Annotation Criminal Procedure

234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Flores
ANNOTATION
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1. Complaint and Information

A Duplicity of Offenses
Inclusion of different acts of offenses to complete narration
of facts.Where the different acts or specifications
charging the accused with having committed the offenses
charged therein were included in the information merely to
describe and to narrate the different and specific acts the
sum total of which constitutes a crime, the validity of the
information cannot be assailed on the ground that it
charges more than one offense, because those different acts
of offenses may serve merely as a basis for the prosecution
of one single crime. People vs. Camerino, 108 Phil. 79.
Defendant not be to be harassed by various prosecutions.
A defendant should not be harassed with various
prosecutions based on the same act by splitting the same
into various charges, all emanating from the same law
violation, when the prosecution could easily and well
embody them in a single information. (People vs. Diaz, L
6518, March 30, 1964). People vs. Silva, 4 SCRA 95.
Accused cannot be convicted for a crime higher than that
alleged in the information.Although two separate crimes
of murder and frustrated murder, both qualified
235
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971

People vs. Flores
235
by treachery, were fully established, however, the

appellants cannot be punished for such crimes, since the
information filed against them is only for attempted
robbery in an inhabited house with homicide and
frustrated homicide and inasmuch as no attempted robbery
in an inhabited house was proven at all, the said appellants
can be held guilty only of homicide and frustrated homicide
aggravated by treachery. People vs. Simon, 10 SCRA 280.
Splitting criminal action.From the viewpoint both of
trial practice and justice, it is doubtful whether the
prosecution should split the action against the defendant,
by filing against him several informations, one for damage
to property and serious and less serious physical injuries,
through reckless negligence, before the Court of First
Instance, and another for slight physical injuries through
reckless negligence, before the justice of the peace or
municipal court. Such splitting of the action would work
unnecesary inconvenience to the administration of justice
in general and to the accused in particular, for it would
require the presentation of substantially the same evidence
before two different courts. In the event of conviction in the
municipal court and appeal to the Court of First Instance,
said evidence would still have to be introduced once more
in the latter court. People vs. Cano, 17 SCRA 237.
Where information charges the defendant with a specific
crime set forth in various counts.When an information
charges the defendant with a specific crime set forth in
various counts, each of which may constitute a distinct
offense, it may be allowed without violating the prohibition
against duplicity of offenses as provided in Section 12 of
Rule 110 of the new Rules of Court. The narration in the
information of the specific acts is considered a bill of
particulars of facts upon which the inference of the guilt of
the accused of the crime charged may be based and,
consequently, is not objectionable. The same thing may be
said of the information in the present case. People vs. Yap,
Jr., 22 SCRA 853.
236
236

People vs. Flores
B Amendment
When substitution of complaint is permissible.If the fiscal
finds that the facts can not sustain the allegations of the
complaint, he can present another suitable information
unless the defendant has already been placed in jeopardy
under the first complaint or unless harassment can be
shown. In such a case, there is no amendment, but a
substitution. The situation is not controlled by section 13 of
Rule 106 of the Rules of Court. Calion vs. People, 106 Phil.
943.
Amended information changing ground of responsibility
is not permissible.The accused was charged with the
crime of estafa based on an information which alleged that
the accused obtained a sum of money from the
complainant, giving as security for its payment the
improvements and products of his property, and that the
accused later on, while the loan was still unpaid,
transferred by way of mortgage to the R.F.C. not only the
improvements and products of his property, but also the
title of said property. The accused pleaded not guilty and
the trial commenced, but the same was suspended because
the accused moved to dismiss the information on the
ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute a
crime. The motion was granted. The Provincial Fiscal
presented a motion to admit an amended information
where it is alleged that the accused gave as security for the
payment of his loan not only the improvements and the
products but also the land, title to which the accused
mortgaged to the R.F.C. while his indebtedness to the
offended party was still unpaid and unsatisfied? Held: No.
The latter information changes the facts or the ground of
responsibility for which the accused is indicted. If the
amended information were to be admitted, the accused
would be deprived of his defense of double jeopardy,
because by the amended information he is sought to be
made responsible for the same act of borrowing on a
mortgage for which he had already begun to be tried and
acquitted by the dismissal of the original information. The
law, Section 13 of Rule 106 of the
237
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971

People vs. Flores
237
Rules of Court, permits amendment only when amendment

can be done without prejudice to the rights of the
defendant. People vs. Labatete, 107 Phil. 697.
When amendment of complaint or information is
allowed.Section 13 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court
contains two parts: one authorizes the amendment of an
information or complaint, in substance or form, without
leave of court, at any time before the defendant pleads and
thereafter, only as to matters of form. The other provides
that, if it appears at any time before judgment that a
mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the
court may dismiss the original complaint or information
and order the filing of a new one charging the proper
offense, provided the defendant would not be placed in
double jeopardy. Dimalibot vs. Salcedo, 107 Phil. 843.
Nature of the charge.Amendment of information may
also be made even if it may result in altering the nature of
the charge so long as it can be done without prejudice to
the rights of the defendant. Id.
Amending of information or filing of new information if
motion to quash is granted.If the trial court sustains the
motion to quash filed by the defendants on the ground that
more than one offense is charged in the information, it
should order that the information be amended, or if that is
not possible, that a new information be filed wherein the
defects of the previous information may be cured. People vs.
Camerino, 108 Phil. 79.
Amended informations are not new informations but a
continuation of the previous one, so that a discharge under
the original information is just as binding upon the
subsequent amended informations.People vs. Taruc,5
SCRA 132.
Amendment of complaint for physical injuries.Where a
criminal complaint for physical injuries contained the
general statement that the offended party suffered a
serious physical injury, was made more specific by the
introduction of details and particulars, the amendment
does
238
238

People vs. Flores
not change the material facts or the nature of the offense.

It is in fact for the benefit of the accused, as it gives him
the opportunity to deny or contradict the details with his
evidence. Caparas vs. Gonzales, 7 SCRA 182.
Amendment of date of filing of alleged falsifified
document in civil registry is merely formal.An
amendment of the date of the filing of the alleged falsified
document in the Civil Registry in an information for the
crime of falsification of public documents through false
narration of facts, is merely formal and does not impair the
rights of the accused, because the purpose is merely to
correct a clerical mistake in unessential details. The date of
filing in the Civil Registry was not an element of the crime
charged (falsification by false narration of facts) since the
offense had already been completed before the document
allegedly falsified was filed in the Registry. People vs.
Bautista, 23 SCRA 219.
Amendment of entry number of alleged falsified
document in civil registry is merely formal.The same
reasoning applies to the amendment of the Entry number,
from 907 to 807, the entry numbers being assigned by Civil
Registrars Office not being constitutive element of the
offense of falsification by false narration of facts. Id.
Amendment to change date of birth of child stated in the
alleged falsified document is merely formal.The
amendment of the Information for the offense of
falsification by false narration of facts so as to change the
date of the childs birth stated in the alleged falsified
document is merely formal. The change of the date of the
birth of the child by one day is immaterial and irrelevant to
the offense. Id.
Amendment of the list of exhibits is proper.An
amendment of the list of exhibits at the foot of the
information for an offense of falsification by false narration
of facts so as to change the list of exhibits to be produced by
the Civil Registrar from the birth certificate of Susan Dabu
de Vera to that of Quinciano de Vera, Jr. is merely formal
239
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
239
People vs. Flores
and does not alter the body of the information. The

prosecution could call for any exhibit other than those
enumerated by it at the foot of the information and is not

duty bound to apprise the accused of all the evidence it
intends to produce. Id.
Amendment of complaint may not be made after plea if it
will touch substantial matters.In substantial amendment
of information, the rule is that after the accused has
pleaded the information may be amended as to all matters
of form by leave and at the discretion of the court, when the
same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the
defendant (Section 13, Rule 110, New Rules of Court).
Amendments that touch upon matters of substance cannot
be permitted after the plea is entered. Reyes vs. People, 27
SCRA 686.
C Designation of Crime by Fiscal
Assault upon a person in authority with disturbance of
public order.Where it is alleged in the information that
the accused by laying hands upon election inspectors and
watchers in public places had cause serious disturbance
and interrupted or disturbed public performances and
functions, they are thus charged with the complex crime of
assault upon a person in authority with disturbance of
public order. Villanueva vs. Ortiz, 108 Phil. 493.
Discretion of prosecuting officer to determine what
persons appear to be criminally responsible.It is within
the prosecuting officers discretion to determine what
persons appear to be responsible for the commission of an
offense. If for any reason he fails to include the names of
one or more criminals in an information, such persons will
not be relieved if penal liability nor will the accused who
have been charged with the offense be permitted to escape
punishment merely because it develops in the course of the
trial that there were other guilty participants in the crime.
People vs. Catli, 6 SCRA 642.
240
240

People vs. Flores
Prosecution of criminal offenses under the city charter of

Cebu.Under Section 37 of the Cebu City Charter
(Commonwealth Act 58), a criminal charge is first to be
lodged with the fiscal who shall investigate the same if
warranted, he shall have the necessary information or

complaint prepared or made against the accused
thereafter, he shall have charge of the prosecution of the
crime in court. In the case at bar, the complaint was first
lodged with the fiscal, who conducted a preliminary
investigation and found probable cause. He attested to the
complaint verified by the complainant, recommended bail
and caused the complaint to be filed in the city court. In
short, he adopted the complaint as his own. These
actuations of the fiscal pass the statutory requirement,
because, with the verified complaint, he instituted the
criminal proceedings. (Montelibano vs. Ferrer, 97 Phil. 228,
233). Balite vs. People, 18 SCRA 280.
D Place Where Crime was Committed
Where the claim of appellant that he was apprehended in
another municipality for traffic violation at the time of the
crime was held not credible.The alibi put up by the
appellant to the effect that on the very occasion the
incident had allegedly taken place he was in Narvacan,
Ilocos Sur, where he was apprehended by a policeman for
his failure to produce his drivers license and as a result he
was there confined for a while and the same appears
bolstered by the police blotter, is, however, easily dispelled,
taking into account the many circumstances that were
discovered by the trial court which made it reach the
inevitable conclusion that said police blotter was falsified
and was concocted to serve the purpose of the defense.
People vs. Valera, 15 SCRA 164.
Territorial jurisdiction in a bigamy case where the first
and second marriages occurred in two provinces.The rule
is that where crimes committed partly in one province and
partly in another, that is to say, where some acts material
and essential to the crime, and requisite to its consumma
241
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
241
People vs. Flores
tion, occur in one province and some in another, they are

triable in either province. (U.S. vs. Santiago, 27 Phil. 411.)
This means that to make the offense triable in more than
one province the acts perpetrated in any of them must be
impelled by the same criminal purpose or aim. Ganchero

vs. Bellosillo, 28 SCRA 673.
E Delay in Filing Complaint
Meaning of the term proper court.The proper court in
the present litigation was the Court of First Instance of
Camarines Sur. The records of this case clearly show that
no formal complaint or information as contemplated by the
aforementioned Article 91 of the Penal Code was ever filed
therein within the reglementary period. As a matter of fact,
the said formal complaint or information was filed only
after the lapse of more than one year. Considering that
under the Code, the prescriptive period for grave oral
defamation is six months (Art. 90, Revised Penal Code), the
only conclusion deducible is that the same has prescribed.
People vs. Coquia, 8 SCRA 349.
Delay in prosecution is not unfavorable where imposed
on the government by causes beyond its control.The
observation that undue delay in the prosecution of criminal
actions speaks of the suspicious veracity of the states
claim, cannot be made where the delay was imposed on the
government by causes over which it has no control. In the
case at bar, the delay was due to the reluctance of
witnesses to testify, overcome as they were by fear of
reprisal by Kamlon and his henchmen. People vs. Hadji, 9
SCRA 252.
Delay of three years and eleven months in trial of
criminal case properly considered in dismissal.By any
fair standard, the lapse of three years and eleven months
from the time a criminal case was filed up to the time it
was actually called for trial on the merits, can hardly be
ignored by a magistrate when he is called upon to rule on a
motion to dismiss grounded on defendants constitu
242
242

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

805.
Delay in prosecution of crime explained by threats on life
of prosecution witnesses.The delay in the prosecution of
the crime is not unreasonable nor does it reflect any
insincerity of the prosecution witnesses where it was

explained that the failure to come forward to testify was
due to fear of threats of physical harm issued against them
by the accused, who at that time were quite powerful in the
town. People vs. Evaristo, 13 SCRA 172.
F Failure to Allege Qualifying Circumstances, Etc.
The power of prosecuting officer to determine sufficiency of
evidence not absolute.It is for the prosecuting officer to
determine whether the evidence at hand is sufficient to
engender a reasonable belief that a person committed an
offense. This power and prerogative of the prosecuting
officer is not, however, altogether absolute. It is subject to
judicial review in proper cases, as where from the evidence
submitted and gathered by the prosecuting officer a person
appearing to be responsible for the commission of an
offense is not included in the information. De Castro, Jr. vs.
Castaeda, 1 SCRA 1131.
Court should defer pronouncement of judgment only in
capital punishment.There being not a single aggravating
circumstance alleged in the information, there was no
possibility that he could have been given the capital
penalty. Such being the case, the lower court should not
have deferred the pronouncement of the judgment. It is
only in cases where, upon a plea of guilty, the accused can
be sentenced to death that the trial court is justified not to
follow the logical and legal consequence of a plea of guilty
namely, the acceptance of the plea of imposition of the
penalty provided by law. People vs. Magcamit, 27 SCRA
450.
243
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
243
People vs. Flores
C Damages
Effect of failure to allege damages in the information or
complaint.Even if the complaint or information is silent
as to damages or the intention to prove and claim them, the
offender is still liable for them, and the offended has the
right to prove and claim for them in the criminal case,
unless a waiver or the reserving of the civil action is made.
Roa vs. De la Cruz, 107 Phil. 8. (See also Civil Liability,

infra.)
Former conviction that bars subsequent prosecution.
Where a person had already been prosecuted for and
convicted of, damage to property and physical injuries, both
caused through reckless imprudence and produced on the
same vehicular incident. The latter offense is necessarily
age to property through reckless imprudence cause by the
same vehicular incident. The latter offense is necessarily
included in the former. People vs. Narvas, 107 Phil. 738.
Where the information does not assert the value of the
damage caused to the property, the same may be assessed at
the minimum penalized by law.Id.
Information charging damage to property, lesiones
menos graves and lesiones leves through reckless negligence.
The information alleges that, through reckless negligence
of the defendant, the bus driven by him hit another bus
causing upon some of its passengers, serious physical
injuries, upon others less serious physical injuries and
upon still others slight physical injuries, in addition to
damage to property. Such information does nor purport to
complex the offense of slight physical injuries with reckless
negligence with that of damage to property and serious and
less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence.
People vs. Cano, 17 SCRA 237.
H Failure of the Accused to Testify
Effect of failure of accused to testify.While the failure of
the accused to testify in his own behalf cannot be
244
244

People vs. Flores
considered against him, it may however help in

determining his guilt. Likewise, his flight subsequent to
the commission of the crime can leave no other impression
than that he did so to avoid apprehension. As the Supreme
Court has aptly said: The wicked fleeth, even if no man
pursueth, but the innocent is as bold as a lion. People vs.
Cidro, 105 Phil. 238.
I Lack of Intention
Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.Intention

partakes of the nature of a mental process, an internal act.
As a general rule, it can be gathered from and determined
only by the conduct and external acts of the offender and
the results of the acts themselves. Lack of intent to commit
so grave a wrong was not mitigating in a case where the
accused strangled a sixyear old girl while raping her.
People vs. Yu, 1 SCRA 199.
J Illegal Fishing
Intent presumed from result of the act.The act charged in
the information against the appellant that he wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously exploded one stick of dynamite,
which explosion resulted in disabling, stupefying and
killing a certain kind of fish, comes under the provisions of
Section 12 and paragraph 2 of Republic Act 462 although
the information fails to state that the act was for the
purpose of fishing. To assume that appellant exploded the
dynamite in the water just for fun, and that said
supposedly innocent practice unexpectedly resulted in the
killing of a large fish, would involve an unreasonable
presumption as well an extraordinary coincidence. The
intent may be rightly presumed from the result of the act.
Moreover, the information in the case at bar being entitled
Illegal Fishing With Explosive, there could have been no
doubt in the mind of appellant, who was then assisted by
counsel, that he was being charged with exploding
dynamite for purposes of fishing illegally. People vs.
Cubelo, 106 Phil. 496.
245
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
245
People vs. Flores
K Estafa
When estafa charge contains allegations regarding illegal
possession of false bank note.Where the original and
amended complaints for estafa, on which a preliminary
investigation was conducted, contain allegations that the
defendant knowingly had in her possession, with intent to
use, and had actually used, a false bank note, the trial
court erred in dismissing the information charging that
offense and in holding that the defendant is entitled to

another preliminary investigation. People vs. Casiano, 1
SCRA 478.
L Abduction
Complaint for forcible abduction includes abduction with
consent.The complaint for forcible abduction includes
abduction with consent. The spirit of Article 344 of the
Revised Penal Code is that the assent of the offended party
and her mother to undergo the scandal of a public trial for
forcible abduction necessarily connotes, also, their
willingness to face the scandal attendant to a public trial
for abduction with consent. Valdepeas vs. People, 16
SCRA 871.
M Libel and Slander
When offended partys complaint not necessary on grave
slander.Under the last paragraph of Article 360 of the
Revised Penal Code, only defamations imputing crimes
which may not be prosecuted de oficio under Article 344,
i.e., adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction with rape,
and acts of lasciviousness, must be prosecuted upon
complaint by the offended party (People vs. Juan B. Santos
and Francisco Guballa, 98 Phil. 111 52 O.G. No. 1, 203
People vs. Ael, L8393, April 27, 1956). So that where no
imputation of any of the crimes mentioned in Article 344 is
made, the complaint by the offended party is not necessary
(Vda. de Corostiza vs. People, L9091, August 28, 1956
People vs. Marquez, 68
246
246

People vs. Flores
Phil. 506). Likewise, the imputation of a vice or defect

which does not constitute a crime at all is not within the
exception (People vs. Ael, L8393, April 27, 1966). As the
grave slander by deed charged in the case at bar does not
impute any crime, public or private, to the offended party,
his complaint was not necessary to confer jurisdiction upon
the court. People vs. Duran, Jr., 107 Phil. 979.
Prosecution for grave slander by deed and slight physical
injuries.Where accused, after uttering defamatory words
against the offended party, attacked and assaulted the

latter, resulting in slight physical injuries, two offenses
were committed, for while the insults as well as the assault
were the product of the same criminal impulse, the act of
inflicting physical injuries, although the two offenses may
have taken place on the same occasion, or that one
preceded the other. The act of insulting cannot be deemed
included in that of inflicting physical injuries, because the
offense of insult is an offense against honor, whereas slight
physical injuries is an offense against persons. Hence,
prosecution of the accused for the two offenses cannot place
him in danger of double jeopardy. People vs. Ramos, 2
SCRA 523.
How criminal action is commenced.The plain import of
the last paragraph of Article 360, Revised Penal Code, is
that where defamation imputes a crime, which cannot be
prosecuted de oficio, the general rule that criminal actions
must be commenced either by complaint or information
(Rule 110 of the 1964 Rules of Court) must give way the
criminal action must have to be brought solely at the
instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the
offended party. The converse proposition, however, cannot
be true. Reasonable construction will not permit a
deduction which would constrict criminal prosecutionof
defamation which can be prosecuted de oficioby means of
information. Balite vs. People, 18 SCRA 280.
247
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
247
People vs. Flores
Slanderous imputation that offended party was a prostitute

can be prosecuted de oficio.The slanderous imputation
that the offended woman was a prostitute is not one of
those crimes which cannot be prosecuted de oficio. The
reason is that prostitution is a crime against public morals
and can be prosecuted de oficio. Mangila vs. Lantin, 30
SCRA 81.
Slanderous imputation that husband and wife had illicit
relations before their marriage can be prosecuted de oficio.
The slanderous imputation of the alleged premarital
relations of the offended husband and wife could be a vice
or defect so that Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code does
not apply. The law only exacts that a criminal action for
defamation be filed at the instance of or upon complaint

signed by the offended party where the crime imputed
cannot be prosecuted de oficio. Id.
Offense of oral defamation is not necessarily included in
that of light threats.Where the complaint for oral
defamation, when considered in its entirety, strongly
suggests the intention of asserting that the acts therein set
forth were performed for no other purpose than to insult
the complainant, the crime of light threat is not necessarily
included in the charge contained in said complaint.
Acquittal under the first complaint charging oral
defamation does not bar prosecution for the second
complaint charging light threat. People vs. Cervera, 30
SCRA 344.
N Robbery
Accused cannot be convicted for a crime higher than that
alleged in the information.Although two separate crimes
of murder and frustrated murder, both qualified by
treachery, were fully established, however, the appellants
cannot be punished for such crimes, since the information
filed against them is only for attempted robbery in an
inhabited house with homicide and frustrated homicide,
and inasmuch as no attempted robbery in an inhabited
248
248

People vs. Flores
house was proven at all, the said appellants can be held

guilty only of homicide and frustrated homicide aggravated
by treachery. People vs. Simon, 10 SCRA 280.
Joint decision of separate cases involving same defense.
Although three offenses or robbery in band with homicide,
robbery, and robbery in band with serious physical injuries
were committed on different dates against different
persons by the same defendant, necessitating separate
trials, however, since the defendants made use of the same
defense in all of them, and the court a quo deemed it proper
to hand down only one consolidated decision sentencing the
defendant to reclusion perpetua in one of said cases, the
Supreme Court, to which said cases were appealed,
following the same pattern, rendered likewise a joint
decision. People vs. Torino, 11 SCRA 287.

