oath in
Caet ruling would then have been completely cases in which the law so requires. The constitutive
applicable as the sworn statement is used in a civil act of the offense is the making of an affidavit;
case, although no such distinction was made under thus, the criminal act is consummated when the
Caet because the applicable law at the time (Act No. statement containing a falsity is subscribed and sworn
1697) did not make any distinction. before a duly authorized person.

If Article 183 of the RPC were to be used, as Based on these considerations, we hold that
what in fact appears in the Ilusorio ruling, then only our ruling in Sy Tiong is more in accord with Article 183
that portion of the article, referring to the making of an of the RPC and Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000
affidavit, would have been applicable as the other Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. To reiterate for the
portion refers to false testimony in other proceedings guidance of the Bar and the Bench, the crime of
which a judicial petition for the issuance of a new perjury committed through the making of a false
owners duplicate copy of a Certificate of Condominium affidavit under Article 183 of the RPC is committed at
Title is not because it is a civil proceeding in court. As a the time the affiant subscribes and swears to his or her
perjury based on the making of a false affidavit, what affidavit since it is at that time that all the elements of
assumes materiality is the site where the oath was the crime of perjury are executed. When the crime is

58 60

59 61

21
committed through false testimony under oath in a
proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at
the place where the testimony under oath is given. If in 14
lieu of or as supplement to the actual testimony made
in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a G.R. No. 199210 October 23, 2013
written sworn statement is submitted, venue may PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
either be at the place where the sworn statement is vs.
submitted or where the oath was taken as the taking of RICARDO M. VIDAÑA, Accused-Appellant.
the oath and the submission are both material
ingredients of the crime committed. In all cases, DECISION
determination of venue shall be based on the acts
alleged in the Information to be constitutive of the
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
crime committed.

This is an appeal from a Decision 1 dated March 18,


2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No.
04019, entitled People of the Philippines v. Ricardo M
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we Vidana which affirmed the Decision2 dated June 26,
hereby DENY the petition for lack of merit. Costs 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guimba,
against the petitioners. Nueva Ecija, Branch 33 in Criminal Case No. 2163~G
The trial court convicted appellant Ricardo M. Vidaña of
one (1) count of rape in relation to Republic Act No.
7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of
Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
SO ORDERED.
Act.

The accusatory portion of the lnformation 3 dated


February 6, 2004 for rape in relation to Republic Act
No. 7 61 0 reads as follows:

That on or about the 16th day of September 2003, at x


x x Province of Nueva Ecija, Republic of the Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused with lewd designs and intent to
have carnal knowledge of [AAA 4], his own daughter, a
minor, 15 years old, and while using his influence as a
father, over said minor, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of
and sexual intercourse with said minor against her will
and consent, to her damage and prejudice.

After more than a year of being at large since the


issuance on September 1, 2004 of the warrant for his
arrest,5 appellant was finally arrested and subsequently
arraigned on January 30, 2006 wherein he pleaded
"NOT GUILTY" to the charge of rape.6

The prosecution’s version of the events that transpired


in this case was narrated in the Plaintiff-Appellee’s
Brief in this manner:

[Appellant] and wife [BBB] were separated in 1998.


They have four (4) children namely: [AAA], [CCC],
[DDD] and [EEE]. In 1999, [appellant] began living in
with a certain Irene Valoria, his common-law wife, who
became the aforementioned children’s stepmother.
They were staying in a one-bedroom house owned by a
certain Edgar Magsakay at Sta. Maria, Licab, Nueva
Ecija. At night, [appellant] and his common-law wife
sleep in the sala while the children occupy the
bedroom. [AAA] is the eldest of the brood and was 15
years old in the year 2003, having been born on 13
June 1988.

Around midnight of 16 September 2003, [appellant]


was alone at the sala and the children were asleep

22
inside the bedroom. [AAA] suddenly was jolted from Insisting on his innocence, appellant appealed the
her sleep when somebody pulled her out of the bed guilty verdict to the Court of Appeals but was foiled
and brought her to the sala . She later recognized the when the appellate court affirmed the lower court
person as her father, herein [appellant], who covered ruling in the now assailed March 18, 2011 Decision, the
her mouth and told her not to make any noise. At the dispositive portion of which states:
sala, [appellant] forcibly removed [AAA]’s short pants,
t-shirt, bra and panty. As she lay naked, [appellant] WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated
inserted his penis into [AAA]’s vagina. [AAA]’s ordeal 26 June 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, Guimba,
lasted for about five (5) minutes and all the while she Nueva Ecija, Branch 33, in Criminal Case No. 2163-G,
felt an immense pain. [Appellant] tried to touch [AAA]’s finding the accused-appellant RICARDO M. VIDAÑA
other private parts but she resisted. During the GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt is hereby AFFIRMED
consummation of [appellant]’s lust upon his daughter, in toto.10
he warned her not to tell anybody or else he will kill her
and her siblings.
Hence, appellant takes the present appeal and puts
forward a single assignment of error:
The next day, [AAA] went to the house of Francisco and
Zenny Joaquin. Spouses Joaquin are friends of
[appellant], whose house is about 500 meters away. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING
Zenny Joaquin noticed something was bothering [AAA] THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 5
so she confronted the latter. [AAA] broke down and IN RELATION TO SECTION 31 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
revealed to Zenny what happened to her at the hands 7610.11
of [appellant]. Taken aback by the trauma suffered by
the young lass, Zenny promptly accompanied [AAA] to Appellant vehemently denies his eldest child’s (AAA’s)
the police to report the incident. allegation of rape by asseverating that he could not
have raped AAA because, on the date when the alleged
The examination of the medico-legal officer on [AAA] rape took place, she was living in Francisco and Zenny
revealed "positive healed laceration at 7 o’clock Joaquin’s house and not in his residence where the
position positive hymenal tag."7 (Citations omitted.) alleged rape was consummated. This assertion was
corroborated on material points by appellant’s son,
EEE. Furthermore, appellant insists that the credibility
On the other hand, the defense presented a of AAA is suspect since her narration of the alleged
contrasting narrative which was condensed in the rape incident does not indicate that she resisted
Accused-Appellant’s Brief, to wit: appellant’s carnal desires.

[Appellant] together with his family were living in the We find no merit in appellant’s contention.
house of Edgar Magsakay in Sta. Maria, Licab, Nueva
Ecija. He has four children but only three, namely:
[EEE], [CCC] and [DDD] were staying with him. His Not unlike most rape cases, appellant hinges his hopes
daughter [AAA] was staying with his kumpare Francisco for freedom on undermining the credibility of AAA’s
Joaquin at Purok 2, Sta. Maria, Licab, Nueva Ecija, since testimony. Since AAA is the only witness that can
August 15, 2003. He did not have the opportunity to connect appellant to the crime, appellant beseeches
visit her nor was there an occasion that the latter this Court to take a closer look at AAA’s testimony and,
visited them. On September 16, 2003 at 4:00 to 5:00 in at the end of which, render a judgment of acquittal.
the morning, he was at the fields harvesting together
with Irene Valoria (his wife and stepmother of his It is jurisprudentially settled that in a prosecution for
children). They finished at around 5:00 to 6:00 in the rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis
evening, then they proceeded home (TSN November of the testimony of the victim that is credible,
14, 2008, pp. 2-4). convincing and consistent with human nature and the
normal course of things.12 Furthermore, it is likewise
[EEE] corroborated in material points the testimony of settled that the factual findings of the trial court,
his father [appellant]. (TSN, February 13, 2009, pp. 2- especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are
5)8 entitled to great weight and respect, if not
conclusiveness, since the trial court was in the best
position as the original trier of the facts in whose direct
Trial on the merits ensued and at the conclusion of presence and under whose keen observation the
which the trial court rendered judgment against witnesses rendered their respective versions of the
appellant by finding him guilty beyond reasonable events that made up the occurrences constituting the
doubt of violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 31 ingredients of the offense charged. 13
of Republic Act No. 7610. The dispositive portion of the
assailed June 26, 2009 RTC Decision is reproduced
here: A careful review of the evidence and testimony brought
to light in this case does not lead to a conclusion that
the trial court and the Court of Appeals were mistaken
WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond in their assessment of the credibility of AAA’s
reasonable doubt of the crime charged, this court testimony. Absent any demonstration by appellant that
sentences him to reclusion perpetua and to pay [AAA] both tribunals overlooked a material fact that
₱50,000 in moral damages.9 otherwise would change the outcome of the case or
misunderstood a circumstance of consequence in their

23
evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses, we are A Yes Sir.
thus inclined to affirm the facts as established by the
trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Q You said you were pulled. Who pulled you from your
bed?
We are of the opinion that the testimony of AAA
regarding her ordeal was delivered in a straightforward A My father, Sir.
and convincing manner that is worthy of belief. The
pertinent portions of her testimony are reproduced
below: [PROS.] FLORENDO

[PROS.] FLORENDO At this point, Your Honor, may we just have it on record
that the witness is crying again.
Q We are referring to this particular case. During the
last setting, you stated that you were raped on PROS.] FLORENDO
September 16, 2003. Is that right Miss Witness?
Q He pulled you to what place?
A Yes Sir.
A He pulled me to the sala where he was sleeping, Sir.
Q And where were you at that time on September 16,
2003 when your father raped you? Q I thought your father had a companion in the sala at
that time?
A In our house at x x x, Nueva Ecija, Sir.
A When my stepmother was not there, he was alone in
Q And what were you doing before your father raped the sala, Sir.
you on September 16, 2003?
Q When your father pulled you, you did not shout, you
A We were sleeping with my siblings, Sir. did not scream?

