G.R. No. 102645. April 7, 1993.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
ROMEO PADICA y LORICA, LESLIE GANS y MELENDRES, FLORENTINO
FABRIGAS, ROMEO PRADEZ, LEONARDO MARAJAS, LEOPOLDO
MARAJAS and LEON MARAJAS, JR. y RAMOS, ** accused. LEON MARAJAS,
JR. y RAMOS
Facts:
Leon Marajas, Jr., Romeo Padica, Leslie Gans, Florentino Fabrigas, Romeo Pradez,
Leonardo Marajas and Leopoldo Marajas were originally charged in the latter part of
1978 with kidnapping for ransom with murder and illegal possession of firearms before
Military Commission No. 27
However, on January 11, 1979, counsel for accused Leon Marajas, Jr. prayed for the
transfer of the case to the civil courts.
On August 17, 1981, the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed an information
for kidnapping for ransom with murder, before Branch III of the then Court of First
Instance of Pasay City against the aforementioned accused, but with the exception of
herein appellant whose name was inadvertently not included therein.
A separate charge for illegal possession of firearms was lodged before Branch 146 of
the Makati Regional Trial Court but the case was later placed in the archives some time in
1985.
Accused Romeo Padica and herein appellant were both arraigned on January 15,
1982 and, with the assistance of their respective counsel, both pleaded not guilty. It
appears, however, that appellant entered his plea during the arraignment under the name
of "Leonardo Marajas." 6 Trial thereafter ensued but, subsequently, the case was reraffled
to Branch CXVI, Pasay City, of the Regional Trial Court where it remained until the
conclusion of the trial in 1990.
However, upon discovery of the omission of herein appellant's name in the original
information, the prosecution filed a motion for the admission of an amended information
including appellant's name as one of the accused. The
admitted the amended
information. Thereafter, appellant, duly assisted by counsel, entered a plea of guilty upon
being arraigned on the amended information. On the other hand, accused Padica was
discharged from the information to be utilized as a state witness.
Appellant contended that the failure of the prosecution to charge him as an accused
in the original information is a fatal defect.
Issue:

Whether or not the failure of the prosecution to include him in the information is a fatal
defect
Ruling:
No.
The rule is that the complaint or information should sufficiently allege the name of
the accused, failing which the complaint or information would be rendered invalid. The
test of sufficiency is laid down in Section 7, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, which states
that a complaint or information must state the name and surname of the accused or any
appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known, or if his name cannot be
discovered he must be described under a fictitious name with a statement that his true
name is unknown.
If in the course of the proceeding the true name of the accused is disclosed by him, or
appears in some other manner to the court, the true name of the accused shall be inserted
in the complaint or information and record."
In the case at bar, there is no dispute that appellant was arraigned under the original
information and that he entered thereto a plea of not guilty under the name of "Leonardo
Marajas."