Description of picklock as specially adapted to robbery
unnecessary.Since picking of locks is one way to gain
entrance to commit robbery, a picklock is per se specially
adapted to the commission of robbery. The description in
the information of a picklock as specially adapted to the
commission of robbery is therefore unnecessary for its
sufficiency. People vs. Lopez, 14 SCRA 30.
O Complex Crime
Assault upon a person in authority with disturbance of
public order.Where it is alleged in the information that
the accused by laying hands upon election inspectors and
watchers in public places had cause serious disturbance
and interrupted or disturbed public performances and
functions, they are thus charged with the complex crime of
assault upon a person in authority with disturbance of
public order. Villanueva vs. Ortiz, 108 Phil. 495.
Complaint or information for complex crime.For a
criminal complaint or information to charge the
commission of a complex crime, the allegations contained
therein do not necessarily have to charge a complex crime
249
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
249
People vs. Flores
as defined by law. It is sufficient that the information

contains allegations which state that one offense was a
necessary means to commit the other. The information in
question in the present case contains allegations properly
charging the commission of the complex crime of
incriminatory machinations through unlawful arrest, and
the court a quo committed error when it ordered its
dismissal. People vs. Alagao, 16 SCRA 879.
Complex crime favors the accused.The purpose of
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code in complexing several
felonies resulting from a single act, or one which is a
necessary means to commit another, is to favor the accused
by prescribing the imposition of the penalty for the most
serious crime, instead of the penalties for each of the
aforesaid crimes, which, put together, may be grave than
the penalty for the most serious offense. People vs. Cano, 17
SCRA 237.
Separate crimes, not complex offense.Four separate
crimes of murder and a frustrated murder result from the
firing of several shots at five victims. The crimes are not
complex. Five informations should be filed. People vs.
Pineda, 20 SCRA 749.
Illustrations complex crime.There is a complex crime
where one shot from a gun results in the death of two or
more persons, or where one stabbed another and the
weapon pierced the latters body and wounded another, or
where a person plants a bomb in an airplane and the bomb
explodes, with the result that a number of persons are
killed. Id.
Separate crimes if distinct acts results in death of several
victims.When various victims expire from separate shots,
such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes. Id.
P Crimes Against Chastity
Effect of absence of offended partys signature on
information.Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code re
250
250

People vs. Flores
quires for crimes against chastity the filing by the

offended party or her parents, grandparents or guardian
of the complaint, and not of the information. The absence,
therefore, of the signature on the information of either of
the aforementioned persons, is not a valid ground for
contesting the jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject
matter. People vs. Cerena, 106 Phil. 570.
Complaint for acts of lasciviousness must alleged lewd
design.A complaint charging acts of lasciviousness which
does not allege lewd design, an essential element of all
crimes against chastity, is fatally defective. People vs. Gilo,
10 SCRA 753.
The words feloniously and criminally cannot supply
omission of lewd design.The words feloniously and
criminally that are alleged in the complaint are mere
general terms which do not necessarily connote the idea of
lust needed in the commission of a crime against chastity
and cannot serve to supply the omission of allegation of
lewd design in a complaint for acts of lasciviousness. Id.

Defective complaints in crimes against chastity can be
cured only by offended party.Where the complaint
charging a crime against chastity is fatally defective for not
alleging lewd design, such defect cannot be cured by the
information filed by the provincial fiscal but only by
making the proper correction in the complaint filed by the
offended party. Id.
Q Adultery and Concubinage
Rules of information charging bigamy.The wrong
averment made in the information charging bigamy as to
the person that solemnized the second marriage is
considered unsubstantial and immaterial, for it matters not
who solemnized the marriage, it being sufficient that the
information charging bigamy alleges that a second
marriage was contracted while the first still remained
251
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
251
People vs. Flores
undissolved. The information filed in the case at bar having

properly stated the time and place of the second marriage,
was sufficient to apprise the defendant of the crime
imputed. People vs. Bustamante, 105 Phil. 65.
The crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction,
abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness may be prosecuted
only upon complaint filed by the offended party or by
parents, grandparents, or guardian.People vs. Aranda,
106 Phil. 1008.
One of the accused in a prosecution for adultery may be
separately tried in the absence of the other accused where
both the prosecution and the other accused are ready to go
to trial.People vs. Oplado, 12 SCRA 147.
R SelfDefense
Where appellants theory of selfdefense is negatived by the
nature and location of the victims wounds.Appellants
theory of selfdefense, in the case at bar, is negatived by
the nature and location of the victims wound which,
having a right to left direction, could not have possibly
been inflicted by a righthanded person in front of the
victim with a twofeet long bolo. People vs. Labis, 21 SCRA

875.
S Miscellaneous
Authority of special prosecutors to sign informations and
conduct prosecutions.A lawyer appointed by the
Secretary of Justice, pursuant to Section 1686 of the
Revised Administrative Code, as amended, to assist the
City Fiscal, is authorized to sign informations, make
investigations and conduct prosecutions. People vs.
Henderson III, 105 Phil. 859. (See also Preliminary
Investigation and Fiscal, supra.)
When complaint or information is sufficient.A
complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name
252
252

People vs. Flores
of the defendant the designation of the offense by the

statute the acts or omissions complained of as constituting
the offense the name of the offended party the appropriate
time of the commission of the offense, and the place where
the offense was committed (Sec. 5, Rule 110, Revised Rules
of Court). People vs. Rodrigo, 16 SCRA 475.
Allegations in the indictment characterize the crime
charged.The averments in the complaint or information
characterize the crime to be prosecuted and the court
before which it must be tried. (U.S. vs. Lim San, 17 Phil.
273, 278 U.S. vs. Mallari, 24 Phil. 366, 368 U.S. vs.
Pompeya, 31 Phil. 245, 256257 People vs. Co Hiok, 62
Phil. 501, 503). Balite vs. People, 18 SCRA 280.
Discretion as to filing of informations.A prosecution
attorney, by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion
to file a particular information where he is not convinced
that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof, or
that the evidence on hand points to a different conclusion.
His discretion cannot be controlled by the offended party.
People vs. Pineda, 20 SCRA 749.
A widow may be considered an offended party within the
meaning of the applicable Rules of Court provision, entitled
to file a complaint for the murder of her deceased husband.
Del Rosario, Jr. vs. Vda. de Mercado, 29 SCRA 116.
Where prosecution was allowed to introduce rebuttal

evidence on new matter not covered directly by evidence of
prosecution.The prosecution presented evidence to show
that the accused killed the persons mentioned in the
information, as well as wounded several other specified
persons. The accused presented evidence to establish the
contrarythat he did not kill or wound said persons. He,
however, went further, by testifying that it was AH who
killed and wounded the persons abovementioned. May the
prosecution present the testimony of MA as rebuttal
evidence to show that it was the accused, not AH, who com
253
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
253
People vs. Flores
mitted the crime alleged in the information? Held: Yes. The

evidence of the accused that it was AH who killed and
wounded the persons mentioned in the information was a
new matter not covered directly by the evidence for the
prosecution. It is true that if it was the accused who caused
the deaths and the injuries alleged, it would follow that AH
was not the author of strict legal right, to introduce
positive evidence to this effect, instead of relying upon a
mere inference from its evidence in chief. People vs. Abalos,
30 SCRA 599.
2. Variance Between Allegation and Proof
Conviction of crime different from the crime charged.
Where the crime charged was for attempted robbery with
homicide and frustrated homicide, the defendant may not
be convicted of consummated robbery with homicide.
Moreover, where, as in the case at bar, there were no overt
acts pointing to robbery or even an attempt thereof have
been established, the killing of one passenger and the
wounding of two should be considered as plain murder,
frustrated murder, and physical injuries respectively.
People vs. Olaes, 105 Phil. 502. (See also Robbery, supra.)
Variance between allegation and proof.An accused
may be convicted of an offense proved provided it is
included in the charge, or of an offense charged which is
included in that proved. Stated differently, an accused can
be convicted of an offense only when it is both charged and

proved. If it is not charged although proved, or if it is not
proved although charged, the accused can not be convicted
thereof. In other words, variance between the allegation
and proof cannot justify conviction for either the offense
charged or the offense proved unless either is included in
the other. Esguerra vs. People, 108 Phil. 1078.
Variance between the allegations of the information and
the evidence offered by the prosecution in support thereof
does not of itself entitle the accused to an acquittal.People
vs. Catli, 6 SCRA 642.
254
254

People vs. Flores
3. Preliminary Investigation
Who are entitled to be heard in preliminary investigation.
The statute concerning preliminary investigations merely
requires that the accused shall be given a chance to be
heard where such accused can be subpoenaed and appears
before the investigating fiscal, with the right to cross
examine the complainant and his witnesses. Where the
accused is abroad and can not be subpoenaed, it is not
necessary to give him such chance. People vs. Henderson
III, 105 Phil. 859. (See also Fiscal, infra.)
An accused is not entitled to crossexamine the witnesses
presented against him in the preliminary investigation
before his arrest, this being a matter that depends on the
sound discretion of the judge or investigating officer
concerned (People vs. Ramilo, 98 Phil. 545 52 O.G. 1431
Dequito vs. Arellano, 81 Phil. 128 Bustos vs. Lucero, 81
Phil. 640). Abrera vs. Muoz, 108 Phil. 1124.
Waiver of preliminary investigation.A defendant is
deemed to have waived the preliminary investigation upon
his failure to invoke it prior to, or at least at, the time of
the entry of his plea in the Court of First Instance. People
vs. Casiano, 1 SCRA 478.
Right of the fiscal to conduct another preliminary
investigation.Where the justice of the peace, after
preliminary investigation, dismisses the charge against the
accused, the case stands as if no charge had been made.

The Provincial Fiscal may conduct his own preliminary
investigation, making it in the presence of the accused if
and when the latter so requests. If the fiscal files an
information against the accused, the same cannot be
quashed on the ground that the justice of the peace had
previously absolved the accused. People vs. Reginaldo, 1
SCRA 1307.
City fiscals power and authority to investigate.Under
the provisions of the law, the city fiscal and his as
255
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
255
People vs. Flores
sistants, in the same manner as provincial fiscal, are

vested with the power and authority to investigate all
charges of crimes and violations of ordinances irrespective
of whether the person who complains is the offended party
or not. Said provisions do not require that a sworn written
complaint be first filed before the city fiscal in order that he
may investigate the case complained of, except of course if
the offense is one which cannot be prosecuted de oficio, or is
private in nature, where the law requires that it be started
by a complaint sworn to by the offended party, or when it
pertains to those cases which need to be endorsed by
specified public officers as required in Section 2, Rule 106
of the Rules of Court. Hernandez vs. Albano, 2 SCRA 607.
Time to ask suspension of criminal proceedings.The
time to ask for the suspension of the criminal proceedings
on the ground that there is a prejudicial question raised in
a civil action that is pending trial is not during the period
of preliminary investigation of the criminal complaint by
the prosecuting officer but after such investigation and
after he shall have filed the corresponding information.
Dasalla vs. City Attorney, 5 SCRA 193. (See also
Prejudicial question, infra.)
Authority of judge to conduct preliminary examination
and investigation.Under Section 13, Rule 112 of the
Rules of Court, when a complaint is filed directly with a
court of first instance the judge himself may conduct both
the
preliminary
examination
and
investigation
simultaneously, and if he finds reasonable ground to
believe that the crime has been committed he shall refer
the case to the fiscal for the filing of the corresponding

information. Albano vs. Arranz, 15 SCRA 518.
Purpose of preliminary examination.A preliminary
examination conducted by the justice of the peace has for
its purpose the determination of whether a crime has been
committed and whether there is probable cause to
256
256

People vs. Flores
believe the accused guilty thereof (Lozada vs. Hernandez,

92 Phil. 1051), and if so, the issuance of a warrant of
arrest. Mayuga vs. Maravilla, 18 SCRA 1115.
Prosecution of criminal offenses under the city charter of
Cebu.Under Section 37 of the Cebu City Charter
(Commonwealth Act 58), a criminal charge is first to be
lodged with the fiscal who shall investigate the same if
warranted, he shall have the necessary information or
complaint prepared or made against the accused
thereafter, he shall have charge of the prosecution of the
crime in court. In the case at bar, the complaint was first
lodged with the fiscal, who conducted a preliminary
investigation and found probable cause. He attested to the
complaint verified by the complainant, recommended bail
and caused the complaint to be filed in the city court. In
short, he adopted the complaint as his own. These
actuations of the fiscal pass the statutory requirement,
because, with the verified complaint, he instituted the
criminal proceeding. (Montelibano vs. Ferrer, 97 Phil. 228,
233). Balite vs. People, 18 SCRA 280.
Stages of a preliminary investigation.A preliminary
investigation has two stages: First, a preliminary
examination of the complaint and his witnesses prior to the
arrest of the accused and Second, the reading to the
accused, after his arrest, of the complaint or information
filed against him and his being informed of the substance
of the evidence against him, after which, he is allowed to
present evidence in his favor, if he desires (Rule 108, Sec.
11, old Rules of Court, now Rule 112, Sec. 10, with
modifications). Mayuga vs. Maravilla, 18 SCRA 1115.
Ascertainment of probable cause.Probable cause, in
regard to the first stage of the preliminary investigation,
depends on the discretion of the judge or magistrate
empowered to issue the warrant of arrest. If suffices that

facts are presented to him to convince him, not that the
person has committed the crime, but that there
257
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
257
People vs. Flores
is probable cause to believe that such person committed the

crime charged (U.S. vs. Ocampo, 118 Phil. 1). Mayuga vs.
Maravilla, 18 SCRA 1115.
Ex parte nature of proceeding in preliminary
examination.The
proceeding
in
a
preliminary
examination is generally ex parte (People vs. Moreno, 77
Phil. 540), unless the defendant desires to be present and,
while under the old Rules of the justice of the peace or
investigating officer must take the testimony of
complainant and the latters witnesses under oath, only the
testimony of the complainant shall be in writing and only
an abstract or brief statement of the substance of the
testimony of the other is required (Rule 108, Sec. 6 of old
Rules of Court, now Rule 112, Sec. 5 with modification.) Id.
Nature of evidence to presented at preliminary
investigation.A preliminary investigation is not the
occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties
evidence it is for the presentation of such evidence only as
may engender a wellgrounded belief that an offense has
been committed and that the accused is probably guilty
thereof (Hasmin vs. Boncan, 71 Phil. 216). Accordingly, it
has been ruled a justice of the court is not prohibited by
any law from reaching the conclusion that probable cause
exists from the statement of the prosecuting attorney alone
or any other person entitled to credit in the opinion of the
judge or magistrate. Id.
Section 38C, Revised Charter of Manila authorizes filing
of information without preliminary investigation.
Petitioner alleges that the filing of the amended
information against him is illegal because he was not given
the chance to be heard in a preliminary investigation,
invoking the provision of paragraph 1, Section 38C of the
Revised Charter of Manila (Rep. Act No. 1201). Held: The
contention is untenable. Petitioner was already in the legal
custody of the police from the time he was arrested hence,
the first part of Section 38C of the Charter does not apply
to him, and the fiscal could file an information against him

even without previous prelimina
258
258

People vs. Flores
ry investigation. This step is expressly authorized by the

first proviso of Section 38C of the Manila Charter. Being
under arrest, all petitioners had to do in order to obtain a
preliminary investigation was to sign a waiver of the
prescriptions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended. Since he did not sign any such waiver, the Fiscal
perforce had to surrender him to the Court, by filing an
amended information including him as an accused in
Criminal Case No. 82116 of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, even without first completing a preliminary
investigation, because the law fixes a time of 18 hours for
the Fiscal to do so (Art. 125, Rev. Penal Code). It is
nowhere contended that this period was exceeded. Catelo
vs. Chief of the City Jail, 21 SCRA 29.
Where the alleged irregularity in the preliminary
investigation merits no consideration.Where the trial of
the case was fairly conducted and the rights of the accused
were protected, the alleged irregularity, consisting in
failure to conduct the first stage of the preliminary
investigation before his arrest despite his objection against
being held in custody without such procedure being
followed, merits no further consideration. People vs.
Gumahin, 21 SCRA 729.
Preliminary examination and investigation by the judge
of the court of first instance.Pursuant to the provisons of
Section 13, in relation to Section 2, of Rule 112 of the Rules
of Court, when a criminal complaint is filed directly with
the court of first instance, said court may either conduct
the preliminary investigation or refer the complaint to the
proper municipal or city court for preliminary examination
and investigation. If the court of first instance chooses the
first alternative, it must conduct both the preliminary
examination
and
the
preliminary
investigation
simultaneously. If the second alternative is taken, the
municipal court or the city court to which the complaint,
has been referred, shall act in conformity with sections 5, 6
and 10 of said Rule 112. Pureza vs. Averia,25 SCRA 269.
259
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
259
People vs. Flores
Filing of information in court a quo made the issue of