Q And where was your father at that time? A I was not able to shout or scream because he
covered my mouth and told me not to make noise, Sir.
A He was also there in our house, Sir.
Q Was that your first time that your father raped you
on September 16, 2003?
Q He was sleeping with you?
A No Sir.
A No Sir. They were sleeping in the sala.
Q So, he pulled you out of the bed, out of the bedroom
Q You said "they". You mean your father has and took you to the sala?
companions?
A Yes Sir.
A When my stepmother is present, she was sleeping
with my father, Sir, but when she was not there, my
father sleeps alone in the sala, Sir. Q What did he do to you while you were already in the
sala?
Q So, about what time of the day on September 16,
2003 that you said you were raped by your father? A He forcibly removed the shorts I was wearing then,
Sir.
A I cannot remember exactly the time, Sir. As far as I
can recall, it was almost midnight, Sir. Q You were only wearing shorts at that time?

Q And you said you were sleeping? A Yes Sir. Shorts and also a dress.

A Yes Sir. Q What dress was that?

Q How were you awakened? A T-shirt, Sir.

A He pulled me out of the place where we were Q Aside from the shots and t-shirt, you were not
sleeping, Sir. wearing anything?

Q You were sleeping on a bed? A I was wearing shorts, t-shirt, panty and bra, Sir.

Q Did your father succeed in removing your shorts?

24
A Yes Sir. cross-examine AAA after her direct examination by the
prosecutor.
Q What else did he do after removing your shorts?
We have previously held that it is against human
A He also removed my panty and inserted his penis nature for a young girl to fabricate a story that would
into my vagina with a warning that I should not tell it to expose herself as well as her family to a lifetime of
anybody because he will kill us all, Sir. shame, especially when her charge could mean the
death or lifetime imprisonment of her father. 16 That
legal dictum finds application in the case at bar since
Q What do you mean by "penis"? appellant did not allege nor prove any sufficient
improper motive on the part of AAA to falsely accuse
A "Titi", Sir. (Male sexual organ) him of such a serious charge of raping his own flesh
and blood. His allegation that AAA’s admission in open
Q His sexual organ was erected or not at that time? court, that she is not close to him and that they do not
agree on many things,17 cannot suffice as a compelling
enough reason for her to fabricate such a sordid and
A Erected, Sir. scandalous tale of incest.

Q And he inserted it to what part of your body? With regard to appellant’s contention that AAA’s lack of
resistance to the rape committed against her, as borne
A Inside my vagina, Sir. out by her own testimony, negates any truth to her
accusation, we rule that such an argument deserves
Q And what did you feel when he inserted his penis scant consideration. It is settled in jurisprudence that
inside your vagina? the failure to shout or offer tenuous resistance does not
make voluntary the victim’s submission to the criminal
acts of the accused since rape is subjective and not
A It was painful, Sir. everyone responds in the same way to an attack by a
sexual fiend.18
Q And how long was his penis inserted inside your
vagina? Furthermore, we have reiterated that, in incestuous
rape cases, the father’s abuse of the moral ascendancy
A About five (5) minutes, Sir. and influence over his daughter can subjugate the
latter’s will thereby forcing her to do whatever he
Q Aside from that, he did nothing to you? He only wants.19 In other words, in an incestuous rape of a
inserted his penis? minor, actual force or intimidation need not be
employed where the overpowering moral influence of
the father would suffice.20
A Yes Sir.
We likewise rule as unmeritorious appellant’s assertion
Q He did not kiss you? that he could not have committed the felony attributed
to him because, at the date of the alleged rape, AAA
A No Sir. was not residing at the place where the alleged rape
occurred. Jurisprudence tells us that both denial and
Q He did not touch your other private parts? alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail
over the positive and credible testimony of the
prosecution witness that the accused committed the
A He was trying to touch my other private parts but I crime, thus, as between a categorical testimony which
resisted, Sir. has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and
alibi on the other, the former is generally held to
Q And after doing that, what did he do next if there prevail.21
was any?
Moreover, we have held that for alibi to prosper, it is
A Nothing more, Sir.14 necessary that the corroboration is credible, the same
having been offered preferably by disinterested
The quoted transcript would show that when AAA witnesses.22 Based on this doctrine, the corroborating
testified and, thus, was constrained to recount the testimony of appellant’s son, EEE, who, undoubtedly, is
torment she suffered at the hands of her own father, a person intimately related to him cannot serve to
she broke down in tears in more than one instance. reinforce his alibi.
This can only serve to strengthen her testimony as we
have indicated in past jurisprudence that the crying of In view of the foregoing, we therefore affirm the
a victim during her testimony is evidence of the truth conviction of appellant.1âwphi1 However, the trial
of the rape charges, for the display of such emotion court erred in impliedly characterizing the offense
indicates the pain that the victim feels when asked to charged as sexual abuse under Sections 5 and 31 of
recount her traumatic experience.15 It is also worth Republic Act No. 7610.
noting that appellant’s counsel did not even bother to

25
Under Rule 110, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, it is interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed
required that "the complaint or information shall state on all damages awarded from the date of the finality of
the designation of the offense given by the statute, this judgment until fully paid.25
aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and
specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated
there is no designation of the offense, reference shall March 18, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-
be made to the section or subsection of the statute H.C. No. 04019, affirming the conviction of appellant
punishing it." The information clearly charged appellant Ricardo M. Vidaña in Criminal Case No. 2163-G, is
with rape, a crime punishable under Article 266-A of hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that:
the Revised Penal Code, the relevant portions of which
provide:
(1) The penalty of reclusion perpetua without
eligibility of parole is imposed upon appellant
Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed. – Rape Ricardo M. Vidaña;
is committed –
(2) The moral damages to be paid by appellant
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a Ricardo M. Vidaña is increased from Fifty
woman under any of the following circumstances: Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) to Seventy-Five
Thousand Pesos (₱75,000.00);
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
(3) Appellant Ricardo M. Vidaña is ordered to
b) When the offended party is deprived of pay civil indemnity in the amount of Seventy-
reason or is otherwise unconscious; Five Thousand Pesos (₱75,000.00);

c) By means of fraudulent machination or (4) Appellant Ricardo M. Vidaña is ordered to


grave abuse of authority; pay exemplary damages in the amount of
Thirty Thousand Pesos (₱30,000.00); and
d) When the offended party is under twelve
(12) years of age or is demented, even though (5) Appellant Ricardo M Vidaña is ordered to
none of the circumstances mentioned above be pay the private offended party interest on all
present. damages at the legal rate of six percent (6) per
annum from the date of finality of this
The same statute likewise states: judgment. No pronouncement as to costs.

Article 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph 1 of SO ORDERED.


the next preceding article shall be punished by
reclusion perpetua.

xxxx

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of


rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age


and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the
parent of the victim.

In the case at bar, appellant was accused in the


information with feloniously having carnal knowledge
of his own minor daughter against her will by using his
influence as a father. Considering further that the
minority of AAA and her relationship to appellant were
both alleged in the information and proven in court, the
proper designation of appellant’s felony should have
been qualified rape. As such, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without eligibility of parole, in lieu of the
death penalty, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 23
must be imposed. Furthermore, in line with
jurisprudence, the award of moral damages should be
increased to ₱75,000.00 in addition to the award of civil
indemnity and exemplary damages in the amounts of
₱75,000.00 and ₱30,000.00, respectively.24 Likewise,

26
This appeal seeks to undo the conviction of the
accused for the rape he had committed against AAA, [1]
the 15-year-old daughter of BBB, his common-law wife.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, in Gumaca,
Quezon (RTC) sentenced him to death on March 4,
2002 on the ground that the crime was qualified by his
being the step-father of the victim and her minority
under 18 years. By its January 29, 2008 decision
rendered in CA-G.R.CR-HC No. 01123, [2] however, the
Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but found
the crime to be simple rape, reducing the penalty to
reclusion perpetua.

The records show that the accused and BBB started


their cohabitation when AAA and CCC, who were twin
sisters, were only about three years of age; that the
common-law partners lived with BBB's daughters in the
same house for the next 12 years; that a father-
daughter relationship developed between the accused
and BBB's daughters, with AAA and CCC even
considering him as their own father and addressing
him as itay (father); that AAA frequently accompanied
him when he gathered wood and made charcoal in a
hut in the nearby forest; that on March 1, 1999, BBB
left the house early to sell fish; that AAA was left alone
in the house and had lunch by herself because he went
out to chat with neighbors; that after her lunch, AAA
took a nap in the house, but his return to the house
awakened her; that taking advantage of AAA being
alone in the house, he took off his pants and laid down
beside her; that he embraced her, but she brushed
away his arms; that he then got up and started taking
her shorts off; that she resisted and held on to her
shorts; that in frustration, he went to take his bolo and
poked its sharp tip unto her throat while threatening to
kill her; that she became petrified with fear and could
not do anything more after that; that he then undress
her, went on top of her, and inserted his penis into her
vagina; that the penile insertion caused her pain; that
he then made push and pull motions until he spent
himself inside her; that she could only beg for him to
stop but he paid no heed to her pleas; that she cried
later on; and that he left her alone afterwards.

The records further show that once the accused left her
alone, she ran to the house of her Lolo Armin and
reported what the accused had just done to her; that
Lolo Armin accompanied her to the police station to
report the rape; that she narrated in her complaint
affidavit that the accused had raped her even before
that time, when she was still younger; and that she
underwent physical examination by the municipal
health officer, Dra. Constancia Mecija, about two hours
after the commission of the rape.