validity of complaint in the justice of the peace court
academic.Under the Rules, a criminal action may also be
initiated by the fiscal filing an information with the proper
court. (Sec. 3, Rule 110) On the other hand, as already
stated, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the
defense of absence of a preliminary investigation must be
raised before the entry of the plea, otherwise, it is waived.
Accordingly, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that
the complaint in the justice of the peace court was void, as
contended by appellee, on the other hand, the filing of the
information in question with the court a quo made the
issue of validity of said complaint already academic,
considering that the said complaint had already been
superseded by the said information. And since the said
information is sufficient in form and substance, and the
absence of a preliminary investigation may only be raised
before the accused enters his plea, otherwise, it is waived,
if follows that appellee forfeited his right to question both
the complaint and the information under discussion by
entering his plea of not guilty and otherwise submitting to
the jurisdiction of the court for trial. People vs. Marquez, 27
SCRA 808. (See Plea of Guilty, supra.)
When plea constitutes waiver of irregularity in
preliminary investigation.Where the accused has already
entered a plea of not guilty to the information, he is
deemed to have foregone his right to preliminary
investigation and to have abandoned his right to question
any irregularity that surrounds it. Zacariaz vs. Cruz, 30
SCRA 728.
Absence of preliminary investigation.The absence of a
preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of a
criminal information, does not otherwise render it
defective, does not affect the jurisdiction of the court over
the case. Id.
260
260
People vs. Flores
4. Jurisdiction
Complaint filed by a person who claims as guardian.
Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the
offenses of rape can only be prosecuted upon complaint
filed by the offended party, her parents, grandparents, or
guardian, and that unless this requirement is complied
with the prosecution may fail on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. However, if a person, of his own accord and
free will, and as guardian of the victim, files an action for
rape, the complaint is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on
the court. People vs. Ponelas, 105 Phil. 712.
Information or complaint not having been subscribed by
offended party.Where the criminal complaint for
trespass to dwelling with unjust vexation and grave oral
slander filed in the justice of the peace court was
subscribed and sworn to by the Chief of Police and the
information for acts of lasciviousness filed in the Court of
First Instance was subscribed by the first Assistant
Provincial Fiscal and not by the offended party, and neither
was the complaint subscribed and sworn to by the offended
party attached to the record of the case transmitted by the
Justice of the Peace Court to the Court of First Instance,
nor was it offered in evidence at the trial in the latter
court, such an omission or failure is fatal. Without the
complaint of the offended party, the court of first instance
acquired no jurisdiction to hear, determine and render
judgment in the case. People vs. Aranda, 106 Phil. 1008.
Provincial for appeals in criminal cases does not affect
appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court.The provision in
the Rules of Court, that the prosecution cannot appeal if
the defendant would placed thereby in double jeopardy,
does not impair the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court, since the Rules of Court cannot modify the
constitutional and legal provisions regarding jurisdiction
nor increase, diminish or modify substantive rights. The
261
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971

People vs. Flores
261
prosecution may appeal to the Supreme Court in cases

involving pure questions of law. This is the rule in elections
cases. People vs. Casiano, 1 SCRA 478. (See also Double
Jeopardy, infra.)
Conflicting positions of defendant.A defendant, after
attacking the courts jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss,
cannot thereafter invoke double jeopardy, which plea
assumes that the court has jurisdiction. A party cannot be
allowed to take inconsistent positions. People vs. Casiano, 1
SCRA 478.
Basis of authority to order release on bail of an accused.
The authority to order the release on bail of one accused
of a crime before a court of justice, springs from the
jurisdiction of the latter (1) over the accused, acquired by
virtue of his arrest, (2) over the party detaining him, by
authority of the warrant of arrest issued by said court, and,
consequently, an agent of the latter. When the detaining
officer holds the accused in pursuance of a warrant issued
by another court, in connection with another case, whether
the latter be criminal or civil, said detaining officer is not
bound to release said accused by order of the court first
mentioned, and defendants continued deprivation of
liberty, despite such order, upon the authority of the
warrant issued by the latter court, will not be illegal and
would not justify the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
Galang vs. Court of Appeals, 2 SCRA 234.
The dismissal of the first charge, in the municipal court
did not alter the case at bar since under the law then in
force said court had no jurisdiction over the offense, which
was properly cognizable in the courts of first instance.
People vs. Nery, 10 SCRA 244.
A justice of the peace court has concurrent original
jurisdiction of a criminal case for theft of large cattle where
the value of such property does not exceed P200.00.
Brecinio vs. Papica, 12 SCRA 349.
Jurisdiction of court is determined by law in force at
time of institution of action.The jurisdiction of a court
262
262

People vs. Flores
to try a criminal action is determined not by the law in

force at the time of the commission of the offense, but by
the law in force at the time of the institution of the action.
People vs. Adolfo, 13 SCRA 599.
Concurrent jurisdiction of city courts.When it was
provided in Sec. 87(c) of Rep. Act 296, as amended by Rep.
Act 2613, that the city courts of chartered cities have like
jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance to try parties
charged with an offense in which the penalty provided by
law does not exceed prisin correccional or imprisonment
for not more than six years or fine not exceeding P3,000.00
or both, the city court thereby acts as a Court of First
Instance and its decisions are appealable directly to the
Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court, as the case may
be. When the city court tries cases of this nature and it acts
as a Court of First Instance, it must perforce act as a court
of record. The very law itself provides that in the exercise
of this jurisdiction by the municipal courts of provincial
capitals and by city courts the proceedings must be
recorded. Aquino vs. Estenzo, 14 SCRA 18.
Jurisdiction of court is determined by allegations in
information.What determines the jurisdiction and
competence of a court is that which is alleged in the
information. For purposes of determining jurisdiction in an
estafa case the question of where the accused allegedly
received the money has to be resolved by the allegations in
the information. People vs. San Antonio, 14 SCRA 63.
Allegations of information in estafa not supporting
affidavit or receipt determines courts jurisdiction.In a
estafa case, the allegations in the information specifying a
particular municipality as the place where the accused
received the money malversed determines the jurisdiction
of the court, and not the receipt attached to the supporting
affidavit of complainant mentioning another place,
263
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
263
People vs. Flores
especially where said affidavit explains that said receipt

was executed merely to confirm the delivery of the money
previously made in the municipality alleged in the
information. Id.
Place of undertaking in estafa may determine
jurisdiction of court.In estafa, even if the money was

delivered to the accused in another place outside the
jurisdiction of the court a quo, but the express undertaking
of the accused, stated in the information was to deliver the
commodity purchased therewith or return the money in a
place within the jurisdiction of said court, the alleged
failure to comply with said undertaking, an element of
estafa, takes place within the jurisdiction of said court Id.
Waiver of objection to courts jurisdiction.Jurisdiction
over the person of an accused is acquired upon either his
apprehension, with or without warrant, or his submission
to the jurisdiction of the court. In the case at bar, the
petitioner was brought before the bar of justice, first, before
the justice of the peace court, then before the Court of First
Instance, later before the Court of Appeals thereafter back
before said Court of First Instance, and then, again, before
the Court of Appeals, and never, within the period of six
years that had transpired until the Court of Appeals
rendered its decision, had he questioned the judicial
authority of any of these three courts over his person. He is
deemed, therefore, to have waived whatever objection he
might have had to the jurisdiction over his person, and,
hence, to have submitted himself to the Courts
jurisdiction. What is more, his behavior and every single
one of the steps taken by him before said courts
particularly the motions therein filed by himimplied, not
merely a submission to the jurisdiction thereof, but, also
that he urged the courts to exercise the authority thereof
over his person. Valdepeas vs. People, 16 SCRA 871.
Jurisdiction over crime of abduction with consent.It is
wellsettled that jurisdiction over the subject matter of an
actionin this case the crime of abduction with con
264
264

People vs. Flores
sentis and may be conferred only by law that the

jurisdiction over a given crime, not vested by law upon a
particular court, may not be conferred thereto by the
parties involved in the offense and that, under an
information for forcible abduction, the accused may be
convicted of abduction with consent. Id.
A complaint is not a condition precedent for the exercise
or jurisdiction.The third paragraph of Article 344 of the

Revised Penal Code does not determine the jurisdiction of
the courts over the offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or
acts of lasciviousness. It could not affect said jurisdiction,
because the same is governed by the Judiciary Act of 1948,
not by the Revised Penal Code, which deals primarily with
the definition of crimes and the factors pertinent to the
punishment of the culprits. The complaint required in said
Article 344 is merely a condition precedent to the exercise by
the proper authorities of the power to prosecute the guilty
parties. And such condition has been imposed out of
consideration for the offended woman and her family who
might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go
through with the scandal of a public trial. (Samilin vs.
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, 57 Phil. 298, 304).
Id.
Proper procedure for the Court of First Instance.There
being no question that the Court of First Instance has
jurisdiction and can properly try the defendant for damages
to property and serious or less physical injuries through
reckless negligence, the proper procedure for the said court
was to reserve the resolution on the issue of whether
misdemeanors can be complexed with grave or less grave
felonies, until after the case has been heard on the merits,
when decision is rendered thereon. People vs. Cano, 17
SCRA 237.
Court where case is filed should resolve issue of
jurisdiction.Where a criminal case is prosecuted in the
municipal court of the place where the offense was
committed, as alleged in the complaint, the question of
juris
265
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
265
People vs. Flores
diction in the light of such allegation must be passed upon

and decided in the first instance by the municipal court
itself in the criminal case before it. The place where the
accused was arrested is of no moment. What is important is
the allegation in the complaint that the crime was
committed in the place which is within the courts
territorial jurisdiction. Mediante vs. Ortiz, 19 SCRA 832.
Exercise by Court of First Instance of original
jurisdiction in criminal case appealed from inferior court.

Where the defendant is tried by an inferior court and
sentenced therein for a crime beyond that courts
jurisdictional boundaries two courses of action are open to
him in the court of First Instance, on appeal. First, he may
assail the appellate jurisdiction of the court and seek to
nullify the proceedings in, and judgment of, the inferior
court. Such jurisdictional objection he must assert. And
this for the potent reason that should the Court of First
Instance find the same to be wellfounded, then the only
jurisdiction acquired by the latter court is to dismiss the
case. Second, defendant has the other choice of voluntarily
submitting himself to the Court of First Instance in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction. He is deemed to have
thus submitted himself if he does not object to the appellate
jurisdiction of the Court. In which case, no error of
jurisdiction dimensions may be tagged to that Court. The
same rule obtains in civil cases. Guzman vs. Court of
Appeals, 20 SCRA 803.
Where trial court has jurisdiction despite initial
complaint in the justice of the peace court was not signed by
offended party.The trial courts questioned order of
dismissal is erroneous it being based on the ground that it
had no jurisdiction over this case because the initial
complaint filed with the justice of the peace court was not
signed by the offended party and was, therefore, invalid. It
may be conceded that, as appellee argues, apart from what
is provided in the Rule cited, there are precedents to the
effect that, except as to the government officers authorized
by said Rule, the filing of a complaint is personal to the
offended party. (U.S. vs. Malabon, 1 Phil. 731 Guevara
266
266

People vs. Flores
vs. Del Rosario, 77 Phil. 615). This is not, however, the only
principle involved under the complete factual setting of this
case. It must be remembered that appellee did not attack
the said complaint while his case was still in the justice of
the peace court, where, on the contrary, he waived the
preliminary investigation proper he allowed the case to be
remanded to the court of first instance and folded his arms
when the provincial fiscal filed the corresponding
information and, he did not object to his being arraigned,

instead he merely entered a plea of not guilty at said
arraignment. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court
held that the initial complaint has lost its importance and
the case can be viewed only in the light of the information
subsequently filed by the provincial fiscal, as suggested by
the Solicitor General. People vs. Marquez, 27 SCRA 808.
(See also Designation of crime by fiscal, supra.)
Discretion of the trial court.The granting or refusal of
an application for continuance or postponement of the trial
lies within the sound discretion of the court (U.S. vs.
Lorenzana, 12 Phil. 64). This rule is, even independently of
statute, universally recognized. In this jurisdiction, the
rule finds expression in Section 2, Rule 119 of the Rules of
Court. People vs. Mendez, 28 SCRA 881.
When failure of quash information constitutes waiver of
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused.Where
nothing in the record suggests that petitioner ever moved
to quash the information upon the ground that by the
defective arrest the court acquired no jurisdiction over her
person, the accused is deemed to have waived lack of
jurisdiction over his person. Zacarias vs. Cruz, 30 SCRA
728.
Where accused flees the jurisdiction pending the appeal.
In the absence of a statute regulating the practice, it is
within the sound discretion of the appellate court to
determine whether the case shall be postponed to await the
recapture of the accused, or the appeal shall be dismissed.
And this rule applies whether the accused escapes
267
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
267
People vs. Flores
from custody in jail or is constructively in custody by being

admitted to bail. The principle upon which this role rests is
that a party appealing who flees the jurisdiction, pending
the appeal, is in contempt of the authority of the court and
of the law and places himself in position to speculate on the
chances for a reversal, meanwhile keeping out of the reach
of justice and preparing to render the judgment nugatory
or not, at his option. Such conduct will cause the court to
consider that the right of the accused to appeal from the
merits of the case is deemed waived. Longao vs. Fakat, 30
SCRA 866.
5. Venue
Venue of offense holding a prohibited interest.Where the
petitioner, as Secretary of Finance and Chairman of the
Monetary Board, holding office in Manila, was charged
with the offense of having a financial interest the
corporations which secured dollar allocations from the
Monetary Board, the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila can
investigate the charges although some of the corporations
were domiciled outside Manila. Hernandez vs. Albano, 19
SCRA 96.
Venue of criminal action.It is a fundamental principle
that the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the
court of the municipality or province wherein the offense
was committed or any of its essential ingredients took
place. A court cannot try an offense committed outside the
territorial limits where it operates. One cannot be held to
answer for any crime except in the jurisdiction where it
was committed. Hernandez vs. Albano, 19 SCRA 96
Mediante vs. Ortiz, 19 SCRA 832.
6. Fiscal
Provincial fiscal has no exclusive right to investigate a
charge filed with him.There is nothing in the law which
grants to a provincial fiscal exclusive right to investigate
268
268

People vs. Flores
a charge that is submitted to him for action. Of course, it is

his duty under the law to undertake the investigation
during the period his situation may permit. But when he is
guilty of inaction or acts in a manner that may jeopardize
the right of a complainant or offended party, there is
nothing that may prevent the latter from taking action to
protect his right. To hold otherwise would place his fate at
the mercy of the prosecuting official. De la Cruz vs.
Sagales, 107 Phil. 673.
Duty of fiscal to file information after preliminary
investigation.Upon the filing of the complaint charging a

person with a criminal offense, it is the duty of the Fiscal to
conduct an investigation thereof and thereafter file the
corresponding information should the evidence presented
to him sufficiently prove that a criminal offense had been
committed and that the party charged was probably guilty
thereof. University of the Philippines vs. City Fiscal of
Quezon City, 2 SCRA 980. (See also Designation of Crime
by Fiscal, supra.)
Review by a fiscal of a case where another fiscal of same
office merely recommended dismissal.There is no
provision requiring a reviewing Fiscal to subpoena and
hear anew the same witnesses who appeared before
another Fiscal of the same office in a case where the latter
has merely recommended dismissal. It is enough, for
purposes of complying with Section 38C of Republic Act
No. 409, as amended, that the accused is heard or given the
chance to be heard, with the right to crossexamine the
complainant and his witnesses, at any time prior to the
filing of the information in court. Unless and until a case is
finally dropped or dismissed by the City Fiscal,
recommendations or actions taken subsequent to the close
of the preliminary investigation are mere incidents in the
same investigation. People vs. Yu Go Kee, 3 SCRA 522.
Power of city fiscal to designate or fiscal to review the
findings and recommendations of another fiscal of lower
rank.The last paragraph of Section 38A of Republic Act
269
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
269
People vs. Flores
No. 409 vests the City Fiscal with the power to effect, from
time to time, such changes in the organization of the said
three divisions as the exigencies of the service demand. He
can, for instance, properly designate a Fiscal to review, for
and on his behalf, the findings and recommendations of
another Fiscal of a lower court. This is purely internal
office procedure which does not in any way detract from the
organization of the office into three divisions. People vs. Yu
Go Kee, 3 SCRA 522.
Authority of provincial fiscal to conduct a subsequent
investigation.If the charge for a crime cognizable by the
Court of First Instance is filed by a competent party or
officer in the Justice of the Peace Court, and the accused

waives preliminary investigation therein, or the Justice of
the Peace, after preliminary investigation, finds that a
prima facie case exists, and consequently, elevated the
records to the Court of First Instance, the Provincial Fiscal
is now called upon to conduct another preliminary
investigation, and may forthwith file the information in the
Court of First Instance. Republic Act 732 does not apply in
such case. But if the Justice of the Peace, after due
investigation, dismissed the charge, then, the case stands
as if on charge had been made, and the Provincial Fiscal
may thereafter conduct his own investigation of the same
charge under the aforementioned Republic Act 1799
(amending R.A. 723), making it in the presence of the
accused if and when the latter so requires. (People vs.
Pervez, L15231, Nov. 29, 1960). People vs. Tan, 7 SCRA
981.
City attorney may file new information before court of
first instance where proceeding in city court is null and
void.When criminal proceedings had before a city court
in the exercise of its concurrent jurisdiction are null and
void for lack of record of its proceedings, the city attorney
may file a new information in the court of first instance
charging the same offense, and the court of first instance
takes cognizance of the case in the exercise of its original,
270
270

People vs. Flores
not appellate, jurisdiction. Consequently, the latter court

commits no excess of jurisdiction nor abuse of discretion in
denying a motion to quash on the ground that the appeal
was directed to the Court of Appeals, because the appellate
court will have no record on which to base its reviews.
Aquino vs. Estenzo, 14 SCRA 18.
City attorney may use same preliminary investigation
had before in filing new information before court of first
instances.Where the record shows that before the city
attorney filed the information for grave coercion in the city
court he had previously conducted the necessary
preliminary investigation, it is held that the same
preliminary investigation that was conducted by the said
city attorney can serve as the basis for the filing of the
information in a criminal case in the court of first instance.

Id.
Special prosecutor may prosecute offenses without fiscals
intervention.A lawyer, appointed by the Secretary of
Justice to assist the City Fiscal, is authorized to sign
informations,
make
investigations
and
conduct
prosecutions. He does not need to secure the consent of the
corresponding fiscal to start a prosecution. Hence, the fiscal
need not be present at any investigation conducted by the
special prosecutor.Secretary of Justice vs. Maglanoc, 20
SCRA 683.
Where fiscal cannot be compelled by mandamus to file
information for estafa.Since the City Fiscal is entitled to
use his judgment and a measure of discretion in the
appreciation of the evidence presented to him, it is clear
that the exercise of such judgment and discretion, under
the facts and circumstances already adverted, may not be
controlled by mandamus to file an information for estafa.
Gonzales vs. Serrano, 25 SCRA 64.
Discretion of fiscal in determining the persons who
appear to be responsible for the commission of an offense
It is the law in this jurisdiction that the prosecuting
officer is in duty bound to prosecute all persons who
appear to be responsible for the commission of the offense
271
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
271
People vs. Flores
charged, while on the other hand, all criminal prosecutions

shall be under the direction and control of the Fiscal
(Rule 110, Secs. 1 & 4, formerly Rule 106, Rules of Court).
These provisions, however, should not be construed to
abridge the discretion of the prosecuting officer not to file
any criminal charge against a person whose guilt he may
not be able, in his opinion, to establish with sufficient
evidence. In determining who are the persons who appear
to be responsible for the commission of the offense
complained of, the prosecuting officer has to consider,
examine and evaluate the incriminatory evidence
submitted to him. Needless to say, the weighing and
evaluation thereof requires the exercise of discretion on his
partdiscretion that, for obvious reasons, must be free
from prossure and other irrelevant considerations. It is not
fair to compel the prosecuting officer to prosecute a person

whose guilt may not, in his opinion, be established with the
evidence submitted to him for consideration. People vs.
Santos, 30 SCRA 100.
Fiscal may reinvestigate case and move for its dismissal,
if reinvestigation shows that defendant is innocent.
Under Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the Fiscal has the
direction and control of the prosecution (Section 4). In the
exercise of this authority the Fiscal may reinvestigate the
case and subsequently move for its dismissal should the re
investigation show either that the defendant is innocent or
that his guilt may not be established beyond reasonable
doubt. People vs. Jamisola, 30 SCRA 555.
7. Intervention of Offended Party
When offended party may intervene in the prosecution of the
criminal case.An offended party in a criminal case may
intervene, personally or by attorney, in the prosecution of
the offense, only if he has not waived the civil action or
expressly reserved his right to institute it, subject, always,
to the direction and control of the prosecuting fiscal. Roa
vs. De la Cruz, 107 Phil. 8.
272
272

People vs. Flores
Purpose of intervention.The right of intervention reserved

to the offended party is for the sole purpose of enforcing the
civil liability born of the criminal act and not of demanding
punishment of the accused. Id.
8. Prescription
Delay to bring matter to prosecuting authorities.The fact
that it took the offended spouses until February, 1954 to
bring the matter to the attention of the police and
prosecuting authorities, white the incident happend on
June 19, 1951, has been satisfactorily explained by the
spouses. In 1951 they were staying in the barrio. Peace and
order at that time were still unsolved problems many
people disappeared without any clue or trace and there
were many Huks in the vicinity causing a lot of trouble, let

alone the fear that the malefactors might carry out their
threat to liquidate them should they report it to the
authorities. In 1954, when the matter was brought to the
affection of the prosecuting attorney and an agent of the
Philippine Constabulary there was already peace and there
were no more bulary, these was already peace and there
were no more Huks in the locality. People vs. Castillo, 2
SCRA 1.
Interruption by complaint or information filed in the
proper court, not in the fiscals office.Conformably to the
doctrine, of the People vs. Del Rosario, L15140, Dec. 29,
1960, the prescriptive period for the case at bar was never
interrupted. In the said case, We declared thatunder
Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, light offenses
prescribe in two months. Article 91 of the same Code
provides that the period of prescription commence to run
from the day on which the crime was discovered by the
offended party, the authorities or their agents, and shall be
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information,
and shall commence to run again when such proceedings
terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted,
or are justifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to
him, the complaint or information referred to in the above
prescriptive period, as ruled in the case of People vs. Tayco
(73 Phil. 509), is that which is filed in the proper court
273
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
273
People vs. Flores
and not the denuncia or accusation lodged by the offended

party in the Fiscals Office. People vs. Coquia, 8 SCRA 349.
Meaning of term proper court.The proper court in the
present litigation was the Court of First Instance of
Camarines Sur. The records of this case clearly show that
no formal complaint or information as contemplated by the
aforementioned article 91 of the Penal Code was ever filed
therein within the reglementary period. As a matter of fact,
the said formal complaint or information was filed only
after the lapse of more than one year. Considering that
under the Code the prescriptive period for grave oral
defamation is six months (Art. 90, Revised Penal Code), the
only conclusion deductible is that the same has prescribed.
Id.
9. Dismissal
A Motion to Dismiss or Quash
Former doctrines on dismissal with consent of the accused
are abandoned.The Courts ruling in the case of People
vs. Salico, 44 Off. Gaz., No. 4, 17651776, reiterated in
People vs. Romero, 89 Phil. 672 49 O.G., (11) 4854, to the
effect that a dismissal upon defendants motion will not be
a bar to another prosecution for the same offense as said
dismissal was not without the express consent of the
defendant, had been modified or abandoned in subsequent
cases (People vs. Bangalao, 94 Phil. 354 50 O.G., (10) 4860
People vs. Diaz, 94 Phil. 714 People vs. Abao, 97 Phil. 28
and People vs. Ferrer, 100 Phil. 124 55 O.G., (4) 620
wherein the Court sustained the theory of double jeopardy
despite the fact that the dismissal was secured upon
motion of the accused. People vs. Robles, 105 Phil. 1016.
Motion to suspend issuance of warrant of arrest
considered as a motion to quash.A motion to suspend the
issuance of the warrant of arrest may be considered a
motion to quash because it is not the caption of the
pleading but
274
274

People vs. Flores
the allegations therein contained that should prevail. The

allegations of said motion, in effect, mean that the
information does not charge an offense. People vs. Matondo,
1 SCRA 534.
In case of motion to quash is denied, the defendants
remedy is to appeal from the judgment of conviction, after
trial on the merit. Certiorari against the order denying the
motion to quash is not proper.Dauz vs. Eleosida, 1 SCRA
990 Acharon vs. Purisima, 13 SCRA 309.
Facts considered in resolution of motion to quash.It is
the general rule that in resolving the motion to quash a
criminal complaint or information the facts alleged in the
complaint or information should be taken as they are. The
exceptions to this general rule are those cases where the

Rules of Court expressly permit the investigation of facts
alleged in the motion to quash. People vs. Alagao, 16 SCRA
879.
Facts considered in resolution of motion to quash.The
contention that the motion to quash filed by the defendants
necessarily assumes the truth of the allegations of the
information to the effect that the offense charged was
committed within the jurisdiction of Angeles City is
applicable only to a demurrernow obsoleteto an
information and certainly not to a motion to quash under
the Rules of Court. The motion to quash now provided for
in Rule 117 is manifestly broader in scope than the
demurrer, as it is not limited to defects apparent upon the
face of the complaint or information but extends to issues
arising out of extraneous matters which necessarily involve
questions of fact in the determination of which a
preliminary trial is required. Lopez vs. City Judge, 18
SCRA 616.
When motion to dismiss the case and motion to quash the
information may be filed.A motion to quash an
information may be filed only before the defendant enters
his plea. A motion to dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction
of a trial court may be filed at any stage of the proceedings.
People vs. Paderna, 22 SCRA 273.
275
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
275
People vs. Flores
Appeal by offended party from motion to dismiss filed by

fiscal.Speaking broadly, the ultimate relief sought by
offended party who interposes an appeal from the dismissal
of a case upon motion of the fiscal is in the nature of a
mandamus, or in plain language, in the nature of an order
directing the prosecuting officer to file the information
against the defendants in spite of his personal belief that
such action is not justified or warranted by the evidence at
hand. For this purpose appellant must show that she has a
clear legal right to such relief, on the one hand, and, on the
other, that the prosecuting officer has, on the basis of the
evidence before him, an imperative duty to prosecute said
defendants. In this case, appellants case is not entirely free
from doubt. People vs. Santos, 30 SCRA 100.
Effect of plea.The fact that the accused had pleaded to

the charge is immaterial. The point is that as the accused
could not immediately appeal from the order of the trial
court denying his motion to quash, he had, as a matter of
necessity, to plead to the charge and enter trial, and
thereafter raise the question on appeal in the event of
conviction. People vs. Garcia Sy, 30 SCRA 150. (See also
Plea of Guilty Arraignment, infra.)
When failure to quash information constitutes waiver of
lack of jurisdiction over the person of accused.Where
nothing in the record suggests that petitioner ever moved
to quash the information upon the ground that by the
defective arrest the court acquired no jurisdiction over her
person, the accused is deemed to have waived lack of
jurisdiction over his person. Zacarias vs. Cruz, 30 SCRA
728.
B Dismissal by Courts
Meaning of the phrases without the express consent of the
accused and with the express consent of the accused.
The phrase without the express consent of the accused
cannot refer to conviction or acquittal, because in case of
276
276

People vs. Flores
conviction after trial and without a plea of guilty, the

termination is against the express consent of the accused.
The only conviction which would be had with the express
consent of the accused would be when a plea of guilty, has
been entered. When the defendant is acquitted after trial,
it is always upon the petition of the accused. If the phrase
without the express consent of the accused were to be made
applicable to acquittal, there would be no case or jeopardy
when there is acquittal, because the acquittal will always
be with the express consent, because ordinarily granted
upon motion of, the accused. So it is that the phrase with
the express consent of the accused can refer only to a
dismissal or other termination, not a conviction or
acquittal. People vs. Labatete, 107 Phil. 697.
What constitutes dismissal with the express consent of
the accused which is not an acquittal.A dismissal with
the express consent of the accused which is not an acquittal

should, in the first place, not be one where the court has no
jurisdiction, or where the information is not valid or
sufficient to sustain a conviction, for in these cases no
jeopardy attaches by express provision of the rule. Also, the
dismissal must be after the defendant has pleaded, as also
provided expressly in the rule. Id.
Exception on erroneous dismissal of complaint by court.
Where a trial court has jurisdiction but mistakenly
dismisses the complaint or information on the ground of
lack of it, the order of dismissal is, after the prosecution
has presented its evidence, unappealable because an
appeal by the government therefrom would place the
accused in second jeopardy for the same offense (People vs.
Hernandez, 94 Phil. 49 49 O.G. No. 12, 5342 People vs.
Ferrer, 100 Phil. 124 55 O.G. [4] 620 People vs. Fajardo,
49 Phil. 206 People vs. Borja, 43 Phil. 618). The only
exception to this rule is where the dismissal was made with
the consent of the accused (People vs. Sulico, 47 O.G. 1965).
People vs. Duran, Jr., 107 Phil. 979.
The act of an accused in withdrawing his appeal after
realizing the futility of his defense, and of another in es
277
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
277
People vs. Flores
caping from his confinement, which caused the dismissal of

his appeal, are unmistakable signs of guilt.People vs.
Aquidado, 108 Phil. 186.
Dismissal without consent of accused and after plea of
not guilty.The present information being valid and
sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction, the
dismissal thereof by the court after the accused had
pleaded not guilty to the charge and without his consent
constitutes jeopardy as to bar further proceedings upon the
case (U.S. vs. Yam Tung Way, 21 Phil. 67 People vs.
Hernandez, 94 Phil. 49 49 O.G. No. 12, 5342 People vs.
Ferrer, 100 Phil. 124 55 O.G. 620). People vs. Vda. de
Golez, 108 Phil. 855. (See also Double Jeopardy, infra.)
A court has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a
motion to quash filed by the defendant, based upon a former
jeopardy, which came to his knowledge after he has pleaded.
People vs. Casiano, 1 SCRA 478.
When complainant and witnesses failed to appear at the

trial.Dismissal of a criminal case upon motion of the
accused because the prosecution was not prepared for trial,
since the complainant and his witnesses did not appear at
the trial, is dismissal equivalent to acquittal that would bar
further prosecution of the defendant for the same offense.
Lagunilla vs. Reyes, 1 SCRA 1364.
No res adjudicata where order of dismissal is not
decision on the merits.Where an order dismissing a
criminal case is not a decision on the merits, it cannot bar
as res adjudicata a subsequent case based on the same
offense. People vs. Bellosillo, 9 SCRA 835.
Dismissal without express consent of accused.Even if
the lower court erred in ordering the dismissal of a
criminal case upon motion of the counsel of the accused, yet
said error cannot be remedied by remanding the case to it
for further proceedings where said dismissal was without
the express consent of the accused, for to do so would place
the accused in double jeopardy. People vs. Villarin, 11
SCRA 550.
278
278

People vs. Flores
Dismissal of a case by court where original complaint does

not substantially disagree with new information is
erroneous.Where the original complaint filed by the
offended party before the Justice of the Peace Court, and on
which the accused was convicted therein, does not
substantially disagree with the new information filed by
the Fiscal before the Court of First Instance it is held error
for the court a quo to dismiss the case, for said court could
have tried the case on appeal. Id.
Dismissal for failure to prosecute.The dismissal of an
action for failure to prosecute rests upon the sound
discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on
appeal in the absence of abuse. The burden of showing
abuse of judicial discretion is upon appellant since every
presumption is in favor of the correctness of the courts
action. People vs. Cloribel, 11 SCRA 805.
Delay of three years and eleven months in trial of
criminal case properly considered in dismissal.By any
fair standard, the lapse of three years and eleven months
from the time a criminal case was filed up to the time it

was actually called for trial on the merits, can hardly be
ignored by a magistrate when he is called upon to rule on a
motion to dismiss grounded on defendants constitutional
right to a speedy trial. Id. (See also Speedy Trial, infra.)
The provisional dismissal of an adultery case due to the
failure of the prosecution to arrest the accused wife is not
proper where both the prosecution and the accused man
were then ready for trial even in the absence of his co
accused.People vs. Oplado, 12 SCRA 147.
Waiver by agreement to have trial postponed.Even if
the dismissal in open court of a criminal case was, and had
the effect of a final and definite dismissal of the case,
notwithstanding the qualification made by the trial court
that the dismissal was provisional, and that the accused
could correctly raise the defense of double jeopardy
279
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
279
People vs. Flores
against the reconsideration of the dismissal, still, by the

agreement of the accused to have the trial postponed and
their appearance at the subsequently hearing and their
manifestation therein that they were ready for trial,
instead of taking steps to enjoin or prohibit further
proceedings in the case has shown that the accused
abandoned or waived their defense of double jeopardy in
that instance. People vs. Quimsing, 12 SCRA 556.
Prosecution may appeal from order of inferior court
quashing the complaint.The prosecution may appeal from
the order of the inferior court, dismissing a complaint for
illegal cockfighting, upon defendants motion to quash, filed
before arraignment. Such an appeal is sanctioned by
section 2, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court. It does
not place the accused in double jeopardy. The dismissal
order does not involve the guilt or innocence of the accused.
People vs. Ayoso, 19 SCRA 820.
Capricious dismissal of criminal case on the first date it
was set for trial.A trial court, which sua sponte dismissed
a criminal case because the prosecution was not ready for
trial, acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to
excess of jurisdiction, it appearing that that was the first
postponement sought by the presecution and that the delay
in the case was attributable to the accused. People vs.

Gomez, 20 SCRA 293.
Void order of dismissal.A purely capricious dismissal
of an information deprives the State of a fair opportunity to
prosecute and convict. It denies the prosecution a day in
court. It is a dismissal without due process. It is void. It
cannot be the basis of double jeopardy. Id.
Dismissal vitiated by bias.Consideration of extraneous
matters, albeit in good faith, in rendering an order of
dismissal, affects the order with partiality and bias,
making it void due to the absence of the requisite of due
process in a criminal case, i.e., an impartial judge, not
moved by prejudice or bias. Id.
Prosecution based on same act not allowed.In this
280
280

People vs. Flores
case, defendant was charged with slight physical injuries in

connection with an accident in which an automobile driven
by him hit another car driven by an employee of appellant
but he was acquitted subsequently he was charged with
damage to property thru reckless imprudence arising out of
the same accident. Held: Defendant should not be harassed
with various prosecutions based on the same act by
splitting the same into various charges the trial court
correctly dismissed the latter charge. People vs. Lizardo, 21
SCRA 1225.
Order of dismissal of a case which was not ready for trial
and adjudication is void.Upon the facts disclosed by the
record, we hold that the order of dismissal of the criminal
case void. At the time it was issued the casestrictly
speakingwas not ready for trial and adjudication. The
trial having been postponed expressly until further
assignment, it was the duty of the trial court, before it
could validly issue the order of dismissal complained of, to
fix a date for the trial of the case, with previous served
upon the parties. People vs. Pamittan, 30 SCRA 99.
Remedy of offended party.The dismissal of the
criminal case by the court upon motion of the Fiscal after
conducting reinvestigation does not deprive the aggrieved
party of the right to seek relief against the defendant in an
appropriate civil action. People vs. Jamisola, 30 SCRA 555.
10. Plea of Guilty Arraignment

Effect of plea of guilty.A plea of guilty is an admission of
all the material facts alleged in the information (U.S.
Burlado, 42 Phil. 72 People vs. Acosta, 51 O.G., 19301933,
March 23, 1956). A plea of guilty when formally entered on
arraignment is sufficient to sustain conviction of the
offense charged without the introduction of further
evidence, upon the theory that the defendant himself has
supplied the necessary proof by his
281
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
281
People vs. Flores
plea of guilty (U.S. vs. Jawad, 37 Phil. 305). People vs.

Salazar, 105 Phil. 1058.
Same.Where the accused enters a plea of guilty, he
thereby admits, not only his guilt, but also all the material
facts alleged in the informationin the present case, that
he wilfully, feloniously, and with grave abuse of
confidence, misappropriate, misapply, embezzle, and
convert to his personal use and benefit, the missing funds.
People vs. Salazar, 106 Phil. 221.
Court may take evidence to determine together accused
understood meaning of his idea.While there is no law
requiring it, in every case where the accused enters a plea
of guilty to a capital offense, especially where he is an
ignorant person with little or no education, the proper and
prudent course to follow is to take such evidence as are
available and necessary in support of the material
allegations of the information, including the aggravating
circumstances therein enumerated, not only to satisfy the
trial judge himself but also to aid the Supreme Court in
determining whether the accused really and truly
understood and comprehend the meaning, full significance
and consequences of his plea. People vs. Bulalake, 106 Phil.
767.
Three requirements on plea of guilty.Article 13,
paragraph 7, of the Revised Penal Code, requires that the
plea of guilty, to be entertained, be made (1) in open court
(2) spontaneously and (3) prior to the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution (People vs. De la Pea, 66 Phil.