Dra. Mecija rendered the following findings in the


medico-legal report relevant to AAA's physical
examination, viz:

xxxx
15
Genital Examination:
[ GR No. 183100, Nov 28, 2012 ]
PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ABRENCILLO + Pubic hair fully grown, moderate labia majora and
minora coaptated, fourchette lax, Vestibular mucosa
pinkish.Hymen, tall, thin with old healed complete
BERSAMIN, J.: laceration at 3:00 o'clock and 9:00 o'clock position;
corresponding to the face of a watch. Edges rounded,

27
Hymenal orifice admits a tube of 2.5 cm. in diameter
with moderate resistance, vaginal walls tight. On intermediate review, the accused claimed that the
Rugosities prominent. medico-legal evidence did not prove recent sexual
intercourse in view of the finding of old healed
CONCLUSIONS: laceration that indicated the non-virgin state of AAA.

1. No evident sign of extragenital physical injuries Nonetheless, the CA, upholding the conviction but
noted in the body of the subject at the time of downgrading the offense to simple rape because the
examination. accused was not AAA's stepfather due to him and BBB
not having been legally married, disposed thus:
2. Old healed hymenal laceration, present.[3]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed
from is AFFIRMED with the modification that the
xxxx accused shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
in addition to the indemnity and damages awarded
The Provincial Prosecutor of Quezon filed in the RTC the therein.
information dated March 26, 1999 charging the
accused with qualified rape allegedly committed as SO ORDERED.[6]
follows:
In his appeal, the accused reiterated his arguments in
That on or about the 1st day of March 1999, at the CA,[7] still assailing the credibility of AAA's
Barangay No. 8 Poblacion, in the Municipality of Gen. accusation of a recent coerced sexual encounter with
Luna, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the him.
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, armed with a bolo, with lewd design, by We affirm the conviction.
means of force, threats and intimidation, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal Firstly, the findings of the RTC and the CA deserve
knowledge of one AAA, his step-daughter, and a minor, respect mainly because the RTC as the trial court was
15 years of age, against her will. in the best position to observe the demeanor and
conduct of AAA when she incriminated the accused by
CONTRARY TO LAW .[4] her recollection of the incident in court. The personal
observation of AAA's conduct and demeanor enabled
The accused pleaded not guilty to the information on the trial judge to discern whether she was telling the
September 6, 2000. truth or inventing it.[8] The trial judge's evaluation,
which the CA affirmed, now binds the Court, leaving to
During the trial, the accused denied having sexual the accused the burden to bring to the Court's
intercourse with AAA, although he admitted being in attention facts or circumstances of weight that were
the house at the alleged time of the rape. He insisted overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted by the
that nobody was in the house when he returned that lower courts but would materially affect the disposition
afternoon from his chore of gathering wood in the of the case differently if duly considered. [9] Alas, the
nearby forest; that upon learning from a neighbor that accused made no showing that the RTC, in the first
AAA had left the house with her kabarkada, he himself instance, and the CA, on review, ignored,
did the cooking and waited for her to return home; and misapprehended, or misinterpreted any facts or
that he scolded her, causing her to run away from circumstances supportive of or crucial to his defense. [10]
home.
Secondly, carnal knowledge of AAA as an element of
After trial, the RTC rendered judgment, convicting the rape was proved although Dra. Mecija's findings
accused for qualified rape and prescribing the death indicated no physical injuries on the body of AAA. [11]
penalty. It considered AAA's testimony as credible and Rather than disproving the commission of the rape, the
reliable because the medico-legal findings absence of a finding of physical injuries on AAA
corroborated her accusation. It found that the rape was corroborated her testimony that she became petrified
qualified by relationship, the accused being her with fear and could not offer any physical resistance to
stepfather, and by her minority, she being 15 years of his sexual assault after he poked the sharp tip of the
age at the time of the commission of the crime. It ruled bolo unto her neck.
as follows:
It is relevant to mention that carnal knowledge as an
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Court finds element of rape does not require penetration. Carnal
the accused ROGELIO ABRENCILLO guilty beyond knowledge is simply the act of a man having sexual
reasonable doubt for rape under Article 266-A and 266- bodily connections with a woman. [12] Indeed, all that is
B of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 8353 necessary for rape to be consummated, according to
and sentencing him the penalty of DEATH. He is People v. Campuhan,[13] is for the penis of the accused
further ordered to pay the amount of P75,000.00 to to come into contact with the lips of the pudendum of
AAA as indemnity and moral damages in the amount of the victim. Hence, rape is consummated once the
P50,000.00. penis of the accused touches either labia of the
pudendum.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Thirdly, we reject the posture of the accused that AAA's
old-healed hymenal lacerations, as Dra. Mecija found,

28
disproved the recent commission of the rape charged. the criminal liability, the exclusive concern of the State.
Proof of the presence of hymenal laceration in the For that purpose, therefore, exemplary damages of
victim is neither indispensable nor necessary in order P25,000.00 are hereby fixed.
to establish the commission of rape. Hence, whether
the hymenal lacerations of AAA were fresh or healed WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision promulgated
was not decisive.[14] In this connection, it is timely to on January 29, 2008, subject to the MODIFICATION
remind that the commission of rape may be proved by that Rogelio Abrencillo is ordered to pay AAA the
evidence other than the physical manifestations of reduced amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and
force being applied on the victim's genitalia, like the the further amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary
presence of hymenal laceration. For sure, even the sole damages in addition to the moral damages of
testimony of the victim, if found to be credible, suffices P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court.
to prove the commission of rape. This rule avoids the
situation of letting the rapist escape punishment and The accused shall pay the costs of suit.
go scot-free should he commit the rape with only
himself and the victim as the witnesses to its SO ORDERED.
commission.

Fourthly, the CA correctly prescribed reclusion


perpetua. The rape that was committed was not
qualified rape because the accused and BBB were not
legally married to each other. What the records show,
instead, was that they were in a common-law
relationship, which meant that he was not the
stepfather of AAA, contrary to the allegation of the
information. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code, rape through force, threat or intimidation of a
woman 12 years or over in age is punished by
reclusion perpetua.

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the


penalty of reclusion perpetua to death whenever the
rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon.
Although the information alleged the use by the
accused of a deadly weapon (bolo) in the commission
of the rape, the CA still correctly prescribed the lesser
penalty of reclusion perpetua because the information
did not allege the attendance of any aggravating
circumstances. With the intervening revision of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure (i.e., effective on
December 1, 2000) in order to now require the
information to state the "acts or omissions complained
of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances xxx in ordinary and concise
language and not necessarily in the language used in
the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what offense is being
charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstance and for the court to pronounce
judgment,"[15] the Prosecution became precluded from
establishing any act or circumstance not specifically
alleged in the information if such act or circumstance
would increase the penalty to the maximum period.[16]

Lastly, the Court reduces the indemnity from


P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 in view of the crime actually
proved being simple rape. However, the RTC and the
CA did not award exemplary damages to AAA, despite
her being entitled to such damages by reason of her
minority under 18 years at the time of the rape, and
because of the use by the accused of the bolo, a
deadly weapon. This recognition of her right accords
with the perceptive pronouncement in People v.
Catubig[17] to the effect that exemplary damages were
justified regardless of whether or not the generic or
qualifying aggravating circumstances were alleged in
the information because the grant of such damages
pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code was intended
for the sole benefit of the victim and did not concern

29
BRION, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and


prohibition under Rule 651 filed by Dr. Joel C. Mendez
(petitioner) assailing the June 12, 2007 and August 13,
2007 resolutions2 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)3
The assailed resolutions granted the prosecution's
Motion to Amend Information with Leave of Court and
denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

ANTECEDENTS

The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) filed a complaint-


affidavit4 with the Department of Justice against the
petitioner. The BIR alleged that the petitioner had been
operating as a single proprietor doing business and/or
exercising his profession for taxable years 2001 to
2003 under the following trade names and registration
addresses:5

1. Mendez Body and Face Salon and Spa

Registered with Revenue District Office


(RDO) No. 39 – South Quezon City

2. Mendez Body and Face Salon and Spa

Registered with RDO No. 39 – South


Quezon City

3. Mendez Body and Face Salon and Spa

Registered with RDO No. 40 – Cubao

4. Mendez Body and Face Skin Clinic

Registered with RDO No. 47 – East


Makati

5. Weigh Less Center

Registered with RDO No. 21

6. Mendez Weigh Less Center

Registered with RDO No. 4 – Calasiao


Pangasinan

Based on these operations, the BIR alleged that


petitioner failed to file his income tax returns for
taxable years 2001 to 2003 and, consequently evaded
16 his obligation to pay the correct amount of taxes due
the government.6
G.R. No. 179962 June 11, 2014
DR. JOEL C. MENDEZ, Petitioner, In his defense, the petitioner admitted that he has
vs. been operating as a single proprietor under these trade
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF TAX names in Quezon City, Makati, Dagupan and San
APPEALS, Respondents. Fernando. However, he countered that he did not file
his income tax returns in these places because his
business establishments were registered only in 2003
DECISION at the earliest; thus, these business establishments

30
were not yet in existence at the time of his alleged Income Tax Return... The change in the branches of his
failure to file his income tax return.7 business, likewise did not relieve [the petitioner] of his
duty to file an ITR. In addition, the places where the
After a preliminary investigation, State Prosecutor Juan accused conducts business does not affect the Court’s
Pedro Navera found probable cause against petitioner jurisdiction... nor ... change the nature of the offense
for non-filing of income tax returns for taxable years charged, as only one [ITR] is demanded of every
2001 and 2002 and for failure to supply correct and taxpayer. We likewise see no substantial difference on
accurate information as to his true income for taxable the information with the insertion of the phrase ‘for
year 2003, in violation of the National Internal Revenue income earned’ for it merely stated the normal subject
Code.8 Accordingly an Information9 was filed with the matter found in every income tax return.
CTA charging the petitioner with violation of Section
255 of Republic Act No. 8424 (Tax Reform Act of 1997). The petitioner filed the present petition after the CTA
The Information reads: denied his motion for reconsideration.17 THE PETITION