451 People vs. Co Chang, 60 Phil. 293 People vs. Dela
Cruz, 63 Phil. 874). Since in the case at bar appellant
committed the felonious act on March 22, 1956, and when
arraigned on May 14, 1956, he pleaded not guilty and it
was only on August 11, 1957, or about 1 year, 3 months and
7 days after that he felt contrite and rependant by
changing his former plea of not guilty to that of guilty, his
plea of guilty was obviously not spontaneous, and was
apparently done not because of his sincere desire to repent
but because of his fear of even
282
282

People vs. Flores
tual conviction. If it was his desire to repent and reform, he

could have pleaded guilty at the very first opportunity
when his arraignment was first set. People vs. Quesada y
Bernal,107 Phil. 1068.
A plea of guilty entered on arraignment is sufficient to
sustain conviction.A plea of guilty when formally entered
on arraignment, is sufficient to sustain conviction even for
a capital offense without the introduction of further
evidence. Such a plea admits all the material allegations of
the information, including the attendant circumstances
qualifying and/or aggravating the crime. People vs. Perete,
1 SCRA 1200.
While it may be the better practice receive additional
evidence as would sustain the conviction independently of
the plea of guilty, this depends on the sound discretion of
the trial court.Id.
Where the accused was assisted by counsel at the
arraignment, the presumption is that said counsel regularly
and faithfully discharged his official functions, which
included the duty of advising the accused as to the meaning
of his plea of guilt.Id.
If an accused is assisted by a counsel, the court is no
longer duty bound to warn him of the seriousness and
consequence of his plea.People vs. Abejero, 1 SCRA 804.
When change of plea of guilty to not guilty was not
allowed.Where, at the second stage of the preliminary
investigation, the justice of the peace apprised the
appellant, that, if he could not afford to engage the services
of one counsel, the Court would appoint counsel de oficio for

him and warned him that his plea of guilty could be taken
against him at the trial of the case, but, notwithstanding
such warning, he insisted on entering a plea of guilty, the
defendants motion to set aside the judgment and to be
allowed to change the plea of guilty to not guilty be denied,
especially considering that in his
283
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
283
People vs. Flores
statements sworn to before the justice of the peace, he

recounted how he had committed the crime. Id.
An accused cannot profess ignorance upon plea of guilty.
An accused cannot profess ignorance of the import of his
act when he entered a plea of guilt upon arraignment
before the Court of First Instance if he was assisted by
counsel. Being a third year high school student, he cannot
pretend ignorance of the consequences flowing from his
plea of guilty. Id.
When taking evidence is discretionary on plea of guilty to
capital offense.Where the accused was assisted by
counsel de oficio, when he pleaded guilty to a capital
offense, and there is no evidence that the counsel failed in
his duty to advise the accused on what to do, and the
accused and his counsel never complained to the court,
after the arraignment, that the plea of guilty was not fully
understood, and the judgment was promulgated two and a
half months after the arraignment, no other conclusion can
follow than that the appellants plea of guilty was made
with knowledge of its significance. It lies in the sound
discretion of the trial court whether it will take evidence or
not in any case wherein he is satisfied that a plea of guilty
has been entered by the accused with full knowledge of the
meaning and consequences of his act. People vs. Yamson, 1
SCRA 808.
Accused deemed to have understood meaning of his plea
if advised by counsel of probable consequence.The
contention that the court should have taken such evidence
as was available to assure itself that the defendants had
understood fully and completely the precise nature of the
charge against them and the consequence of their plea of
guilty, is untenable where it is shown that defendants
pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, although their

counsel de oficio had advised them, beforehand, that the
maximum penalty for that crime would, as a consequence,
be imposed upon them. People vs. Paralta, 3 SCRA 213.
When a minor pleaded guilty, he may be convicted
without the need of positive proof having acted with dis
284
284

People vs. Flores
cernment.When a minor between nine and fifteen years

of age pleads guilty to an information alleging that the
accused with intent to kill, did then and there willfully,
criminally and feloniously attack his victim, he may be
convicted without the need of positive proof, of his having
acted with discernment. People vs. Surida, 3 SCRA 337.
Change of plea of guilty with that of not guilty lies at
courts discretion.A matter which involves the
substitution of a plea of guilty for that of not guilty is one
that is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court
and unless there is clear showing that such discretion has
been abused, the Supreme Court is not justified in
interferring with the ruling of the trial court. People vs.
Escare, 3 SCRA 305 Paredes vs. Borja, 3 SCRA 495.
Before a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty
becomes final the court may, in its discretion, set aside such
judgment and allow a plea of not guilty to be entered by the
defendant.Paredes vs. Borja, 3 SCRA 495.
Discretion of court in allowing or not submission of
evidence of mitigating circumstances, after a plea of guilty,
not absolute.While discretion is lodged with the trial
court to permit or not submission of evidence of mitigating
circumstances, after a plea of guilty has been entered, such
discretion must be exercised in accordance with the facts
and circumstances of the case and should not be used to
prevent the disclosure of circumstances that would
mitigate in any manner the responsibility of the accused
who has pleaded guilty. Where, as in the case at bar, some
of the mitigating circumstances composing that of
incomplete selfdefense attended the commission of the
crime, the aims of justice would not be subserved by the
denial of a motion to submit evidence of said mitigating
circumstances. If the discretion of the judge in such
matters were made absolute, no accused would be induced

to enter a plea of guilty and thereby abbreviate in a way
the proceedings and especially the trial of the case. If the
facts and circumstances justify the claim of the mitigating
circumstance of incomplete selfdefense, the accused should
285
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
285
People vs. Flores
be allowed to submit evidence thereof. The rules of

procedure were not designed to curtail the disclosure of the
real facts, especially of mitigating circumstances, but with
the end in view that the criminal law may be applied with
justice and fairness both to the prosecution and to the
accused. People vs. Arconado, 4 SCRA 559.
A plea of guilty is an admission of the aggravating
circumstances alleged in the information.People vs.
Tenorio, 4 SCRA 700.
The fact that the defendant who had pleaded not guilty
substituted his plead with one of guilty because a
prosecution witness sworn by the Koran that the testimony
he had previously given under the usual oath was true, is of
no consequence and does not affect the regularity of his final
plea.People vs. Manibpel, 6 SCRA 936.
A plea of guilty entered after several prosecution
witnesses had completed their testimony, cannot be
considered as a mitigating circumstance.Id.
Where appellants deemed to have understood meaning of
plea of guilty and its consequences.The contention of the
appellants that the trial court erred in finding them guilty
notwithstanding the fact that there is no evidence to show
that they understood their plea of guilty and its
consequences is disproves by the record. One of the
appellants pleaded before a justice of the peace upon
arraignment. When arraigned before the Court of First
Instance, he pleaded not guilty, but at the continuation of
the trial withdrew his former plea of not guilty. Arraigned
anew upon the information he pleaded guilty despite
admonition of the court of the consequences of pleading
guilty. The other appellants were similarly situated as
borne by the records. The trial court did not err, therefore,
in claiming that when they pleaded guilty they knew the
import of their plea. People vs. Sta. Maria,15 SCRA 222.
Plea of guilty to a lesser crime after trial had begun.

Appellant was charged with murder and frustrated
murder.
286
286

People vs. Flores
Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. After two

witnesses for the prosecution had testified, appellant
manifested his willingness to plead guilty to the lesser
offenses
of
homicide
and
frustrated
homicide.
Consequently, the fiscal, with leave of court, amended the
information accordingly, and upon new arraignment,
appellant entered a plea of guilty to the amended
information. Held: The amended information was an
entirely new information and no evidence had been
presented to prove the charges made therein when
appellant entered his plea of guilty. Therefore, he was
entitled to have the mitigating circumstance of plea of
guilty considered in his favor in connection with the
imposition of the corresponding penalty. People vs. Ortiz,15
SCRA 352.
Effect of plea of guilty on the accused who committed
robo con homecidio and not rebellion.When an accused
pleads guilty, he admits the truth of all the allegations in
the information. Where the crime charged in the
information is that of Robbery with Multiple Homicide
and there is no showing therein that the said crime was
committed in the furtherance of the rebellion movement,
the criminal liability of the accused must necessarily be for
the offense subject of the information. People vs. Corosel, 17
SCRA 509.
Duty of court to impose penalty fixed by law upon
accused who pleaded guilty.A plea of guilty is an
unconditional admission of guilt with respect to the offense
charged. It forecloses the right to defend oneself from said
charge and leaves the court with no alternative but to
impose the penalty fixed by law under the circumstances.
(People vs. Ng Pek, 81 Phil. 563). In the present case, the
defendant, who pleaded guilty, was only allowed to testify
in order to establish mitigating circumstances, for the
purpose of fixing the penalty. His testimony, therefore,
could not be taken as a trial on the merits, to determine the
guilt or innocence of the accused. People vs. Balisacan, 17

SCRA 1119.
Existence of plea is essential requisite in order that ac
287
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
287
People vs. Flores
cused may be in jeopardy.The existence of a plea is an

essential requisite to double jeopardy (People vs. Ylagan, 58
Phil. 851 People vs. Quimsing, L19860, December 23,
1964). Where the accused had first entered a plea of guilty
and subsequently he was allowed to testify in order to
prove mitigating circumstances and he said that he acted
in complete selfdefense, said testimony had the effect of
vacating his plea of guilty, and the court should have
required him to plea anew on the charge, or at least it
should have directed that a new plea of not guilty be
entered for him. This was not having been done, there was
no standing plea at the time the court rendered its
judgment of acquittal, and it follows that there can be no
double jeopardy with respect to the present appeal. People
vs. Balisacan, 17 SCRA 1119.
Plea of guilty is not mitigating if the same is entered
after the prosecution had begun presenting its evidence.
People vs. Halasan, 20 SCRA 701.
By plea of guilty, the defendant is deemed to have
admitted the material allegations of the information,
including any aggravating circumstance alleged therein.
Id.
Effect of unrecorded plea of guilty.Even assuming that
defendants plea of guilty, although made, was not entered
in the record, the failure to so enter the same does not
affect the validity of the proceeding held. People vs. Cortez,
21 SCRA 1228.
Effect of guilty in a hearing to establish mitigating
circumstances.Appellant contends that defendant, having
pleaded guilty, cannot be acquitted and that there was no
trial on the merits but only a hearing to establish
mitigating circumstances. Held: The court a quo caused a
plea of not guilty to be entered in place of the plea of guilty
considered withdrawn by exculpatory testimony of the
accused. And the trial judge reset the case for hearing on
the merits four days thereafter, giving the prosecution and
the defense sufficient opportunity to prepare for such trial

itself the prosecution and not the defense chose to adopt
testimonies adduced during the pre
288
288

People vs. Flores
vious hearing as their evidence on the merits, to save the

trouble of retaking them, does not mean there was no trial
on the merits. The prosecution and the defense simply
adopted the testimonies for the trial on the merits. Due
process of law was observed and both parties were given
full and adequate opportunity to prove their respective
cases. Accordingly, the case was duly submitted for
decision upon evidence on the merits after requisite trial
providing fair opportunity to the prosecution and the
defense to adduce evidence in chief and rebuttal evidence.
The decision of acquittal, therefore, can no longer be
reviewed herein, since the appeal is barred by the principle
of double jeopardy, the requisites, among others, of a plea
and due process, not to mention trial on the merits, being
attendant herein. People vs. Padernal, 21 SCRA 34.
All that an accused entitled to under the Rules is two
days after arraignment to prepare himself for trial.
Dumapig vs. Marave, 23 SCRA 658.
Plea of guilty presume admittance of charge.When an
accused pleaded guilty to the charge against him, it is
understood that he did so fully cognizant that he had
carefully read beforehand the charge against him, and
when he pleaded guilty thereto, he signified his admission
of all the material facts alleged therein including the
allegation of the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation. People vs. Roldan, 23 SCRA 907.
Duty of court to take evidence in capital cases where
accused enters plea of guilty.It is wellsettled that, in all
cases especially those involving capital offenses, the court
should be sure that the defendant fully understands the
nature of the charges preferred against him and the
character of the punishment to be imposed before
sentencing him. While there is no law requiring it, yet, in
every case under the plea of guilty, where the penalty may
be death, it is advisable for the court to call witnesses for
the purpose of establishing the guilt and the degree of
culpability of the defendant. People vs. Solacito, 29 SCRA

61.
When questions asked by the court are not sufficient
289
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
289
People vs. Flores
to inform accused of the meaning of his plea.Judges are

duty bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when
an accused pleads guilty he understands fully the meaning
of his plea and the import of an inevitable conviction.
Where the judge merely asked the accused whether he
understands the meaning of a plea of guilty and whether
he is admitting all the material averments in the
information and the accused answered in the affirmative,
the foregoing does not sufficiently show that the defendant
was well aware of the import of his plea and fully realized
the consequences thereof. The questions were, apparently,
formulated in such a technical language that a layman is
likely to miss the farreaching implications thereof. There
is every reason to believe that the accused, who claims to
be an iceplant delivery boy is not capable of
understanding the precise connotation of the term
material averments of the information, used by the judge,
without any explanation thereof. Under the circumstances,
there is no reasonable certainty that, in pleading guilty to
the charge against him, the defendant did not intend to
admit merely that he had killed the offended party, over
looking the qualifying and aggravating circumstances
alleged in the information or, at least, without a fair
motion of the implications thereof. People vs. Solacito, 29
SCRA 61.
Plea of guilty must be unconditional admission of guilt.
A plea of guilty, in order to justify the imposition of the
penalty corresponding to the offense charged, must be an
unconstitutional admission of guilt with respect thereof it
must be of such nature as to foreclose defendants right to
defend himself from said charge, thus leaving to the court
no alternative but to impose the penalty fixed by law.
People vs. Serafica, 29 SCRA 123.
Effect of circumstances disclosing possibility of insanity
of accused at time of commission of crime.Where the
record discloses some circumstances pointing to the
possibility that the defendant was not in full possession of

his mental faculties when he attacked the deceased,
apparently without rhyme nor reason at all, the court
should
290
290

People vs. Flores
order that the defendant be subjected to the necessary

mental examination to determine his degree of sanity at
the time he committed the acts charged, instead of
pronouncing judgment after the entry of the plea of guilty
by the accused. Id.
Failure of the offended party to make a reservation of
right to institute a separate civil action based on quasidelict
in the criminal case against the accused does not bar the
institution of a separate civil action after judgment is
rendered against the accused in the criminal case.
Formento vs. Court of Appeals, 29 SCRA 437.
Where accused held to be mentally sane to enter his plea.
Where accused suffering from schizophrenic reaction
could understand the meaning of every inquiry made and
properly appreciate proceedings taken against him, he is
legally sane to enter his plea at his arraignment. People vs.
Marquez, 30 SCRA 442.
It is a wellestablished rule that plea of guilty imports an
admission of the presence of the aggravating circumstances
alleged in the information.People vs. Tilos, 30 SCRA 735.
Constitutes waiver of objections before plea was entered,
including objection that court had no jurisdiction over
person of accused.If a person does move to quash a
complaint or information until after he has pleaded there
to, he is deemed to have waived all objections then
available which are grounds of a motion to quash except
when the complaint or information does not charge an
offense or the court is without jurisdiction of the same. One
of the grounds that must be deemed waived if defendant
does not move to quash the complaint or information before
pleading thereto is that the court trying the cause has no
jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. Palanca vs.
Querubin, 30 SCRA 738 People vs. Cayosa, 30 SCRA 806.
Effect of plea of guilty.A plea of guilty is an
unqualified admission of the facts alleged in the criminal
291
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
291
People vs. Flores
complaint, except as to the amount of damages that may be

alleged therein, and can thus be the basis of a judgment
without the need of evidence to prove them. Longao vs.
Fakat, 30 SCRA 866.
11. Time to Prepare for Trial
The rule giving the accused two days to prepare for trial
does not apply to a case where the defendant enters a plea of
guilty, which dispenses with the necessity of trial.Alberca
vs. Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for
Women, 10 SCRA 113.
12. Double Jeopardy
Amended information changing ground of responsibility is
not admissible.The accused was charged with the crime
of estafa based on an information which alleged that the
accused obtained a sum of money from the complainant,
giving as security for its payment the improvements and
products of his property, and that the accused later on,
while the loan was still unpaid, transferred by way of
mortgage to the R.F.C. not only the improvements and
products of his property, but also the title of said property.
The accused pleaded not guilty and the trial commenced,
but the same was suspended because the accused moved to
dismiss the information on the ground that the facts
alleged therein do not constitute a crime. The motion was
granted. The Provincial Fiscal presented a motion to admit
an amended information where it is alleged that the
accused gave as security for the payment of his loan not
only the improvements and the products but also the land,
title to which the accused mortgaged to the R.F.C. while his
indebtedness to the offended party was still unpaid and
unsatisfied. Query: Should the amended information be
admitted? Held: No. The latter information changes the
facts or the ground of responsibility for which the accused
is indicted. If the amended information were to be
admitted, the accused would be deprived of his defense of
double jeopardy, because by the amended information

292
292

People vs. Flores
he is sought to be made responsible for the same act of

borrowing on a mortgage for which he had already begun to
be tried and acquitted by the dismissal of the original
information. The law, Section 13 of Rule 106 of the Rules of
Court, permits amendment only when amendment can be
done without prejudice to the rights of the defendant.
People vs. Labatete, 107 Phil. 6997.
Failure of accused to file brief and raise question on
appeal.The failure of the accused to file a brief and raise
question of double jeopardy on appeal does not mean that
section 2, Rule 118, Rules of Court, providing that the
people cannot appeal if the defendant would be placed in
double jeopardy, would no longer apply. People vs. Bao, 106
Phil. 243.
Provision in the Rules of Court for appeals in criminal
cases was adopted as a procedural measure for the purpose,
not of affecting substantive rights, but of enforcing the
constitutional immunity from double jeopardy, a personal
privilege which the accused may waive.People vs.
Casiano, 1 SCRA 478.
Provision for appeals in criminal cases does not affect
appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court.The provision in
the Rules of Court, that the prosecution cannot appeal if
the defendant would be placed thereby in double jeopardy,
does not impair the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court, since the Rules of Court cannot modify the
constitutional and legal provisions regarding jurisdiction
nor increase, diminish or modify substantive rights. The
prosecution may appeal to the Supreme Court in cases
involving pure questions of law. This is the rule in election
cases. Id.
Prosecution may appeal where accused not thereby
placed in jeopardy.Where the record does not show that
the accused have as yet entered a plea to a refiled
information the prosecution may appeal the ruling of the
court inasmuch as the accused is not thereby placed in
double jeopardy. People vs. Quimsing, 12 SCRA 556.
293
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
293
People vs. Flores
When defense of double jeopardy cannot be invoked.

Appellant, in a previous case, had been convicted of
rebellion coupled with multiple, arson and robbery, for
which he was sentenced to death. The murder subject of
the present case is not one of those included therein.
Appellant, therefore, is not entitled to invoke the defense of
double jeopardy. People vs. Taruc, 16 SCRA 834.
Rehearing not amounting to double jeopardy.A retrial
of a criminal case, wherein a void judgment was
promulgated, does not place the accused in double
jeopardy. Said retrial is like the reconstitution of lost
evidence (People vs. Dagatan, 90 Phil. 294). Ong Siu vs.
Paredes, 17 SCRA 661.
When double jeopardy is a defense.Under Section 9,
Rule 113 (now Section 9, Rule 117) of the Rules of Court,
the defense of double jeopardy is available to the accused
only where he was either convicted or acquitted or the case
against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his consent. (People vs. Dagatan, 90 Phil. 294, 296
People vs. Cosare, 95 Phil. 656, 661). It is the conviction,
acquittal of the accused or dismissal or termination of the
case that bars further prosecution for the same offense or
any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or
for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in the offense charged in the former complaint or
information. In the case at bar, the accused has not been
convicted or acquitted in another case filed against him.
Neither has that case been dismissed or terminated
without his consent for it is still pending. Hence, the
defense of double jeopardy is not available to him. Bulaong
vs. People, 17 SCRA 746.
Rule on double jeopardy is applicable even if accused
fails to file brief or raise question of double jeopardy.The
provision of Section 2, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court,
which prohibits appeal by the government if the defendant
would be placed thereby, in double jeopardy, applies even if
the accused fails: to file a brief and to raise the
294
294

People vs. Flores
question of double jeopardy (People vs. Ferrer, 100 Phil.

124 People vs. Bao, L12102, September 29, 1959 People
vs. Golez, L14160, June 30, 1960). People vs. Balisacan, 17
SCRA 1119.
Existence of plea is essential requisite in order that
accused may be in jeopardy.The existence of plea is an
essential requisite to double jeopardy (People vs. Ylagan,
58 Phil. 851 People vs. Quimsing, 12 SCRA 556). Where
the accused had first entered a plea of guilty and
subsequently he was allowed to testify in order to prove
mitigating circumstances and he said that he acted in
complete selfdefense, said testimony had the effect of
vacating his plan of guilty, and the court should have
required him to plea anew on the charge, or at least it
should have directed that a new plea of not guilty be
entered for him. This not having been done, there was no
standing plea at the time the court rendered its judgment
of acquittal, and it follows that there can be no double
jeopardy with respect to the present appeal. Id.
Certiorari proceeding to set aside order of dismissal does
not place accused in double jeopardy.Where a criminal
case was dismissed because the prosecution was not ready
to try the case, the certiorari proceeding instituted by the
prosecutor to set aside said order on the ground that it was
invalid (not because it was erroneous) does not place the
accused in double jeopardy. It was not an appeal. People vs.
Gomez, 20 SCRA 293.
Requirement of former conviction is absent where
conviction has not become final.The requirement of
former conviction in double jeopardy is absent where
accused appeals. By appealing, he prevented the judgment
of conviction from becoming final, with the result that as
the case now stands, there is no judgment of conviction at
all to speak of, and, therefore, the appellee has not been
placed in double jeopardy. People vs. Garcia Sy, 30 SCRA
150.
Where accused is deemed estopped from interposing the
defense of double jeopardy.The doctrine of estoppel is
295
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
295
People vs. Flores
in quintessence the same as the doctrine of waiver: the the

thrust of both is that a dismissal, other than on the merits,
sought by the accused is a motion to dismiss, is deemed to
be with his express consent and bars him from
subsequently interposing the defense of double jeopardy on
appeal or in a new prosecution for the same offense. People
vs. Garda Sy, 30 SCRA 150.
A Double Jeopardy in Criminal Negligence
Double jeopardy in case of criminal negligence.Where the
following essential elements (1) date and place of the
vehicular collision (2) appellees reckless imprudence in
driving his bus (3) appellees having caused the bus, by his
reckless imprudence, to hit the jeepney Floralicia are
found in two separate informations (one for physical
injuries through reckless imprudence the other for damage
to property through reckless imprudence), then the offenses
charged, which arose out of the same vehicular accident,
are not really distinct from each other so that an acquittal
in one bars the prosecution for the other. (People vs.
Narvas, L14191, April 27, 1960 Cf. People vs. Estipona,
70 Phil. 513). People vs. Macabuhay, 16 SCRA 239.
Nature of criminal negligence.Negligence is a
quasioffense. What is punished is not the effect of the
negligence but the recklessness of the accused (Quizon vs.
Justice of the Peace of Bacolor, 97 Phil. 342). People vs.
Cano, 17 SCRA 237.
13. Speedy Trial
Violation of defendants right to speedy trial.Where a
criminal case has been pending for several years because
the trial of the same has been postponed time and again on
petition of the prosecution and despite the vigorous
objections of the defense, the opposition being predicated
on the right of the defendant to a speedy trial guaranteed
by the Constitution, the dismissal of the same is
tantamount to acquittal that would bar further prosecution
of the ac
296
296

People vs. Flores
cused for the same offense. People vs. Robles, 105 Phil.
1016.
The accused cannot complain that he was deprived of his
right to a speedy trial where the delay in the trial was due
to his motions for postponement.Medina vs. Orozco, 18
SCRA 1169.
14. SelfDefense
Discretion of court in allowing or not submission of evidence
of mitigating circumstances, after a plea of guilty, not
absolute.While discretion is lodged with the trial court to
permit or not submission of evidence of mitigating
circumstances, after a plea of guilty has been entered, such
discretion must be exercised in accordance with the facts
and circumstances of the case and should not be used to
prevent the disclosure of circumstances that would
mitigate in any manner the responsibility of the accused
who has pleaded guilty. Where, as in the case at bar, some
of the mitigating circumstances composing that of
incomplete selfdefense attended the commission of the
crime, the aims of justice would not be subserved by the
denial of a motion to submit evidence of said mitigating
circumstances. If the discretion of the judge in such
matters were made absolute, no accused would be induced
to enter a plea of guilty and thereby abbreviate in a way
the proceedings and especially the trial of the case. If the
facts and circumstances justify the claim of the mitigating
circumstances of incomplete selfdefense, the accused
should be allowed to submit evidence thereof. The rules of
procedure were not designed to curtail the disclosure of the
real facts, especially of mitigating circumstances, but with
the end in view that the criminal law may be applied with
justice and fairness both to the prosecution and to the
accused. People vs. Arconado, 4 SCRA 559.
Claim of the mitigating circumstance if incomplete self
defense.Claim of the mitigating circumstance of
incomplete selfdefense, the accused should be allowed to
297
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
297
People vs. Flores
submit evidence thereof. The rules of procedure were not

designed to curtail the disclosure of the real facts,
especially of mitigating circumstances, but with the end in
view that the criminal law may be applied with justice and
fairness both to the prosecution and to the accused. Id.
Procedure in case accused asserts selfdefense.In view
of the assertion of selfdefense in the testimony of the
accused, the court should have taken anew defendants plea
and then proceeded with the trial of the case, in the order
set forth in Section 3 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. In
deciding the case upon the merits without the requisite
trial, the court not only erred in procedure but also
deprived the prosecution of its day in court and right to be
heard. People vs. Balisacan, 17 SCRA 1119.
15. Right to Counsel
Duty of counsel to inform accused of real import of the
charge.When an accused is arraigned in connection with
a criminal charge, the only duty of the court is to inform
him of its nature and cause so that he may be able to
comprehend it, as well as the circumstances attendant
thereto. When the charge is of a serious nature it becomes
the imperative duty of his counsel, not only to assist him
during the reading of the information, but also to explain to
him the real import of the charge so that he may fully
realize the gravity and consequences of his plea. It is not
the duty of the court to appraise him of the nature of the
penalty to be meted out to him, if he would plead guilty to
the charge. Its duty is limited to have him informed of the
nature and cause thereof. People vs. Ama, 1 SCRA 1235.
The presumption is that official duty has been regularly
performed, and that the accused was duly informed, of her
right to secure the services of counsel. This presumption
stands where there is nothing in the record to rebut it.
Alberca vs. Superintendent of the Correctional
Institutions for Women, 10 SCRA 113.
298
298
People vs. Flores
16. Bondsman
Duty of bondsman when a case is set for trial.Under
Section 15 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court when a case is
set for trial the duty of the bondsman is to see to it that the
accused appears on the date of trial. If he fails to do so he
should be given 30 days within which to produce the
accused and to show cause why judgment should not be
rendered against him for the amount of the bond and
within said period the bondsman is required to do two
things: (1) to produce the body of the accused or give
reasons for his nonproduction and (2) to explain
satisfactorily, why the accused failed to appear when first
required to do so. Failure to do either may subject the
bondsman to liability. People vs. Sy Beng Guat, 105 Phil.
574.
Detention pending appeal not changed into service of
judgment by mere receipt of decision of appellate court.
The accused in case at bar was convicted by the Court of
First Instance. He appealed to the Court of Appeals, and in
the meantime he was detained in jail. The Court of Appeals
found him guilty and its judgment was forwarded to the
lower court for execution. The accused filed a motion
praying that the promulgation of the sentence be
postponed. The court recalled the commitment order it had
previously issued and fixed the bond for the provisional
release of the accused. The bond was accordingly posted.
After another postponement of the reading of the sentence,
the judge entered an order for the immedate arrest of the
accused. An alias warrant for the arrest of the accused was
issued to the bondsman upon its request, but after a
specified number of days had elapsed without the
bondsman producing the body of the accused, the judge
entered an order asking the bondsman to show cause why
the bond should not be forfeited. Judgment was entered
against the bond. The bondsman contends that the accused
was already committed in jail and in virtue of the execution
of the judgment of the Court of
299
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
299
People vs. Flores
Appeals, hence, the bond should not be confiscated. Held:

The accused could not be considered as committed or placed
in jail by virtue of the decision of the Court of Appeals,
although he was already in jail when that judgment was
received. The fact that his custody as a mere appellant
pending appeal continued, and the receipt of the decisions
of the Court of Appeals, did not change the detention of the
accused into service of the judgment. The reading of the
sentence was still a necessary step previous to the actual
commitment of the accused. People vs. Enriquez, 107 Phil.
201.
Bondsman estopped from assailing release of prisoner.
The bonds undertook by its bond to guarantee the return or
the delivery of the person of the accused in execution of the
judgment. The bond filed by it rests on the assumption that
the accused was merely to be released before judgment is
read to him in order to give him opportunity to settle his
personal affairs. By filing said bond the bondsman is now
estopped from attacking the release of the accused as
invalid. The bondsman can not go back and assail the
validity of the bond which it had furnished for a premium,
on the ground that the release of the prisoner was
unauthorized under the law. Id.
What constitute immediate payment.The bondsman in
case at bar was allowed to pay immediately only 5% of the
bond it had posted, because it allegedly became the victim
of deceit and trickery. However, although the check for the
required amount was immediately paid, it could not be
converted into cash until more than a month thereafter,
because the check was not honored. Hence, it can not be
considered as an immediate payment, and the court was
within its legal rights when it ordered the confiscation of
the bond. The present case differs from that of People vs.
Hernandez, et al., L13291, August 27, 1959, wherein it
was held that immediate payment does not necessarily
requite payment on the same day, but payment within
reasonable time or without intentional delay which
300
300

People vs. Flores
may include two days or seven days according to

circumstances. People vs. Enriquez, 107 Phil. 201.
To cancel bond and discharge surety, accused must be
surrendered before default.Under Section 16(a) of Rule
110 (Section 16[a], Rule 114, of the Revised Rules of Court),
it is not ministerial for the court to cancel the bail bond and
discharge the sureties if the latter so request upon
surrender of the accused. The provision contemplates a
surrender by the bondsman before any order of confiscation
is issued. People vs. Familiar, 17 SCRA 466.
Extent of courts liberality toward bondsmen.The
liberality of courts toward bondsmen can not go to the
extent of totally exonerating a bondsman who fails to
produce the accused when required, thereby causing a
delay in the trial and disposition of the criminal case.
Otherwise, a defaulting bondsman would be placed on the
same level as a nondefaulting one. Where the bondsman
surrendered the accused within the thirtyday period fixed
in the order confiscating the bond, a reduction of the
suretys liability to onesixth of the original amount was
sustained. Id.
A bondsman is duty bound to keep a careful track of the
movements of the accused.Under Section 15 of Rule 114,
when the appearance of a defendant is required by the
Court, his surety shall be notified to produce him before the
court on a given date, if the defendant fails to appear as
required, the bond is declared forfeited and the bondsman
is given 30 days within which to produce the defendant and
to show cause why judgment should not be rendered
against him for the amount of the bond. Within the said
period of 30 days, the bondsman (a) must produce the body
of the defendant or give the reasons for his nonproduction,
and (b) must explain satisfactorily why the defendant did
not appear before the court when first required to do so.
Bearing in mind that in bail matters the surety is
considered as the jailer of the principal, it clearly devolves
upon the bondsman to keep careful track of his movements.
People vs. Cabanero, 22 SCRA 52.
301
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
301
People vs. Flores
Mere fact that the accused was in government custody does
not relieve bondsman of his obligation.Even assuming

that in the present case the accused was all along in the
custody of the government, the fact remains that the
bondsman committed a breach of his obligation when he
was first required. People vs. Cabanero, 22 SCRA 52.
17. Appeal
Effect of new information in appealing from Justice of the
Peace Court to Court of First Instance.In an appeal in a
criminal case from the Justice of the Peace Court to the
Court of First Instance, the prosecution may choose either
to stand on the information in the former court, or to file a
new information in the latter court, but if it chooses to file
a new information it cannot change the nature of the
offense charged in the information filed with the former
court, for if the prosecution files a new case unrelated to
the appeal the latter court could not act on the strength of
its appellate jurisdiction. It could only proceed to act if it
has the approval or consent of both the prosecution and the
accused. People vs. Villarin, 11 SCRA 550.
Acquittal by inferior court bars retrial of criminal case
when civil aspect thereof is appealed to Court of First
Instance.J.A. was charged in the justice of the peace
court of Camiling, Tarlac with the crime of theft. After trial
he was acquitted of the change, but he appealed to the
Court of First Instance of Tarlac only as regards the civil
aspect of the case, which was deemed jointly and
simultaneously tried with the criminal aspect. The later
court, relying on Section 8, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court,
ordered the retrial of the criminal case. J.A. filed the
present petition for certiorari. Held: In this jurisdiction, a
judgment of acquittal is such a final verdict that once
rendered and promulgated it takes effect immediately. To
hold that respondent Judge may retry the criminal aspect
of the case, would defeat the very essence and purpose of a
judgment of acquittal. It would, in effect, place the
302
302

People vs. Flores
accused in jeopardy of being convicted again for an offense
of which he was already absolved. Arenajo vs. Lustre, 17

SCRA 601.
When provisions on trial de novo in criminal cases are
applicable.The provisions in Section 9, Rule 40 and
Section 7, Rule 123 of the Revised Rules of Court, to the
effect that an appeal to the Court of First Instance from the
justice of the peace (or municipal) court will result in trial
de novo of the appealed case, should not be literally
interpreted as authorizing or allowing the retrial of a
criminal case after the accused has already been acquitted
therefrom in the inferior court. These provisions on trial de
novo are applicable with respect to criminal cases only if
and when the appealed judgment in the inferior is one for
conviction. Id.
Authority to assess damages or indemnity vested in trial
courts only in the first instance.An appeal in a criminal
case opens the whole case for review and this includes the
review of the penalty, indemnity, and the damages
involved. Although the authority to assess damages or
indemnity in criminal cases is vested in trial courts, it is so
only in the first instance. On appeal, such authority, passes
to the appellate court. Consequently, on appeal, the
appellate court may increase the penalty, indemnity, or the
damages awarded by the trial court, although the offended
party had not appealed from said award, and the only
party who sought a review of the decision was the accused.
Quemuel vs. Court of Appeals, 22 SCRA 45.
Right of accused to be heard or present evidence.In the
case at bar, the accused, instead of invoking the right to
submit evidence, waived said right and submitted the case
without proof in their behalf. Not only this: they made no
move for reconsideration nor prayed for an opportunity to
submit evidence before or after the sentence was
promulgated. They raised the alleged violation of their
right to be heard for the first time on appeal. To grant that
plea, reopen the case, and send it back for
303
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
303
People vs. Flores
trial anew would be to sanction the plainly dilatory tactics

adopted to harass and tire out the complainant. We refuse
to be a party to such a reprehensible trifling with the
orderly administration of justice. A complainant is as much

entitled to speedy justice as the accused themselves. People
vs. Mendez, 28 SCRA 881.
Form of appeals where only question of law is sought to
be reviewed.The contention that under Section 17 of the
Judiciary Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 5440
which took effect on September 9, 1968, the remedy of
appeal does not lie from the trial courts order of dismissal
since only a question of law is sought to be reviewed, the
proper remedy being a petition for review on certiorari, is
untenable. In cases similarly situated, and as long as the
steps formerly required for the perfection of an appeal were
taken in due time, the Supreme Court has adopted the
policy of the appellant to file the necessary petition for
review by certiorariwhich is also a form of appeal. People
vs. Resuello, 29 SCRA 35.
Appeal from judgment of conviction of municipal court to
Court of First Instance.The rule in this jurisdiction is
that upon appeal by the defendant from a judgment of
conviction by the municipal court, the appealed decision is
vacated and the appealed case shall be tried in all respects
anew in the court of first instance as if it had been
originally instituted in that court. (Rule 123, Section 7,
Rules of Court.) In the appellate court the case may
proceed upon the complaint filed below or upon an
information filed with said court by the Provincial Fiscal
charging exactly the same offense, the appellate
proceedings calling thereafter for the arraignment of the
defendant. People vs. Jamisola, 30 SCRA 555.
18. Judgment
Trial and judgment are two different stages of a judicial
proceeding.Trial and judgment are two different stages of
a judicial proceeding: The former is provided for in Rule
115, and the latter is covered by Rule 116, of
304
304