That on or about the 15th day of April, 2002, at Quezon The petitioner claims in his petition that the
City, and within the jurisdiction of [the CTA] the above prosecution’s amendment is a substantial amendment
named accused, a duly registered taxpayer, and sole prohibited under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised
proprietor of "Weigh Less Center" with principal office Rules of Criminal Procedure. It is substantial in nature
at No. 31 Roces Avenue, Quezon City, and with several because its additional allegations alter the
branches in Quezon City, Makati, San Fernando and prosecution’s theory of the case so as to cause surprise
Dagupan City, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully to him and affect the form of his defense.18 Thus, he
and feloniously fail to file his Income Tax Return (ITR) was not properly informed of the nature and cause of
with the Bureau of Internal Revenue for the taxable the accusation against him.
year 2001, to the damage and prejudice of the
Government in the estimated amount of Adopting the observation of a dissenting CTA justice,
₱1,089,439.08, exclusive of penalties, surcharges and he claims that to change the allegation on the
interest. locations of his business from San Fernando, Pampanga
and Dagupan City to Muntinlupa and Mandaluyong
CONTRARY TO LAW.10 cities would cause surprise to him on the form of
defense he would have to assume.
The accused was arraigned11 and pleaded not guilty
on March 5, 2007.12 On May 4, 2007, the prosecution The petitioner adds that the change in the date of the
filed a "Motion to Amend Information with Leave of commission of the crime from 2001 to 2002 would also
Court."13 The amended information reads: alter his defense considering that the difference in
taxable years would mean requiring a different set of
That on or about the 15th day of April, 2002, at Quezon defense evidence. The same is true with the new
City, and within the jurisdiction of [the CTA] the above allegation of "Mendez Medical Group" since it deprived
named accused, doing business under the name and him of the right, during the preliminary investigation,
style of "Weigh Less Center"/Mendez Medical Group", to present evidence against the alleged operation and
with several branches in Quezon City, Muntinlupa City, or existence of this entity.19 In sum, the amendments
Mandaluyong City and Makati City, did then and there, sought change the subject of the offense and thus
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail to file his income substantial.20 RESPONDENTS’ COMMENT
tax return (ITR) with the Bureau of Internal Revenue for
income earned for the taxable year 2001, to the The respondents claim that the petitioner availed of
damage and prejudice of the Government in the the wrong remedy in questioning the CTA resolutions.
estimated amount of ₱1,089,439.08, exclusive of Under Rule 9, Section 9 of the Revised Rules of CTA,
penalties, surcharges and interest (underscoring and the remedy of appeal to the CTA en banc is the proper
boldfacing in the original).14 remedy, to be availed of within fifteen days from
receipt of the assailed resolution. The filing of the
present petition was clearly a substitute for a lost
The petitioner failed to file his comment to the motion
appeal. Even assuming that certiorari is the proper
within the required period; thus on June 12, 2007,the
remedy, the CTA did not commit an error of jurisdiction
CTA First Division granted the prosecution’s motion.15
or act with grave abuse of discretion. On the contrary,
The CTA ruled that the prosecution’s amendment is
the assailed resolutions were in accord with
merely a formal one as it "merely states with additional
jurisprudence. The amended information could not
precision something already contained in the original
have caused surprise to the petitioner since the
information."16 The petitioner failed to show that the
amendments do not change the nature and cause of
defenses applicable under the original information can
accusation against him. The offense the petitioner
no longer be used under the amended information
probably committed and the acts or omissions involved
since both the original and the amended information
remain the same under the original and the amended
charges the petitioner with the same offense (violation
information, i.e., his failure to file his ITR in 2002 for
of Section 255). The CTA observed:
income earned in 2001 from the operation of his
businesses.21
the change in the name of his business to include the
phrase "Mendez Medical Group" does not alter the fact
Neither would the change in the date of the
the [petitioner] is being charged with failure to file his
commission of the crime nor the inclusion of the phrase

31
"Mendez Medical Group" cause surprise to the petition for failure to establish that the CTA abused its
petitioner since he was fully apprised of these facts discretion, much less gravely abused its discretion.
during the preliminary investigation. Likewise, the
original information already alleged that the Amendment of information
petitioner’s failure to file an ITR refers to "taxable year
2001."
Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure governs the matter of amending the
Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the preparation information:
of the defense contemplated in the law does not
strictly include the presentation of evidence during the
preliminary investigation because this stage is not the Amendment or substitution. — A complaint or
occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the information may be amended, in form or in substance,
parties’ evidence. ISSUES: without leave of court, at any time before the accused
enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a
formal amendment may only be made with leave of
1. Is the remedy of certiorari proper? court and when it can be done without causing
prejudice to the rights of the accused.
2. Whether the prosecution’s amendments
made after the petitioner’s arraignment are However, any amendment before plea, which
substantial in nature and must perforce be downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or
denied? excludes any accused from the complaint or
information, can be made only upon motion by the
COURT’S RULING prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with
leave of court. The court shall state its reasons in
We resolve to dismiss the petition. resolving the motion and copies of its order shall be
furnished all parties, especially the offended party.
Preliminary consideration
There is no precise definition of what constitutes a
substantial amendment. According to jurisprudence,
The petitioner correctly availed of the remedy of substantial matters in the complaint or information
certiorari. Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, consist of the recital of facts constituting the offense
certiorari is available when there is no appeal or any charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary court.23 Under Section 14, however, the prosecution is
course of law. After failing in his bid for the CTA to given the right to amend the information, regardless of
reconsider its admission of the amended information, the nature of the amendment, so long as the
the only remedy left to the petitioner is to file a petition amendment is sought before the accused enters his
for certiorari with this Court. plea, subject to the qualification under the second
paragraph of Section 14.
Contrary to the prosecution’s argument, the remedy of
appeal to the CTA en banc is not available to the Once the accused is arraigned and enters his plea,
petitioner. In determining the appropriate remedy or however, Section 14 prohibits the prosecution from
remedies available, a party aggrieved by a court order, seeking a substantial amendment, particularly
resolution or decision must first correctly identify the mentioning those that may prejudice the rights of the
nature of the order, resolution or decision he intends to accused.24 One of these rights is the constitutional
assail. What Section 9 Rule 922 of the Rules of the CTA right of the accused to be informed of the nature and
provides is that appeal to the CTA en banc may be cause of accusation against him, a right which is given
taken from a decision or resolution of the CTA division life during the arraignment of the accused of the
in criminal cases by filing a petition for review under charge of against him. The theory in law is that since
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Under Section 1, Rule 43, the accused officially begins to prepare his defense
the remedy of a petition for review is available only against the accusation on the basis of the recitals in
against a judgments or a final order. the information read to him during arraignment, then
the prosecution must establish its case on the basis of
A judgment or order is considered final if it disposes of the same information.
the action or proceeding completely, or terminates a
particular stage of the same action; in such case, the To illustrate these points, in Almeda v. Judge Villaluz,25
remedy available to an aggrieved party is appeal. If the the prosecution wanted to additionally alleged
order or resolution, however, merely resolves recidivism and habitual delinquency in the original
incidental matters and leaves something more to be information. In allowing the amendment, the Court
done to resolve the merits of the case, as in the observed that the amendment sought relate only to
present case, the order is interlocutory and the the range of the penalty that the court might impose in
aggrieved party’s only remedy after failing to obtain a the event of conviction. Since they do not have the
reconsideration of the ruling is a petition for certiorari effect of charging an offense different from the one
under Rule 65. charged (qualified theft of a motor vehicle) in the
information, nor do they tend to correct any defect in
Nonetheless, while we rule that the petitioner availed the trial court’s jurisdiction over the subject-matter, the
of the correct remedy, we resolve to dismiss the amendment sought is merely formal.