People vs. Flores
the Rules of Court (Talabon vs. Iloilo Provincial Warden, 78

Phil. 600). The period of the trial terminates when the
judgment begins (Felismino vs. Gloria, 47 Phil. 697). Acosta

vs. People, 5 SCRA 774.
Evasion of service or sentence is considered as one of the
crimes which are persistent and continuing.Rule 110,
section 14 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that in all
criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of the municipality or province where the
offense was committed or any of the essential ingredients
thereof took place. In transitory or continuing offenses
some acts material and essential to the crime occur, in one
province and some in another, in which case, the rule is
settled that the court of either province where any of the
essential ingredients of the crime took place has
jurisdiction to try the case. There are, however, crimes
which although all the elements thereof for its
consummation may have occurred in a single place, yet by
reason of the very nature of the offense committed, the
violation of the law is deemed to be continuing. Of the first
class, the crime of estafa or malversation, and abduction,
may be mentioned and as belonging to the second class are
the crimes of kidnapping and illegal detention where the
deprivation of liberty is persistent and continuing from one
place to another and libel where the libelous matter is
published or circulated from one province to another. To
this latter class also be included the crime of evasion of
service of sentence, when the prisoner in his attempt to
evade the service of sentence imposed upon him by the
courts and thus defeat the purpose of the law, moves from
one place to another for in this case, the act of the escaped
prisoner is a continuous or series of acts set afoot by a
single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force,
however long it may be. It may not be validly said that
after the convict shall have escaped from the place of his
confinement the crime is fully consummated, for as long as
he continues to evade the service of his sentence he is
deemed to continue
305
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
305
People vs. Flores
committing the crime, and may be arrested without

warrant, at any place where he may be found. Parulan vs.
Director of Prisons, 22 SCRA 638.
A defendant must be personally present during the

promulgation of judgment if the conviction is for grave or
less grave offense.Under section 6, Rule 116, of the old
Rules of Court, the defendant must be personally present
during the promulgation of the judgment if the conviction
is for a grave or less grave offense. Such requirement is
mandatory. In case of a failure to comply therewith the
sentence will be reversed, without disturbing the verdict,
and the case remanded with instructions to the court below
to pronounce judgment in accordance with the provisions
on the statute (U.S. vs. Karelsen, 3 Phil. 223). People vs.
Mendez, 28 SCRA 881.
19. Acquittal
Order of acquittal becomes final immediately after
promulgation.An order of acquittal becomes final
immediately after promulgation and can no longer be
recalled for correction or reconsideration, with or without
good reason. Lagunilla vs. Reyes, 1 SCRA 1364.
20. Death of Party
Filing of complaint two months after shooting
understandable where victim died later.The filing of the
complaint for murder two months after the shooting is
understandable where the victim died one month after and
the medical and death certificates were secured in the
following months. People vs. Raquel, 12 SCRA 441.
Antemortem statement exculpating accused rejected
where it was not explained why it was not presented during
the trial.A supposed antemortem statement favorable to
the accused is without probative value more so, when it
was not explained why the same was not presented by the
acccused at the trial and there is no
306
306

People vs. Flores
showing under what circumstances said statement was

made and signed, and where there was evidence that
immediately after the victim received the shots he fell to
the ground, lifeless and speechless. People vs. Evaristo, 13

SCRA 172.
21. Witnesses
The discharge of a codefendant under Section 9, Rule 115
of the Rules of Court is a matter that lies within the sound
discretion of the trial court.People vs. Bautista, 106 Phil.
39.
Discharge of a coaccused to be witness for the
prosecution.Under Section 9, Rule 115 of the Rules of
Court, the discharge or exclusion of a coaccused from the
information, in order that he may be utilized as a
prosecution witness, is a matter of sound discretion with
the court (U.S. vs. Abanzado, 37 Phil. 658 People vs.
Ybaez, 92 Phil. 933), to be exercised by it upon the
conditions therein set forth. The expedient should be
availed of only when there is absolute necessity for the
testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested, as
when he alone has knowledge of the crime, and not when
his testimony would simply corroborate or otherwise
strengthen the evidence in the hands of the prosecution (2
Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1957 Ed., 827).
People vs. Borja, 106 Phil. 1111.
Exclusion of a coaccused to establish motive is a matter
cognizable by the guerrilla amnesty commission.As to the
prosecutions claim that the exclusion of the accused from
the information is necessary to prove the personal motive
or reason of their coaccused in the killing of the deceased,
it may be stated that proof of motive is not absolutely
indispensable or necessary to establish the commission of a
crime (3 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1952
Ed., 630631 U.S. vs. Ricafort, 1 Phil. 173 U.S. vs.
Balmori, 18 Phil. 578 U.S. vs. Valdez, 30 Phil. 293). It is
true that motive is essential in cases falling
307
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
307
People vs. Flores
under the Amnesty Proclamation, but the exclusion of the

accused for the purpose of establishing personal motive of
their coaccused, is a matter which may be properly taken
up when the case is submitted to the Amnesty Commission

for consideration, pursuant to the provisions of
Proclamation No. 8, dated September 7, 1946 (Guerrilla
Amnesty Proclamation) and Administrative Order No. 11,
of October 2, 1946, which authorize the Guerrilla Amnesty
Commission to examine the facts and circumstances
surrounding each case and, if necessary or requested by
either or both of the interested parties, conduct summary
hearings of witnesses both for the complainants and the
accused. Id.
Ground for rule allowing discharge of defendants from
information.Section 9, Rule 115 of the Rules of Court,
does not disqualify an accused sought to be a witness for
the State merely because he has committed the crime
charged, because the rule says that it is necessary that the
said defendant does not appear to be the most guilty. The
candid admission by an accused of his participation in a
crime is a guaranty that if he testifies in court he will
testify truthfully. The ground underlying the rule is not to
let a crime that has been committed go unpunished. An
accused who is not the most guilty is allowed to testify
against the most guilty in order to achieve the greater
purpose of securing the conviction of the more or most
guilty and the greatest number among the accused
permitted to be convicted for the offense they have
committed. People vs. Bayona, 108 Phil. 104.
Defendant entitled to have list of prosecution witnesses.
The defendant is entitled as a matter of right to be
furnished by the prosecution with a list of the witnesses to
be presented against him during the trial. But the
prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those
named in the complaint or information. People vs.
Palacio,108 Phil. 220.
Presence of witness not listed to court room.The fact
that some of the witnesses for the prosecution who are
308
308

People vs. Flores
not listed in the information were present in the Court

room and heard the testimony of the other witnesses does
not disqualify them from being witnesses. Id.
Testimony of witness who lacks some of the qualifications
under the rule.Even if the defendant discharged from the

information and used as state witness against the other
defendants, should lack some of the qualifications
enumerated in section 9 (b) and (d) of Rule 115, Rules of
Court, his testimony will not, for that reason alone, be
discarded or disregarded. People vs. De Leon, 108 Phil. 800.
Crossexamination of defense witnesses.Taking into
consideration the basic function of a preliminary
investigation of determining whether there are sufficient
grounds which engender a wellfounded belief that the
accused is probably guilty of the offense charged and
should be held to await trial in the proper court, and
conversely, whether the evidence against him is so
insubstantial as to warrant his immediate discharge, this
Court is convinced that pursuant to Section 11, Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court, the prosecution should be allowed to
crossexamine defense witnesses. Abrera vs. Muoz, 108
Phil. 1124.
Confrontation is not a right but a mere privilege.In
being denied confrontation of the prosecution witnesses
presented in the first stage of preliminary investigation,
the accusedpetitioner was not deprived of any right but
was merely refused the exercise of a privilege. Id.
The prosecution may call unlisted witnesses to testify.
People vs. Lacson, 1 SCRA 414.
Power of prosecuting officer, its extent and limitations.
The power of a prosecuting officer to determine the persons
probably guilty of the commission of an offense and to
include them in the information to be filed in court cannot
extend to the point of encroaching upon the prerogative of
the court. Persons who appear respon
309
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
309
People vs. Flores
sible for the commission of an offense should be included in

the information, and, if it is necessary to utilize any of the
defendants as a witness for the prosecution, the provisions
of the law for his discharge from the information should be
followed. De Castro, Jr. vs. Castaeda, 1 SCRA 1131.
Failure to present witnesses listed in information.The
mere failure to present prosecution witnesses listed in the
information does not warrant an inference that the
prosecution had suppressed their respective testimonies

because they were false. People vs. Escalona, 1 SCRA 891.
Where a motion for new trial on the ground of newly
discovered evidence should be granted.Considering that
the sworn statement relied upon in the motion for new trial
might render valueless the subsequent sworn statement
upon which the trial court partly relied to convict
appellant, and might even affect the credibility of other
prosecution witnesses because it points to a person other
than appellant as the one who had given the order to shoot
any intruder found in the coconut plantation of the S
family and considering further that before and during the
trial the defense had no reasonable opportunity to discover
the existence of the sworn statement first mentioned, the
motion for new trial should be granted. People vs. Saez, 3
SCRA 512.
Delay in prosecution of crime explained by threats on life
of prosecution witnesses.The delay in the prosecution of
the crime is not unreasonable nor does it reflect any
insincerity of the prosecution witnesses where it was
explained that the failure to come forward to testify was
due to fear of threats of physical harm issued against them
by the accused, who at that time were quite powerful in the
town. People vs. Evaristo, 13 SCRA 172.
Where testimony of appellants mother was held not
admissible.The testimony of appellants mother cannot
also stand close scrutiny. She claims that she went to
Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, in the month of April after the
310
310

People vs. Flores
arrest of her son to ascertain the contents of the police

blotter of said town, but she simply contended herself with
gazing at said police blotter. It never occurred to her to
obtain a copy thereof until a few days before the trial of the
instant case. She also admitted having offered P100.00 to a
defense witness so that the latter may refrain from
testifying against her son although she stoutly maintained
that she was positive of his innocence. If her claim is true
that her son is innocent the offer of P100.00 to said witness
would indeed appear to be superfluous. This earnestness of
appellants mother to get the acquittal of the accused can
only be explained by her relationship to him who is her own

son. She would do anything to save him from predicament
he then found himself. People vs. Valera, 15 SCRA 164.
Court has discretionary power to recall witnesses.The
power of the court to recall a witness to clarify certain
matters covered by his original testimony or testify on
other material points is discretionary, it being allowed to
promote the ends of justice. As to the power of the Court to
call on a witness whose name does not appear in the list of
the fiscal, the rule is wellsettled that unless the omission
of said witness is intentional and tainted with bad faith,
the right of the court to call on him cannot be disputed.
This is also allowed in the interest of justice. Id.
Credibility of prosecution witnesses as to perpetrators of
crime.The testimony of a prosecution witness as to who
perpetrated the commission of the crime in the case at bar
corroborated in part by another witness was held by the
Supreme Court admissible not only because his testimony
was plain, simple and straightforward but also he had no
possible motive to falsely incriminate appellants, who are
his first cousins. People vs. Enriquez, 15 SCRA 205.
Section 9, Rule 23, Rules of Court, construed.Section 9,
Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, excusing a witness from
appearance before a court, judge, or other officer
311
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
311
People vs. Flores
of the province in which he resides if the distance exceeds

50 kilometers from his place of residence to the place of
trial by the usual course of travel, applies solely to civil
cases and not to criminal cases. Consequently, the refusal
by respondent Judge, in the case at bar, to grant the
prosecutions motion to arrest a material witness in a
criminal case, or in the alternative, to cite him for
contempt, amounted to grave abuse of discretion. People vs.
Montejo, 21 SCRA 722.
Where there is ample proof of motive in the case at bar.
Although motive need not be considered anymore due to
the positive identification of accused, there is ample proof
of motive. The witness testified that appellant and another
person went to his house looking for the decedent to kill
him for having stolen his chicken. People vs. Labis,21
SCRA 875.
Effect of retraction by a prosecution witness of his
previous testimony.Mere retraction by a prosecution
witness does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony
otherwise credible. The proper thing for the trial court to
do is to weigh and compare both testimonies. Here, the
lower court, after having done so, accepted. Caas
testimony for the prosecution. In this, it did not err. Firstly,
the original testimony is positive and replete with details,
and Caa withstood a long and thorough crossexamination
which could not have been so, if the story were merely
fabricated. Secondly, Caas narration of the shooting
incident was fully corroborated by the other prosecution
witnesses. Lastly, the charged inconsistencies and
improbabilities therein are too insignificant to affect the
substance thereof. People vs. Cerna, 21 SCRA 569.
Duty of defense counsel to take notes of the testimony of
prosecution witnesses during hearing.There is no legal
provision to support the view that before an accused in a
criminal case may be compelled to produce his evidence,
the transcript of the stenographic notes taken of the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be made avail
312
312

People vs. Flores
able to him. In this connection, it is obvious that it is the

duty of his counsel to take notes, whether complete or
incomplete, of the testimony of said witnesses in order to be
in a position to present whatever evidence, in his opinion,
is necessary to prove the innocence of his client. Dumapig
vs. Marave, 23 SCRA 658.
Where prosecutions evidence held insufficient to convict.
The accused was acquitted on ground of lack of proof
beyond
reasonable
doubt
under
the
following
circumstances: (1) There is no reasonable explanation why
the principal prosecution witnesses did not denounce the
accused and identify him as the killer when they were
investigated by the chief of police in the morning after the
incident (2) The motive attributed to accused rests on a
shaky foundation (3) It is strange that witness of
prosecution would claim to be chopping wood in the middle
of the night, and using a sythe instead of a bolo or an axe
for the purpose (4) The Chief of Police conducted an

investigation in the morning of the day after the killing and
saw a man with a handkerchief hanging from the pocket
and that it was as the mask used by the killer, as
confirmed by the widow (5) The corroborated alibi of
accused (6) The fact that he did not hesitate to go with the
municipal authorities to the scene of the crime. People vs.
Gallora, 29 SCRA 780.
22. Civil Liability
Effect of failure to allege damages in the information or
complaint.Even if the complaint or information is silent
as to damages or the intention to prove and claim them, the
offender is still liable for them, and the offended has the
right to prove and claim for them in the criminal case,
unless a waiver or the reserving of the civil action is made.
Roa vs. De la Cruz, 107 Phil. 8.
When civil liability arising from crime may be
determined in the criminal proceedings if the offended
party does not waive to have it adjudged, or does not
reserve his right to institute a separate civil action against
the defendant. Id.
313
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
313
People vs. Flores
When judgment in criminal action bars civil action for

damages.Where, as in the present case, the offended
party elected to claim damages arising from the offense
charged in the criminal case through her appearance or
intervention as private prosecutor, the final judgment
rendered therein constitutes a bar to the subsequent civil
action for damages based upon the same cause. Id.
Civil liability in rape not determinable in criminal action
only.Contrary to the provisions of Article 135 of the Civil
Code of Spain, to the effect that in cases of rape the
provisions
of
the
Penal
Code
regarding
the
acknowledgment of the issue is to be observed, article 283
of the Civil Code of the Philippines, does not make the civil
liability of the offender in a case of rape determinable in a
criminal action only. Article 30 of the same code also
implies the right of an offended party to bring a separate

civil action for the criminal act without instituting the
criminal proceedings for the prosecution of the offense.
Rillon vs. Rillon, 107 Phil. 783.
When institution of criminal action is unnecessary.The
provisions of Rule 107 of the Rules of Court are no longer in
force because a civil action may now be instituted and
prosecuted to final judgment without waiting the
institution and termination of a criminal action (Arts. 30
and 283 of the Civil Code of the Philippines). These new
provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of Rule 107
of the Rules of Court and the latter must give way thereto.
In consequence, it is not now necessary that a criminal
prosecution for rape be first instituted and presented to
final judgment before a civil action based on said offense in
favor of the offended woman and recognition of the
offspring can be instituted and presented to final judgment.
The provisions of Rule 107 of the present Rules
promulgated in 1940, are therefore considered repealed or
modified pro tanto by Articles 30 and 283 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines. Id.
Rule as to reconstitution in civil cases applies to criminal
cases.There is no reason of law or justice why the
314
314

People vs. Flores
principles governing reconstitution of testimony in civil

cases should not apply in criminal cases. The legal
provisions regarding reconstitution of pending criminal
cases are identical in terminology mutatis mutandis to
those referring to pending civil cases. As the law in both
cases is procedural or adjective and is only a means to an
end, an aid to substantive law, it should be interpreted and
applied to accomplish that end. People vs. Castelo, 1 SCRA
461.
Civil and criminal cases arising from same facts.
Where a civil case and a criminal case arising from the
same facts are filed in court, the criminal case takes
precedence (Sec. 1 Rule 107, Rules of Court), except where
there exists prejudicial questions which should be resolved
first before action could be taken in the criminal case and
when the law provides that both the civil case and criminal
case can be instituted simultaneously (Art. 33, New Civil

Code). Benitez vs. Concepcion, Jr., 2 SCRA 178.
When an accused, who has been charged with estafa, is
acquitted on the ground that his liability is civil in nature,
no civil liability arising from the criminal charge may be
imposed upon him.People vs. Miranda, 5 SCRA 1067.
(See also Acquittal, supra.)
Separate civil action for subsidiary liability of employer
not maintainable while criminal case pending.Should the
injured party choose to prosecute his action under Article
100 of the Revised Penal Code, he can hold the employer
subsidiarily liable only upon prior conviction of the
employee. While a separate and independent civil action for
damages may be brought against the employee under
Article 33 of the Civil Code, no such action may be filed
against the employer on the latters subsidiary civil
liability because such liability is governed not by the Civil
Code put by the Penal Code, under which conviction of the
employee is a condition sine qua non for the employers
subsidiary liability. Joaquin vs. Aniceto, 12 SCRA 308.
315
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
315
People vs. Flores
Effect of reservation of right to intervene in prosecution of

criminal case.Once the offended party has reserved his
right to institute a separate civil action to recover
indemnity, he thereby losses his right to intervene in the
prosecution of the criminal case. Consequently, appellant,
in the case at bar, no longer had any right to move for the
reconsideration of, much less to appeal from the decision in
the criminal case, insofar as it decided the question of civil
indemnity, for she no longer had any standing in the case.
Tactaquin vs. Palileo, 21 SCRA 1431.
Reservation of right to institute separate civil action,
when it must be made.When a criminal action is
instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability
arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted
with it unless the offended party expressly waives the civil
action or reserves his right to institute it separately. While
the rule does not say when or at what stage of the criminal
proceeding the reservation should be made, it seems logical
to presume that for the reservation to be timely and legally
effective, it must be made, as in this case, before the

rendition of judgment. Id.
Effect of extinction of penal action upon the civil aspect of
the case.Extinction of the penal action does not carry
with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds
from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from
which the civil might arise did not exist. In other cases, the
person entitled to the civil action may institute it in the
jurisdiction and in the manner provided by law against the
person who may be liable for restitution of the thing and
reparation or indemnity for the damage suffered (Sec. 3 [c],
Rule 111, Rules of Court). Faraon vs. Priela, 24 SCRA 582.
316
316

People vs. Flores
How nature of civil action is determined.Whatever doubt

in the nature of the action filed by the injured party is
resolved by the prayer that the employer and the employee
be held solidarily liablewhich is, likewise, made in the
complaint of plaintiffs hereinbecause the employers
liability under the Revised Penal Code is a merely
subsidiary in nature, whereas that arising from a quasi
delict is solidarily in character. The fact that employer
alleged the defense of due diligence in the selection of, and
exercise of supervision over his employer, a defense
available, only under the Civil Code, but not under the
Penal Code, shows that the action is based on quasidelict.
Formento vs. Court of Appeals, 29 SCRA 437.
Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of
Court are inapplicable to actions filed before January 1,
1964.Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of
Court are inapplicable to the cases filed before the
effectivity of the revised Rules on January 1, 1964. Besides,
in cases instituted before said date, the failure to make, in
the criminal action, the reservation required in said Rule
will not bar a separate civil action for quasidelict, provided
that the injured party has not intervened actually or
actively in the prosecution of said criminal action. Id.
Effect of noninclusion of People is special civil action of
prohibition and certiorari.The noninclusion of the People
of the Philippines as a copetitioner of the complainant in
the special civil action or prohibition and certiorari is not a
jurisdictional ground for dismissal of the action but a mere

formality, which could be accordingly corrected by the court
in the action by virtue of the provisions of Rule 3, Section
11, providing that parties may be dropped or added by
order of the Court on motion of any party or on its own
initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as
are just. Furthermore, offended parties in criminal cases
have sufficient interest and personality to file the special
civil actions under sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65 in line with
the under
317
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
317
People vs. Flores
lying spirit of a liberal construction of the Rules of Court in

order to promote their object. Paredes vs. Gopengco, 29
SCRA 688.
23. Prejudicial Question
Prejudicial question as an exception.Where a civil case
and a criminal case arising from the same facts are filed in
court, the criminal case takes precedence (Sec. 1, Rule 107,
Rules of Court), except where there exists prejudicial
questions which should be resolved first before action could
be taken in the criminal case and when the law provides
that both the civil case and criminal case can be instituted
simultaneously (Art. 33, New Civil Code). Benitez vs.
Concepcion, Jr., 2 SCRA 178.
Nature of prejudicial question.A prejudicial question is
one that arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical
antecedent to the issue involved therein, and the
cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal that is, it
is determinative of the case before the court and
jurisdiction to pass upon the same is lodged in another
tribunal. Where the authenticity of a Motion to Withdraw
is involved in a civil case appealed to the Court of Appeals
and at the same time it is the object of a falsification charge
pending in the Court of First Instance, there is a
prejudicial question involved in the civil case which
justifies the suspension of the criminal case.
FortichCeldran vs. Celdran, 19 SCRA 502.
When complainant may move for the suspension of

criminal action.The complainant may ask for the
suspension of a criminal action, based upon the pendency of
a prejudicial question in a civil case, where the fiscal, who
had control of the prosecution, did not object to the motion.
Id.
24. Loss of Records
Loss of transcript of stenographic notes.The loss of the
transcript of the stenographic notes, containing the
testimonies of five prosecution witnesses (all the other
evidence being intack) does not constitute an irregularity
318
318

People vs. Flores
which justifies a new trial. The irregularity, justifying a

new trial, is one committed during the trial. People vs.
Castelo, 1 SCRA 461.
Loss of decision.The remedy, in the case of transcript
of the stenographic notes, containing the testimony of some
prosecution witnesses has been lost, is reconstitution of the
missing evidence, not a new trial. It is only when the
decision itself has been lost and no authentic copy thereof
is obtainable that the case should be decided anew as if it
had never been decided. Id.
Substitution of testimony of deceased witness in case
transcript of his testimony was lost.In case one of the
principal witnesses, who testified in the original trial and
whose testimony has been lost, is no longer available
because he has disappeared, or has died, the party
presenting the unavailable original witness may substitute
his testimony with that of another witness or witnesses
who may have knowledge of the same facts to which the
first witness testified in the original trial. Id.
25. Miscellaneous
Parties to a judicial proceeding cannot adopt a theory
inconsistent with that to which they sustained in the lower
court.People vs. Archilla, 1 SCRA 699.
When compromise bars prosecution for violation of Tax

Code.Where the taxpayers violation of the Tax Code, for
having in his possession playing cards, on which no specific
tax was paid, was compromised with the approval of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the City Fiscal,
before any information was filed in Court, and the taxpayer
paid the amount stated in the compromise agreement, he
cannot be prosecuted anymore for the said violation of the
Tax Code. People vs. Magdaluyo, 1 SCRA 991.
Courts do not generally restrain criminal prosecution.
An injunctionpreliminary or finalor writ of pro
319
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
319
People vs. Flores
hibition be issued to restrain a criminal prosecution, only if

it is necessary for the court to do so for the orderly
administration of justice, or to prevent the use of the strong
arm of the law in an oppressive or vindictive manner.
University of the Philippines vs. City Fiscal of Quezon City,
2 SCRA 980.
Criminal prosecution not subject to prohibition and
injunction.As a general rule the prosecution in a criminal
offense cannot be the subject of prohibition or injunction,
same being vested with public interest (Kwong Sing vs.
City of Manila, 41 Phil. 103 Dimayuga & Fajardo vs.
Fernandez, 43 Phil. 304 Gorospe vs. Peaflorida, L11583,
July 19, 1957). Grien vs. Consolacion, 5 SCRA 722.
Discretion of courts to postpone defendants detention
until the last day.Courts have the discretion to postpone,
until the last day for the perfection of the appeal, the
determination of the question whether or not they should
order defendants detention or the execution of the decision
of conviction. People vs. Valle, 7 SCRA 1025.
Although a party in a criminal case in the City of
Manila, in his discretion, move or not for the appointment
of assessors, yet once the motion to this effect has been filed,
the appointment of assessors by the judge is mandatory.
People vs. Mariano, 10 SCRA 428.
The decision in a civil case may be cited in a criminal
case involving the same party where it is merely confined to
the status of the assigned credits in question and not to the
case as a whole.De Gracia vs. Court of Appeals, 10 SCRA
794.
It would be unjust to set the principal accused, or leader,
free and yet imprison his seven subordinates who merely
carried out his commands.People vs. Castelo, 11 SCRA
194.
Municipal court can legally order, in a criminal case,
removal of a house illegally constructed on a portion of a
320
320

People vs. Flores
public highway in addition to the penalty of fine.De la

Cruz vs. Tianco, 11 SCRA 623.
Forfeiture reduced to onehalf where surety presents
accused to court although tardily.Following the
precedents in several cases the Court in the case at bar
reduced the forfeiture of the bail bond to onehalf of its
amount where the surety presented the accused for trial
although tardily and the accuseds nonappearance when
first summoned was not explained satisfactorily. People vs.
Segarino,12 SCRA 395.
The question of whether the explanation of a surety for
nonproduction of the accused in court, is satisfactory
generally lies within the discretion of the trial court.Id.
(See also Bondsman, supra.)
Failure of surety to notify defendants beforehand of
scheduled hearing considered breach of duty.Where
appellant surety does not claim that it tried to notify the
defendants of the scheduled hearing prior thereto where it
did not even send a representative to the trial court on the
date of the said hearing in order to explain why the accused
could not be present then and where, despite the fact that
it received copy of a subsequent order requiring them to
produce the body of the accused within thirty days and
show cause why their bonds should not be confiscated and
judgment rendered thereon appellant did nothing to
comply with said order, it is held that said surety was
grossly remiss in the performance of its duty. People vs.
Pacomio, 12 SCRA 139 People vs. Padilla, 12 SCRA 255.
Authority of NBI agents to investigate crimes inside
corporations premises.Appellants alleged that, without
any authority, defendants, NBI agents, entered plaintiff
corporations premises and investigated publicly the
personnel therein relative to its business operations. NBI

agents, however, are charged with the duty to undertake
investigations of crimes and other offenses against the laws
of the Philippines, upon its own initiative and as public
interest may require (Sec. 1, Republic Act No. 157).
321
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
321
People vs. Flores
They were, to say the least, with color of authority to make

that investigation. Hardly may this investigation be called
public because it was conducted precisely inside the
premises of plaintiff corporation. There is no averment in
the complaint that plaintiffs ever objected to the
investigation or, for that matter, to the manner said
investigation was conducted. Remonte vs. Bonto, 16 SCRA
257.
How acts or omissions complained of should be alleged.
The acts or omission complained of must be stated in
ordinary and concise language without repetition, not
necessarily in the terms of the statute defining the offense,
but in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what offense is intended to
be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper
judgment (Sec. 8, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Court). People
vs. Rodrigo, 16 SCRA 475.
Reconsideration of order for confiscation of bail bond.
The court entertained appellant surety companys motion
to reconsider the original order of confiscation of the bond
in consideration of the latters promise that it would refund
to the accused all the premiums he had paid. As this
engagement has not been shown to be illegal or void,
appellant must comply with its promise. People vs.
Familiar, 17 SCRA 466.
Effect of failure to give prosecution opportunity to present
evidence or rebut defendants testimony.Where the court
decided the case upon the merits without giving the
prosecution any opportunity to present its evidence or even
to rebut the testimony of the defendant, the court acted
without due process of law. In view of the absence of this
fundamental prerequisite, its action is null and void, and
the acquittal, being a nullity, is no acquittal at all, and
thus can not constitute a proper basis for a claim of former
jeopardy (People vs. Cabero, 61 Phil. 121 21 Am. Jur. 2d.

235 McCleary vs. Hudspeth, 124 Fed. 2d. 445). People vs.
Balisacan, 17 SCRA 1119.
322
322

People vs. Flores
Accused must be informed of the charge against him.

Where the accused was charged with damage to a jeep
through reckless imprudence, he cannot be convicted of
damage to the merchandise of the jeep passenger through
reckless imprudence. A judgment punishing the accused for
an offense, of which he was not legally informed, denies
him due process of law. People vs. Despavellador, 1 SCRA
205.
Judgment conclusive as to future proceedings.Under
the principle of res judicata, that judgment is conclusive as
to the future proceedings at law not only as to every matter
which was offered and received to sustain the claim or
demand, but as to any admissible matter that could have
been offered for that purpose. Roa vs. De la Cruz, 107 Phil.
8.
Compliance with paragraph (a), Section 2, Rule 117 of
the Rules of Court.Accused was convicted for theft of 15
cavans of palay. A motion for reconsideration was filed
wherein it claimed that as the ownership of the land from
which the palay was allegedly stolen is involved, the case
should be suspended until after such ownership shall have
been decided by the competent court. A supplemental
motion was filed by the accused, arguing that the palay
supposed to have been stolen appears to have been owned
jointly by him and the complainant, and therefore could not
be the subject of theft. Query: Are the motions in question
pro forma? Held. They are not, because they raise valid
questions of law and fact. Said motions point to errors of
law in the judgment prejudicial to the substantial rights of
the accused. They satisfy paragraph (a), section 2 of Rule
117 of the Rules of Court. People vs. Colmenares, 107 Phil.
220.
When general statement is not sufficient.Under Rule
37 of the Rules of Court the movant must point out the
findings or conclusions in the judgment which allegedly are
not supported by the evidence or are contrary to law.
Hence, if a motion only makes a general statement that the

evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment or
323
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
323
People vs. Flores
that the same is contrary to law, it cannot be said to satisfy

said rule. Id.
When rule is applicable only in civil cases and not in
criminal cases.Rule 37 on new trial as found in the Rules
of Court is applicable only in civil cases. The rule regarding
new trial in criminal cases is contained in Rule 117. The
pro forma rule is not applicable in criminal cases.Id.
Dilatory tactics.Where the clear purpose of the
defendant in a criminal case in the City of Manila in
moving for the appointment of assessors was purely
dilatory as shown by the circumstances, and the
determination of the issues involved does not depend
materially upon the appreciation or credibility of
testimonial evidence for which the services of assessors
may be of substantial assistance, it is held that the order of
the lower court denying said motion did not amount to an
abuse of discretion. People vs. Mariano, 10 SCRA 428.
Mandamus does not lie to compel a prosecuting officer to
prosecute a criminal case in court.Perez vs. Monetary
Board, 20 SCRA 592.
Violations of banking laws.Violations of banking laws
are public offenses. Their prosecution is a matter of public
interest. Private persons can denounce such violations to
the prosecuting authorities.Id.
Related criminal cases may be tried jointly.People vs.
Pineda, 20 SCRA 749.
When prosecution may be enjoined.A relief in equity
may be availed of to stop a purported enforcement of a
criminal law where it is necessary (a) for the orderly
administration of justice (b) to prevent the use of the
strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive
manner (c) to avoid multiplicity of actions (d) to afford
adequate protection to constitutional rights, and (e) in
proper cases, because the statute relied upon is
unconstitutional or was held invalid. People vs. Pineda, 20
SCRA 749.
324
324

People vs. Flores
Findings of trial court.Unless appellants satisfactorily

show that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and
substance as would offset the results of the case, the
appellate court will not disturb said courts findings
especially when the same are based on evidence on record.
People vs. Labis, 21 SCRA 875.
Prosecution for violation of statute with an excepting
clause.In a prosecution for violation of Section 133 of the
Revised Election Code, which statutory provision
guarantees, among other things, to every registered voter,
the right to freely enter the polling place as soon as he
arrives unless there were then more than forty voters
waiting inside, in order to sufficiently charge a violation of
that right, the indictment need not explicitly negate the
exception. The limitationwhen there are more than forty
voters waiting insideon the right of the voter to freely
enter the polling place does not constitute an essential part
of the definition of the crime contemplated in section 133 of
the Revised Election Code. Instead, it is but a matter which
the accused must assert and establish as a defense, and not
for the prosecution to anticipate, allege, and disprove.
People vs. San Juan, 22 SCRA 498.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt required.The legal
precept in criminal cases is that the burden is on the
People to prove defendants guilt beyond reasonable doubt
(People vs. Graga, L12005, August 31, 1960, cited in People
vs. Cunanan, L17599, April 24, 1967). For, such is a
marked characteristic of our criminal law. Absent proof
beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case, the accused are
entitled to acquittal. People vs. Mananguite, 23 SCRA 1032.
Service of pleadings and orders upon government counsel
or prosecutor required.A proper government counsel or
prosecutor in charge of the prosecution of a certain criminal
case, should be served with copies of pleadings filed with,
and orders issued by, the Court trying the case. If no such
service is made upon the government counsel or
325
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
325
People vs. Flores
prosecutor, the court order or orders issued upon petitions

or motions (of which he was not duly served with copies of
an accused are null and void.
In this connection it may be stated that although the
setting of motions for hearing lies within the discretion of
the trial judge, an appropriate exercise of that discretion
should impel the judge to fix the date of hearing of the
accuseds motions in such a way that the government
counsel may be assured of receiving the notice on time and
be enabled to prepare for trial, giving due regard to the
latters address and allowance for the service of mail.
Siazon vs. Hon. Judge of Court of First Instance of
Cotabato, (Branch II), 26 SCRA 665.
Effect of Courts error in discharging a codefendant.In
the discharge of a codefendant, the court may reasonably
be expected to err but such error in discharging an accused
has been held not to be reversible one. This is upon the
principle that such error of the court does not affect the
competency and the quality of the testimony of the
discharged defendant. (People vs. Jamero, L19852, July
29, 1968.) People vs. Ompad, 26 SCRA 750.
In line with established precedents (People vs. Pantoja,
L18793, October 11, 1968 People vs. Gutierrez, L25272,
November 29, 1968 People vs. Buenbrazo, L27852,
November 29, 1968), the indemnity of P6,000.00 if increased
to P12,000.00.People vs. Nabual, 28 SCRA 748.
Probable cause for crime of slight illegal detention is not
present where picketing prevented employees from leaving
employers premises.There is no probable cause shown for
the crime of slight illegal detention having been committed
as to cause the issuance of a warrant of arrest arising
solely from the inability of the two complainants to leave
the employers premises in view of the manner the
picketing was carried on. While no doubt to be deplored,
such conduct of the picketers cannot be made a basis for a
finding of probable cause that the crime penalized by the
codal provision in question was committed because the
detention or deprivation of liberty of the complainants
326
326
People vs. Flores
under the circumstances, while certainly not to be justified,

was not done with criminal intent. To hold otherwise would
be to nullify the constitutional policy of social justice and
protection to labor, and to hold the Revised Penal Code in
effect as a veritable sword of Damocles upon labor. People
vs. Barba, 29 SCRA 662.
Where goods seized were destroyed by fire.Where the
goods seized by NBI agents destroyed by fire, the issue of
their return sought by the owner had become moot and
academic. People vs. Villasor, 30 SCRA 518.
Duty of court where property was not used in the
commission of crime.If the property was in no way
connected with the commission of the offense, at the
termination of the trial it is the duty of the court to order
the officer in possession of the same to return it to the
defendant. Id.
Discretion of trial court to determine whether or not
parties should be allowed to introduce rebuttal evidence.
Trial courts have ample discretion to determine whether or
not the parties should be allowed to introduce evidence in
rebuttal. Moreover, its resolutions on these matters are
interlocutory in nature and will not generally be reviewed,
except on appeal taken from a decision rendered on the
merits. Judicial discretion, however, is not unlimited. It
must be exercised reasonably, with a view to promoting the
ends of justice one of which is to ascertain the truth. People
vs. Abalos, 30 SCRA 599.
Findings of facts of trial judged.The general rule,
based on logic and experience, is that the findings of the
judge who tried the case and heard the witnesses are not
disturbed on appeal, unless there are substantial facts and
circumstances which have never been overlooked and
which, if properly considered, might affect the result of the
case. People vs. Pareja, 30 SCRA 693.
Writ of habeas corpus not available to accused on
criminal case who is at liberty on bail.An accused in a
criminal case who is at liberty on bail and who had thus
secured by judicial decree release which the high
prerogative writ
327
VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971
327
Oliveros vs. Villaluz
of habeas corpus is intended to afford may no longer avail

himself of that remedy for the purpose of nullifying the
order of arrest issued against him in the criminal case.
Zacarias vs. Cruz, 30 SCRA 728.
Defect of complaints being subscribed to before the
municipal mayor instead of before the municipal judge is
one of form.Under the Rules, a complaint is substantially
sufficient if it states the name of the defendant, the
designation of the offense by the statute, the acts or
omissions constituting the offense, the name of the
offended party, the approximate time of the commission of
the offense, and the place where it was committed. The
defect that the complaint was subscribed to before the
municipal mayor instead of before the municipal judge is
clearly one of form that is curable by amendment. For even
the absence of an oath in the complaint does not
necessarily render it invalid unless the complaint charged
a private offense under Articles 344 and 360 of the Penal
Code. People vs. Cayosa, 30 SCRA 806.CLPCI
EDITORIAL STAFF
Note.Plea of guilty, procedure when entered.See also
People vs. Estebia, L26868, July 29, 1971, this volume, and
the notes thereunder.
_____________
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

Annotation Criminal Procedure

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Annotation Criminal Procedure

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

234

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

1. Complaint and Information

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971

by treachery, were fully established, however, the

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971

Rules of Court, permits amendment only when amendment

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971

People vs. Flores

and does not alter the body of the information. The

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

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Prosecution of criminal offenses under the city charter of

warranted, he shall have the necessary information or

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971

People vs. Flores

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

impelled by the same criminal purpose or aim. Ganchero

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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

insincerity of the prosecution witnesses where it was

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971

People vs. Flores

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

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

considered against him, it may however help in

Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.Intention

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971

People vs. Flores

offense and in holding that the defendant is entitled to

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Phil. 506). Likewise, the imputation of a vice or defect

against the offended party, attacked and assaulted the

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971

People vs. Flores

Slanderous imputation that offended party was a prostitute

defamation be filed at the instance of or upon complaint

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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

decision. People vs. Torino, 11 SCRA 287.

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971

People vs. Flores

as defined by law. It is sufficient that the information

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

quires for crimes against chastity the filing by the

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

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971

People vs. Flores

undissolved. The information filed in the case at bar having

victim with a twofeet long bolo. People vs. Labis, 21 SCRA

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

of the defendant the designation of the offense by the

Where prosecution was allowed to introduce rebuttal

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971

People vs. Flores

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

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

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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

VOL. 40, JULY 30, 1971

People vs. Flores