32
In Teehankee, Jr. v. Madayag,26 the prosecution sought covers, i.e., for the taxable year 2001. Since the
during trial to amend the information from frustrated to information alleges that petitioner failed to file his
consummated murder since the victim died after the income tax return for the taxable year 2001, then the
information for frustrated murder was filed. The offense could only possibly be committed when
accused refused to be arraigned under the amended petitioner failed to file his income tax return before the
information without the conduct of a new preliminary due date of filing, which is on April of the succeeding
investigation. In sustaining the admission of the year, 2002. Accordingly, the addition of the phrase "for
amended information, the Court reasoned that the the income earned" before the phrase "for the taxable
additional allegation, that is, the supervening fact of year 2001" cannot but be a mere formal amendment
the death of the victim was merely supplied to aid the since the added phrase merely states with additional
trial court in determining the proper penalty for the precision something that is already contained in the
crime. Again, there is no change in the nature of original information, i.e., the income tax return is
offense charged; nor is there a change in the required to be filed precisely for the income earned for
prosecution’s theory that the accused committed a the preceding taxable year.
felonious act with intent to kill the victim; nor does the
amendment affect whatever defense the accused The nature of the remaining two items of amendment
originally may have. would be better understood, not only in the context of
the nature of the offense charged under the amended
In short, amendments that do not charge another information, but likewise in the context of the legal
offense different from that charged in the original status of the "Mendez Medical Group."
one;27 or do not alter the prosecution's theory of the
case so as to cause surprise to the accused and affect The addition of the phrase "doing business
the form of defense he has or will assume are under the name and style of Mendez
considered merely as formal amendments. Medical Group and the change and/or
addition of the branches of petitioner’s
In the present case, the amendments sought by the operation
prosecution pertains to (i) the alleged change in the
date in the commission of the crime from 2001 to Under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), a
2002; (ii) the addition of the phrase "doing business resident citizen who is engaged in the practice of a
under the name and style of Mendez Medical Group;" profession within the Philippines is obligated to file in
(iii) the change and/or addition of the branches of duplicate an income tax return on his income from all
petitioner’s operation; and (iv) the addition of the sources, regardless of the amount of his gross
phrase "for income earned." We cannot see how these income.29 In complying with this obligation, this type
amendments would adversely affect any substantial of taxpayer ought to keep only two basic things in
right of the petitioner as accused. mind: first is where to file the return; and second is
when to file the return. Under Section 51 B of the NIRC,
The "change" in the date from 2001 to 2002 and the the return should "be filed with an authorized agent
addition of the phrase "for income earned" bank, Revenue District Officer, Collection Agent or duly
authorized Treasurer of the city or municipality in which
At the outset we note that the actual year of the such person has his legal residence or principal place
commission of the offense has escaped both the of business in the Philippines."
petitioner and prosecution. In its Motion to Amend the
Information, the prosecution mistakenly stated that the On the other hand, under Section 51 C of the NIRC, the
information it originally filed alleged the commission of same taxpayer is required to file his income tax return
the offense as "on or about the 15th day of April, 2001" on or before the fifteenth (15th) day of April of each
– even if the record is clear that that the actual year of year covering income for the preceding taxable year.30
commission alleged is 2002. The petitioner makes a Failure to comply with this requirement would result in
similar erroneous allegation in its petition before the a violation of Section 255 of the NIRC which reads:
Court.
Section 255. Failure to File Return, Supply Correct and
Interestingly, in its August 13, 2007 resolution, denying Accurate Information, Pay Tax Withhold and Remit Tax
the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the CTA and Refund Excess Taxes Withheld on Compensation. -
implicitly ruled that there was in fact no amendment of Any person required under this Code or by rules and
the date in the information by correctly citing what the regulations promulgated thereunder to pay any tax,
original information alleges. This, notwithstanding, the make a return, keep any record, or supply any correct
petitioner still baselessly belaboured the point in its and accurate information, who wilfully fails to pay such
present petition by citing the erroneous content of the tax, make such return, keep such record, or supply
prosecution’s motion to amend instead of the original correct and accurate information, or withhold or remit
information itself.28 This kind of legal advocacy taxes withheld, or refund excess taxes withheld on
obviously added nothing but confusion to what is compensation, at the time or times required by law or
otherwise a simple case and another docket to the rules and regulations shall, in addition to other
High Court’s overwhelming caseload. penalties provided by law, upon conviction thereof, be
punished by a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos
That the actual date of the commission of the offense (₱10,000) and suffer imprisonment of not less than one
pertains to the year 2002 is only consistent with the (1) year but not more than ten (10) years. [emphasis
allegation in the information on the taxable year it supplied]

33
Since the petitioner operates as a sole proprietor from The inapplicability of Matalam to the present case is
taxable years 2001 to 2003, the petitioner should have obvious. Here, the prosecution’s theory of the case,
filed a consolidated return in his principal place of i.e., that petitioner failed to file his income tax return
business, regardless of the number and location of his for the taxable year 2001 did not change. The
other branches. Consequently, we cannot but agree prosecution’s cause for filing an information remained
with the CTA that the change and/or addition of the the same as the cause in the original and in the
branches of the petitioner’s operation in the amended information. For emphasis, the prosecution’s
information does not constitute substantial amendment evidence during the preliminary investigation of the
because it does not change the prosecution’s theory case shows that petitioner did not file his income tax
that the petitioner failed to file his income tax return. return in his place of legal residence37 or principal
place of business in Quezon City or with the
Still, the petitioner cites the case of Matalam v. Commissioner. In short, the amendment sought did not
Sandiganbayan, Second Division31 in claiming that the alter the crime charged.
deletion of San Fernando (Pampanga City) and
Dagupan City deprives him of the defenses he raised in At first, a change in the location of branches alleged in
his counter-affidavit. the information may appear to deprive the petitioner of
his defense in the original information, i.e., the
In Matalam, the prosecution charged the accused with petitioner’s branches in Dagupan and San Fernando
violation of RA No. 3019 for "[c]ausing undue injury to were registered only in 2003 and were therefore "in
several [government employees] thru evident bad faith existent" in 2001. However, this is not the kind of
xxx by illegally and unjustifiably refusing to pay [their] defense contemplated under the Rules of Criminal
monetary claims xxx in the nature of unpaid salaries Procedure, and broadly under the due process of law.
during the period when they have been illegally
terminated, including salary differentials and other Contrary to the petitioner’s claim, the opportunity
benefits." After a reinvestigation, the prosecution given to the accused to present his defense evidence
sought to amend the information to allege that the during the preliminary investigation is not exhaustive.
accused – In the same manner that the complainant’s evidence
during preliminary investigation is only required to
[c]ause[d] undue injury by illegally dismissing from the establish the minimal evidentiary threshold of probable
service [several government] employees, xxx to their cause, the evidence that the respondent may present
damage and prejudice amounting to ₱1,606,788.50 by during trial is not limited to what he had presented
way of unpaid salaries during the period when they during the preliminary investigation, so long as the
have been illegally terminated including salary evidence for both parties supports or negates the
differentials and other benefits.32 elements of the offense charged.

The accused moved to dismiss the amended To be sure, the jurisprudential test on whether a
information for charging an entirely new cause of defendant is prejudiced by the amendment of an
action and asked for preliminary investigation on this information pertains to the availability of the same
new charge of illegal dismissal. defense and evidence that the accused previously had
under the original information. This test, however,
must be read together with the characteristic thread of
The Sandiganbayan observed that (i) there is a clear formal amendments, which is to maintain the nature of
change in the cause of action (from refusal to pay to the crime or the essence of the offense charged.38
illegal dismissal); and (ii) the main defense of all the
accused in the original information – the lack of a
corresponding appropriation for the payment of the In the present case, this thread remained consistently
monetary claims of the complaining witnesses – would under the amended information, alleging the
no longer be available under the amendment. After petitioner’s failure to file his return and consequently
finding, however, that the complainants’ demand for to pay the correct amount of taxes. Accordingly, the
monetary claim actually arose from their alleged illegal petitioner could not have been surprised at all.
dismissal, the Sandiganbayan allowed the amendment
because an "inquiry to the allegations in the original We also reject for lack of merit petitioner’s claim that
information will certainly and necessarily elicit the inclusion of the phrase "doing business under the
substantially the same facts to the inquiry of the name and style of Mendez Medical Group" after his
allegations in the Amended Information."33 preliminary investigation and arraignment deprives
him of the right to question the existence of this
As to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by "entity."
an amendment made after he had pleaded to the
original information, Montenegroruled34 that prejudice The petitioner however has not drawn our attention to
exists when a defense under the original information any of his related operations that actually possesses its
would no longer be available after the amendment is own juridical personality. In the original information,
made, and when any evidence the accused might petitioner is described as "sole proprietor of Weigh Less
have, would be inapplicable to the Information as Center." A sole proprietorship is a form of business
amended.35 Applying this test, the Court disallowed organization conducted for profit by a single individual,
the amendment for being substantial in nature as the and requires the proprietor or owner thereof, like the
recital of facts constituting the offense charged was petitioner-accused, to secure licenses and permits,
altered.36 register the business name, and pay taxes to the

34
national government without acquiring juridical or legal
personality of its own.39 While the doctrine of hierarchy of courts normally
precludes a direct invocation of this Court's jurisdiction,
In the amended information, the prosecution we take cognizance of these petitions considering that
additionally alleged that petitioner is "doing business petitioners have chosen to take recourse directly
under the name and style of ‘Weigh Less before us and that the cases are of significant national
Center’/Mendez Medical Group.’" Given the nature of a interest.
sole proprietorship, the addition of the phrase "doing
business under the name and style" is merely Petitioners have raised several issues, but most are too
descriptive of the nature of the business organization insubstantial to require consideration. Accordingly, in
established by the petitioner as a way to carry out the the exercise of sound judicial discretion and economy,
practice of his profession. As a phrase descriptive of a this Court will pass primarily upon the following:
sole proprietorship, the petitioner cannot feign
ignorance of the "entity" "Mendez Medical Group" 1. Whether petitioners were denied due process
because this entity is nothing more than the shadow of during preliminary investigation and in the
its business owner - petitioner himself. issuance of the warrants of arrest.

At any rate, we agree with the prosecution that 2. Whether the murder charges against
petitioner has no reason to complain for the inclusion petitioners should be dismissed under the
of the phrase "Mendez Medical Group." In the Reply- political offense doctrine.
Affidavit it submitted during the preliminary
investigation, the prosecution has attached copies of ANTECEDENT FACTS
petitioner's paid advertisements making express
reference to "Mendez Medical Group."40 These are petitions for certiorari and prohibition [2]
seeking the annulment of the orders and resolutions of
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DISMISS the public respondents with regard to the indictment and
petition for lack of merit, with costs against the issuance of warrants of arrest against petitioners for
petitioner. the crime of multiple murder.

SO ORDERED. Police Chief Inspector George L. Almaden (P C/Insp.


Almaden) of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Regional Office 8 and Staff Judge Advocate Captain
Allan Tiu (Army Captain Tiu) of the 8 th Infantry Division
of the Philippine Army sent 12 undated letters to the
Provincial Prosecutor of Leyte through Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor Rosulo U. Vivero (Prosecutor
Vivero).[3] The letters requested appropriate legal
action on 12 complaint-affidavits attached therewith
accusing 71 named members of the Communist Party
of the Philippines/New People's Army/National
Democratic Front of the Philippines (CPP/NPA/NDFP) of
murder, including petitioners herein along with several
other unnamed members.

The letters narrated that on 26 August 2006, elements


of the 43rd Infantry Brigade of the Philippine Army
discovered a mass grave site of the CPP/NPA/NDFP at
17 Sitio Sapang Daco, Barangay Kaulisihan, Inopacan,
Leyte.[4] Recovered from the grave site were 67
[ GR No. 176830, Feb 11, 2014 ] severely deteriorated skeletal remains believed to be
victims of Operation VD.[5]
SATURNINO C. OCAMPO v. EPHREM S. ABANDO +
The PNP Scene of the Crime Operation (SOCO) Team
based in Regional Office 8 was immediately dispatched
to the mass grave site to conduct crime investigation,
SERENO, C.J.: and to collect, preserve and analyze the skeletal
remains.[6] Also, from 11-17 September 2006, an
On 26 August 2006, a mass grave was discovered by investigation team composed of intelligence officers,
elements of the 43rd Infantry Brigade of the Philippine and medico-legal and DNA experts, conducted forensic
Army at Sitio Sapang Daco, Barangay Kaulisihan, crime analysis and collected from alleged relatives of
Inopacan, Leyte.[1] The mass grave contained skeletal the victims DNA samples for matching.[7]
remains of individuals believed to be victims of
"Operation Venereal Disease" (Operation VD) launched The Initial Specialist Report[8] dated 18 September
by members of the Communist Party of the 2006 issued by the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp
Philippines/New People's Army/National Democratic Crame, Quezon City, was inconclusive with regard to
Front of the Philippines (CPP/NPA/NDFP) to purge their the identities of the skeletal remains and even the
ranks of suspected military informers. length of time that they had been buried. The report

35
recommended the conduct of further tests to confirm 10) Pablo Daniel, 11) Romeo Tayabas, 12) Domingo
the identities of the remains and the time window of Napoles, 13) Ciriaco Daniel, 14) Crispin Prado, and 15)
death.[9] Ereberto Prado.[29]

However, in a Special Report[10] dated 2 October 2006, Prosecutor Vivero also recommended that Zacarias
the Case Secretariat of the Regional and National Inter- Piedad, Leonardo Tanaid, Numeriano Beringuel and
Agency Legal Action Group (IALAG) came up with the Glecerio Roluna be dropped as respondents and
names of ten (10) possible victims after comparison utilized as state witnesses, as their testimonies were
and examination based on testimonies of relatives and vital to the success of the prosecution. [30] The
witnesses.[11] Resolution was silent with regard to Veronica Tabara.

The 12 complaint-affidavits were from relatives of the The Information was filed before the Regional Trial
alleged victims of Operation VD. All of them swore that Court (RTC) Hilongos, Leyte, Branch 18 (RTC Hilongos,
their relatives had been abducted or last seen with Leyte) presided by Judge Ephrem S. Abando (Judge
members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP and were never seen Abando) on 28 February 2007, and docketed as
again. They also expressed belief that their relatives' Criminal Case No. H-1581. [31] Petitioner Ocampo filed
remains were among those discovered at the mass an Ex Parte Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory Hearing
grave site. dated 5 March 2007 prior to receiving a copy of the
Resolution recommending the filing of the Information.
[32]
Also attached to the letters were the affidavits of
Zacarias Piedad,[12] Leonardo C. Tanaid, Floro M. Tanaid,
Numeriano Beringuel, Glecerio Roluna and Veronica P. On 6 March 2007, Judge Abando issued an Order
Tabara. They narrated that they were former members finding probable cause "in the commission by all
of the CPP/NPA/NDFP.[13] According to them, Operation mentioned accused of the crime charged." [33] He
VD was ordered in 1985 by the CPP/NPA/NDFP Central ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest against them
Committee.[14] Allegedly, petitioners Saturnino C. with no recommended bail for their temporary liberty.
Ocampo (Ocampo),[15] Randall B. Echanis (Echanis), [16] [34]

Rafael G. Baylosis (Baylosis), [17] and Vicente P. Ladlad


(Ladlad)[18] were then members of the Central On 16 March 2007, petitioner Ocampo filed before us
Committee. this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and docketed as
According to these former members, four sub-groups G.R. No. 176830 seeking the annulment of the 6 March
were formed to implement Operation VD, namely, (1) 2007 Order of Judge Abando and the 16 February 2007
the Intel Group responsible for gathering information Resolution of Prosecutor Vivero.[35] The petition prayed
on suspected military spies and civilians who would not for the unconditional release of petitioner Ocampo from
support the movement; (2) the Arresting Group PNP custody, as well as the issuance of a temporary
charged with their arrests; (3) the Investigation Group restraining order/ writ of preliminary injunction to
which would subject those arrested to questioning; and restrain the conduct of further proceedings during the
(4) the Execution Group or the "cleaners" of those pendency of the petition.[36]
confirmed to be military spies and civilians who would
not support the movement.[19] Petitioner Ocampo argued that a case for rebellion
against him and 44 others (including petitioners
From 1985 to 1992, at least 100 people had been Echanis and Baylosis[37] and Ladlad[38] docketed as
abducted, hog-tied, tortured and executed by members Criminal Case No. 06-944 was then pending before the
of the CPP/NPA/NDFP[20] pursuant to Operation VD.[21] RTC Makati, Branch 150 (RTC Makati).[39] Putting
forward the political offense doctrine, petitioner
On the basis of the 12 letters and their attachments, Ocampo argues that common crimes, such as murder
Prosecutor Vivero issued a subpoena requiring, among in this case, are already absorbed by the crime of
others, petitioners to submit their counter-affidavits rebellion when committed as a necessary means, in
and those of their witnesses.[22] Petitioner Ocampo connection with and in furtherance of rebellion. [40]
submitted his counter-affidavit.[23] Petitioners Echanis[24]
and Baylosis[25] did not file counter-affidavits because We required[41] the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
they were allegedly not served the copy of the to comment on the petition and the prayer for the
complaint and the attached documents or evidence. issuance of a temporary restraining order/ writ of
Counsel of petitioner Ladlad made a formal entry of preliminary injunction, and set [42] the case for oral
appearance on 8 December 2006 during the arguments on 30 March 2007. The OSG filed its
preliminary investigation.[26] However, petitioner Ladlad Comment on 27 March 2007.[43]
did not file a counter-affidavit because he was
allegedly not served a subpoena.[27] The following were the legal issues discussed by the
parties during the oral arguments:
In a Resolution[28] dated 16 February 2007, Prosecutor
Vivero recommended the filing of an Information for 15 1. Whether the present petition for certiorari and
counts of multiple murder against 54 named members prohibition is the proper remedy of petitioner
of the CPP/NPA/NDFP, including petitioners herein, for Ocampo;
the death of the following: 1) Juanita Aviola, 2)
Concepcion Aragon, 3) Gregorio Eras, 4) Teodoro
Recones, Jr., 5) Restituto Ejoc, 6) Rolando Vasquez, 7) 2. Assuming it is the proper remedy, whether he
Junior Milyapis, 8) Crispin Dalmacio, 9) Zacarias Casil, was denied due process during preliminary

36
investigation and in the issuance of the warrant restraining order/ writ of preliminary injunction to
of arrest; restrain his further incarceration.[59]

3. Whether the murder charges against him are On 5 January 2009, petitioner Baylosis filed before us a
already included in the rebellion charge against special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under
him in the RTC.[44] Rule 65 of the Rules of Court also seeking the
annulment of the 30 April 2008 Order of Judge Abando
and the 27 October 2008 Order of Judge Medina. [60] The
Afterwards, the parties were ordered to submit their petition, docketed as G.R. No. 185636, prayed for the
memoranda within 10 days.[45] On 3 April 2007, the issuance of a temporary restraining order/ writ of
Court ordered the provisional release of petitioner preliminary injunction to restrain the implementation of
Ocampo under a P100,000 cash bond. [46] the warrant of arrest against petitioner Baylosis. [61]
Acting on the observation of the Court during the oral The Court consolidated G.R. Nos. 185587 and 185636
arguments that the single Information filed before the on 12 January 2009.[62]
RTC Hilongos, Leyte was defective for charging 15
counts of murder, the prosecution filed a Motion to On 3 March 2009, the Court ordered the further
Admit Amended Information and New Informations on consolidation of these two cases with G.R. No. 176830.
11 April 2007.[47] In an Order dated 27 July 2007, Judge [63]
We required[64] the OSG to comment on the prayer
Abando held in abeyance the resolution thereof and for petitioner Echanis's immediate release, to which
effectively suspended the proceedings during the the OSG did not interpose any objection on these
pendency of G.R. No. 176830 before this Court. [48] conditions: that the temporary release shall only be for
the purpose of his attendance and participation in the
While the proceedings were suspended, petitioner formal peace negotiations between the Government of
Echanis was arrested on 28 January 2008 by virtue of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the
the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Abando on 6 CPP/NPA/NDFP, set to begin in August 2009; and that
March 2007.[49] On 1 February 2008, petitioners Echanis his temporary release shall not exceed six (6) months.
and Baylosis filed a Motion for Judicial Reinvestigation/ [65]
The latter condition was later modified, such that his
Determination of Probable Cause with Prayer to temporary liberty shall continue for the duration of his
Dismiss the Case Outright and Alternative Prayer to actual participation in the peace negotiations.[66]
Recall/ Suspend Service of Warrant. [50]
On 11 August 2009, the Court ordered the provisional
On 30 April 2008, Judge Abando issued an Order release of petitioner Echanis under a P100,000 cash
denying the motion.[51] Petitioners Echanis and Baylosis bond, for the purpose of his participation in the formal
filed a Motion for Reconsideration [52] dated 30 May peace negotiations.[67]
2008, but before being able to rule thereon, Judge
Abando issued an Order dated 12 June 2008 Meanwhile, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its
transmitting the records of Criminal Case No. H-1581 to Opposition[68] to petitioner Ladlad's motion to quash
the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC Manila.[53] The before the RTC Manila. The trial court conducted a
Order was issued in compliance with the Resolution hearing on the motion on 13 February 2009. [69]
dated 23 April 2008 of this Court granting the request
of then Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzales to transfer On 6 May 2009, Judge Medina issued an Order [70]
the venue of the case. denying the motion to quash. The motion for
reconsideration filed by petitioner Ladlad was also
The case was re-raffled to RTC Manila, Branch 32 (RTC denied on 27 August 2009.[71]
Manila) presided by Judge Thelma Bunyi-Medina (Judge
Medina) and re-docketed as Criminal Case No. 08- On 9 November 2009, petitioner Ladlad filed before us
262163.[54] Petitioner Echanis was transferred to the a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
PNP Custodial Center in Camp Crame, Quezon City. On Rules of Court seeking the annulment of the 6 May
12 August 2008, petitioners Echanis and Baylosis filed 2009 and 27 August 2009 Orders of Judge Medina. [72]
their Supplemental Arguments to Motion for The petition was docketed as G.R. No. 190005.
Reconsideration.[55]
On 11 January 2010, we ordered the consolidation of
In an Order[56] dated 27 October 2008, Judge Medina G.R. No. 190005 with G.R. Nos. 176830, 185587 and
suspended the proceedings of the case pending the 185636.[73] We also required the OSG to file its
resolution of G.R. No. 176830 by this Court. comment thereon. The OSG submitted its Comment[74]
on 7 May 2010.
On 18 December 2008, petitioner Ladlad filed with the
RTC Manila a Motion to Quash and/or Dismiss. [57] On 27 July 2010, we likewise required the OSG to file its
Comment in G.R. Nos. 185636 and 185587. [75] These
On 23 December 2008, petitioner Echanis filed before Comments were filed by the OSG on 13 December
us a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition 2010[76] and on 21 January 2011, [77] respectively.
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking the Petitioners Echanis and Baylosis filed their
annulment of the 30 April 2008 Order of Judge Abando Consolidated Reply[78] on 7 June 2011.
and the 27 October 2008 Order of Judge Medina. [58] The
petition, docketed as G.R. No. 185587, prayed for the On 2 May 2011, petitioner Ladlad filed an Urgent
unconditional and immediate release of petitioner Motion to Fix Bail.[79] On 21 July 2011, petitioner
Echanis, as well as the issuance of a temporary Baylosis filed A Motion to Allow Petitioner to Post Bail.

37
[80]
The OSG interposed no objection to the grant of a ? stated that a meeting presided by petitioner Ocampo
100,000 cash bail to them considering that they were was held in 1984, when the launching of Operation VD
consultants of the NDFP negotiating team, which was was agreed upon.[95] Petitioner Ocampo refuted this
then holding negotiations with the GRP peace panel for claim in his Counter-affidavit dated 22 December 2006
the signing of a peace accord.[81] stating that he was in military custody from October
1976 until his escape in May 1985.[96] Thereafter, the
On 17 January 2012, we granted the motions of Supplemental Affidavit of Zacarias Piedad dated 12
petitioners Ladlad and Baylosis and fixed their bail in January 2007 admitted that he made a mistake in his
the amount of P100,000, subject to the condition that original affidavit, and that the meeting actually took
their temporary release shall be limited to the period of place in June 1985.[97] Petitioner Ocampo argues that
their actual participation in the peace negotiations. [82] he was denied the opportunity to reply to the
Supplemental Affidavit by not being furnished a copy
Petitioner Ladlad filed his Reply[83] to the OSG Comment thereof.
on 18 January 2013.
Petitioner Ocampo also claims that he was denied the
OUR RULING right to file a motion for reconsideration or to appeal
the Resolution of Prosecutor Vivero, because the latter
Petitioners were accorded due process during deliberately delayed the service of the Resolution by
preliminary investigation and in the issuance of 19 days, effectively denying petitioner Ocampo his
the warrants of arrest. right to due process.[98]

A. Preliminary Investigation As to the claim of petitioners Echanis and Baylosis, we


quote the pertinent portion of Prosecutor Vivero's
A preliminary investigation is "not a casual affair." [84] It Resolution, which states:
is conducted to protect the innocent from the In connection with the foregoing and pursuant
embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a public trial. to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure[,] the
[85]
While the right to have a preliminary investigation respondents were issued and served with Subpoena at
before trial is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a their last known address for them to submit their
substantive right and a component of due process in counter-affidavits and that of their witnesses.
the administration of criminal justice. [86]

In the context of a preliminary investigation, the right Majority of the respondents did not submit their
to due process of law entails the opportunity to be counter-affidavits because they could no longer be
heard.[87] It serves to accord an opportunity for the found in their last known address, per return of the
presentation of the respondent's side with regard to subpoenas. On the other hand, Saturnino Ocampo @
the accusation. Afterwards, the investigating officer Satur, Fides Lim, Maureen Palejaro and Ruben Manatad
shall decide whether the allegations and defenses lead submitted their Counter-Affidavits. However, Vicente
to a reasonable belief that a crime has been Ladlad and Jasmin Jerusalem failed to submit the
committed, and that it was the respondent who required Counter Affidavits in spite entry of appearance
committed it. Otherwise, the investigating officer is by their respective counsels.[99]
bound to dismiss the complaint.
Section 3(d), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, allows
"The essence of due process is reasonable opportunity Prosecutor Vivero to resolve the complaint based on
to be heard and submit evidence in support of one's the evidence before him if a respondent could not be
defense."[88] What is proscribed is lack of opportunity to subpoenaed. As long as efforts to reach a respondent
be heard.[89] Thus, one who has been afforded a chance were made, and he was given an opportunity to
to present one's own side of the story cannot claim present countervailing evidence, the preliminary
denial of due process.[90] investigation remains valid.[100] The rule was put in
place in order to foil underhanded attempts of a
Petitioners Echanis and Baylosis allege that they did respondent to delay the prosecution of offenses.[101]
not receive a copy of the complaint and the attached
documents or evidence.[91] Petitioner Ladlad claims that In this case, the Resolution stated that efforts were
he was not served a subpoena due to the false address undertaken to serve subpoenas on the named
indicated in the 12 undated letters of P C/Insp. respondents at their last known addresses. This is
Almaden and Army Captain Tiu to Prosecutor Vivero.[92] sufficient for due process. It was only because a
Furthermore, even though his counsels filed their majority of them could no longer be found at their last
formal entry of appearance before the Office of the known addresses that they were not served copies of
Prosecutor, petitioner Ladlad was still not sent a the complaint and the attached documents or
subpoena through his counsels' addresses. [93] Thus, evidence.
they were deprived of the right to file counter-
affidavits. Petitioner Ladlad claims that his subpoena was sent to
the nonexistent address "53 Sct. Rallos St., QC," [102]
Petitioner Ocampo claims that Prosecutor Vivero, in which had never been his address at any time. [103] In
collusion with P C/Insp. Almaden and Army Captain Tiu, connection with this claim, we take note of the fact
surreptitiously inserted the Supplemental Affidavit of that the subpoena to Fides Lim, petitioner Ladlad's
Zacarias Piedad in the records of the case without wife,[104] was sent to the same address, and that she
furnishing petitioner Ocampo a copy. [94] The original was among those mentioned in the Resolution as
affidavit of Zacarias Piedad dated 14 September 2006 having timely submitted their counter-affidavits.

38
Thus, when petitioner Ocampo received the Resolution
Despite supposedly never receiving a subpoena, of Prosecutor Vivero on 12 March 2007, [108] the former
petitioner Ladlad's counsel filed a formal entry of had until 27 March 2007 within which to file either a
appearance on 8 December 2006. [105] Prosecutor Vivero motion for reconsideration before the latter or an
had a reason to believe that petitioner Ladlad had appeal before the Secretary of Justice. Instead,
received the subpoena and accordingly instructed his petitioner Ocampo chose to file the instant petition for
counsel to prepare his defense. certiorari directly before this Court on 16 March 2007.

Petitioner Ladlad, through his counsel, had every B. Issuance of the Warrants of Arrest
opportunity to secure copies of the complaint after his
counsel's formal entry of appearance and, thereafter, Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that
to participate fully in the preliminary investigation. "no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
Instead, he refused to participate. except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath
We have previously cautioned that "litigants or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
represented by counsel should not expect that all they may produce."
need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of
their case."[106] Having opted to remain passive during Petitioner Ocampo alleges that Judge Abando did not
the preliminary investigation, petitioner Ladlad and his comply with the requirements of the Constitution in
counsel cannot now claim a denial of due process, finding the existence of probable cause for the
since their failure to file a counter-affidavit was of their issuance of warrants of arrest against petitioners. [109]
own doing.
Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
Neither do we find any merit in petitioner Ocampo's has been defined as "such facts and circumstances
allegation of collusion to surreptitiously insert the which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
Supplemental Affidavit of Zacarias Piedad in the man to believe that an offense has been committed by
records. There was nothing surreptitious about the the person sought to be arrested."[110] Although the
Supplemental Affidavit since it clearly alludes to an Constitution provides that probable cause shall be
earlier affidavit and admits the mistake committed determined by the judge after an examination under
regarding the date of the alleged meeting. The date of oath or an affirmation of the complainant and the
the execution of the Supplemental Affidavit was also witnesses, we have ruled that a hearing is not
clearly stated. Thus, it was clear that it was executed necessary for the determination thereof. [111] In fact, the
after petitioner Ocampo had submitted his counter- judge's personal examination of the complainant and
affidavit. Should the case go to trial, that will provide the witnesses is not mandatory and indispensable for
petitioner Ocampo with the opportunity to question the determining the aptness of issuing a warrant of arrest.
[112]
execution of Zacarias Piedad's Supplemental Affidavit.

It is enough that the judge personally evaluates the


Neither can we uphold petitioner Ocampo's contention prosecutor's report and supporting documents showing
that he was denied the right to be heard. For him to the existence of probable cause for the indictment and,
claim that he was denied due process by not being on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or if, on
furnished a copy of the Supplemental Affidavit of the basis of his evaluation, he finds no probable cause,
Zacarias Piedad would imply that the entire case of the to disregard the prosecutor's resolution and require the
prosecution rested on the Supplemental Affidavit. The submission of additional affidavits of witnesses to aid
OSG has asserted that the indictment of petitioner him in determining its existence.[113]
Ocampo was based on the collective affidavits of
several other witnesses[107] attesting to the allegation Petitioners Echanis and Baylosis claim that, had Judge
that he was a member of the CPP/NPA/NDFP Central Abando painstakingly examined the records submitted
Committee, which had ordered the launch of Operation by Prosecutor Vivero, the judge would have inevitably
VD. dismissed the charge against them.[114] Additionally,
petitioner Ocampo alleges that Judge Abando did not
As to his claim that he was denied the right to file a point out facts and evidence in the record that were
motion for reconsideration or to appeal the Resolution used as bases for his finding of probable cause to issue
of Prosecutor Vivero due to the 19-day delay in the a warrant of arrest.[115]
service of the Resolution, it must be pointed out that
the period for filing a motion for reconsideration or an The determination of probable cause for the issuance
appeal to the Secretary of Justice is reckoned from the of warrants of arrest against petitioners is addressed to
date of receipt of the resolution of the prosecutor, not the sound discretion of Judge Abando as the trial judge.
[116]
from the date of the resolution. This is clear from Further elucidating on the wide latitude given to
Section 3 of the 2000 National Prosecution Service Rule trial judges in the issuance of warrants of arrest, this
on Appeal: Court stated in Sarigumba v. Sandiganbayan[117] as
Sec. 3. Period to appeal. The appeal shall be taken follows:
within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the x x x. The trial court's exercise of its judicial discretion
resolution, or of the denial of the motion for should not, as a general rule, be interfered with in the
reconsideration/ reinvestigation if one has been absence of grave abuse of discretion. Indeed, certiorari
filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the will not lie to cure errors in the trial court's appreciation
assailed resolution. Only one motion for of the evidence of the parties, the conclusion of facts it
reconsideration shall be allowed. (Emphasis supplied) reached based on the said findings, as well as the

39
conclusions of law. x x x. rebellion instead of common crimes. No one disputes
the well-entrenched principle in criminal procedure that
Whether or not there is probable cause for the issuance the institution of criminal charges, including whom and
of warrants for the arrest of the accused is a question what to charge, is addressed to the sound discretion of
of fact based on the allegations in the Informations, the the public prosecutor.[123]
Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor, including
other documents and/or evidence appended to the But when the political offense doctrine is asserted as a
Information. defense in the trial court, it becomes crucial for the
Here, the allegations of petitioners point to factual court to determine whether the act of killing was done
matters indicated in the affidavits of the complainants in furtherance of a political end, and for the political
and witnesses as bases for the contention that there motive of the act to be conclusively demonstrated. [124]
was no probable cause for petitioners' indictment for
multiple murder or for the issuance of warrants for Petitioners aver that the records show that the alleged
their arrest. As stated above, the trial judge's murders were committed in furtherance of the
appreciation of the evidence and conclusion of facts CPP/NPA/NDFP rebellion, and that the political
based thereon are not interfered with in the absence of motivation behind the alleged murders can be clearly
grave abuse of discretion. Again, "he sufficiently seen from the charge against the alleged top leaders of
complies with the requirement of personal the CPP/NPA/NDFP as co-conspirators.
determination if he reviews the [I]nformation and the
documents attached thereto, and on the basis thereof We had already ruled that the burden of demonstrating
forms a belief that the accused is probably guilty of the political motivation must be discharged by the defense,
crime with which he is being charged." [118] since motive is a state of mind which only the accused
knows.[125] The proof showing political motivation is
Judge Abando's review of the Information and the adduced during trial where the accused is assured an
supporting documents is shown by the following opportunity to present evidence supporting his
portion of the judge's 6 March 2007 Order: defense. It is not for this Court to determine this factual
On the evaluation of the Resolution and its Information matter in the instant petitions.
as submitted and filed by the Provincial Prosecution of
Leyte Province supported by the following documents:
Affidavits of Complainants, Sworn Statements of As held in the case of Office of the Provincial
Witnesses and other pertinent documents issued by Prosecutor of Zamboanga Del Norte v. CA,[126] if during
the Regional Crime Laboratory Office, PNP, Region VIII trial, petitioners are able to show that the alleged
and Camp Crame, Quezon City, pictures of the grave murders were indeed committed in furtherance of
site and skeletal remains, this court has the findings rebellion, Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court
[sic] of probable cause in the commission by all provides the remedy, to wit:
mentioned accused of the crime charged.[119] SECTION 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint
At bottom, issues involving the finding of probable or information may be amended, in form or in
cause for an indictment and issuance of a warrant of substance, without leave of court, at any time before
arrest, as petitioners are doubtless aware, are primarily the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during
questions of fact that are normally not within the the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with
purview of a petition for certiorari, [120] such as the leave of court and when it can be done without causing
petitions filed in the instant consolidated cases. prejudice to the rights of the accused.

The political offense doctrine is not a ground to However, any amendment before plea, which
dismiss the charge against petitioners prior to a downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or
determination by the trial court that the excludes any accused from the complaint or
murders were committed in furtherance of information, can be made only upon motion by the
rebellion. prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with
leave of court. The court shall state its reasons in
Under the political offense doctrine, "common crimes, resolving the motion and copies of its order shall be
perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense, are furnished all parties, especially the offended party. (n)
divested of their character as "common" offenses and
assume the political complexion of the main crime of If it appears at any time before judgment that a
which they are mere ingredients, and, consequently, mistake has been made in charging the proper
cannot be punished separately from the principal offense, the court shall dismiss the original
offense, or complexed with the same, to justify the complaint or information upon the filing of a new
imposition of a graver penalty."[121] one charging the proper offense in accordance
with Section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused
Any ordinary act assumes a different nature by being shall not be placed in double jeopardy. The court
absorbed in the crime of rebellion. [122] Thus, when a may require the witnesses to give bail for their
killing is committed in furtherance of rebellion, the appearance at the trial. (Emphasis supplied)
killing is not homicide or murder. Rather, the killing Thus, if it is shown that the proper charge against
assumes the political complexion of rebellion as its petitioners should have been simple rebellion, the trial
mere ingredient and must be prosecuted and punished court shall dismiss the murder charges upon the filing
as rebellion alone. of the Information for simple rebellion, as long as
petitioners would not be placed in double jeopardy.
However, this is not to say that public prosecutors are
obliged to consistently charge respondents with simple Section 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, states:

40
SEC. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double DISMISSED. The RTC of Manila, Branch 32, is hereby
jeopardy. When an accused has been convicted or ORDERED to proceed with dispatch with the hearing of
acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or Criminal Case No. 08-262163. Petitioner Saturnino C.
otherwise terminated without his express consent by a Ocampo shall remain on temporary liberty under the
court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint same bail granted by this Court until the termination of
or information or other formal charge sufficient in form the proceedings before the RTC Manila. Petitioners
and substance to sustain a conviction and after the Randall B. Echanis, Rafael G. Baylosis and Vicente P.
accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or Ladlad shall remain on temporary liberty under the
acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case same bail granted by this Court until their actual
shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense participation as CPP-NDF consultants in the peace
charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or negotiations with the government are concluded or
frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily terminated, or until the termination of the proceedings
includes or is necessarily included in the offense before the RTC Manila, whichever is sooner.
charged in the former complaint or information.
Based on the above provision, double jeopardy only
applies when: (1) a first jeopardy attached; (2) it has SO ORDERED.
been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is
for the same offense as in the first. [127]

A first jeopardy attaches only after the accused has


been acquitted or convicted, or the case has been
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent, by a competent court in a valid indictment for
which the accused has entered a valid plea during
arraignment.[128]

To recall, on 12 May 2006, an Information for the crime


of rebellion, as defined and penalized under Article 134
in relation to Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-944 was filed before
the RTC Makati against petitioners and several others.
[129]

However, petitioners were never arraigned in Criminal


Case No. 06-944. Even before the indictment for
rebellion was filed before the RTC Makati, petitioners
Ocampo, Echanis and Ladlad had already filed a
petition before this Court to seek the nullification of the
Orders of the DOJ denying their motion for the
inhibition of the members of the prosecution panel due
to lack of impartiality and independence. [130] When the
indictment was filed, petitioners Ocampo, Echanis and
Ladlad filed supplemental petitions to enjoin the
prosecution of Criminal Case No. 06-944.[131] We
eventually ordered the dismissal of the rebellion case.
It is clear then that a first jeopardy never had a chance
to attach.

Petitioner Ocampo shall remain on provisional liberty


under the P100,000 cash bond posted before the Office
of the Clerk of Court. He shall remain on provisional
liberty until the termination of the proceedings before
the RTC Manila.

The OSG has given its conformity to the provisional


liberty of petitioners Echanis, Baylosis and Ladlad in
view of the ongoing peace negotiations. Their
provisional release from detention under the cash bond
of P100,000 each shall continue under the condition
that their temporary release shall be limited to the
period of their actual participation as CPP-NDF
consultants in the peace negotiations with the
government or until the termination of the proceedings
before the RTC Manila, whichever is sooner. It shall be
the duty of the government to inform this Court the
moment that peace negotiations are concluded.

WHEREFORE, the instant consolidated petitions are

41

You might also like