People v.
Dimaano
 Dimaano charged her father with 2 counts of rape and 1 count of
attempted rape in the complaints.
 SC acquitted the father in the crime of attempted rape for failure
to allege the specific acts in the complaint.
 For a complaint/Information to be sufficient:
o Name of the accused
o Designation of offense
o Acts or omissions constituting the offense
o Name of the offended party
o Approximate time of commission
o Place where the offense committed
 The allegation “tried and attempted to rape” does not satisfy, but
is merely a conclusion of law by the one drafting the complaint.
 Thus acquitted, otherwise, the right of the father to be informed
of the nature of the accusation against him would be violated.
Sasot v. People
 Sasot engaged in manufacture of counterfeit NBA garment
products. Through SPA, Mr. Welts, President of NBA Properties
filed criminal complaint.
 Prosecutor Gutierrez recommended the filing of Information for
Unfair Competition under RPC.
 Sasot, prior arraignment moved to quash the Information on the
following grounds, among others:
o The facts charged did not constitute an offense;
complaint filed by Mr. Welts is defective as it should
have been sworn to by the complainant before the
investigating prosecutor.
 SC, denied Sasot’s petition. In Sec. 3 of Rule 117 (1985 Rules of
Criminal Procedure), nowhere thereof mentioned that the defect
of complaint filed before the fiscal is a valid ground for a motion
to quash.
 Assuming arguendo there was no oath taken in the complaint
does not rended the complaint invalid. Such is a mere defect in
form.
 Unfair Competition is a public crime. The State stands as the
injured party. Mr Welts’s capacity to sue is immaterial.
Lasoy v. People
 Lasoy was convicted and thereafter applied for probation.
 First Information: sold marijuana.
 After Lasoy applied for probation, prosecutor moved to amend the
Information and set aside the decision of trial ct.
 Amended Information: transportation and delivery of marijuana.
The purpose is to conform with evidence.
 Trial ct scheduled the arraignment under the amended
Information.
 SC granted the petition of Lasoy. First Information is valid as it
sufficiently alleged the manner of commission.
 A judgment of conviction may be modified before finality or
perfection of appeal, except when:
o Death penalty imposed a judgment of conviction
becomes final after laps of period for appeal; or
o The sentence is served; or
o Accused waived the right to appeal in writing; or
o Accused applied probation
 Rule 110, Sec. 14. Amendment
 Constitution prohibits double jeopardy.
Saludaga v. SB
 Saludaga, Municipal Mayor, petitioner, was charged with violation
of Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act when he entered Pakyaw
Contract for construction of day care centers without conducting
public bidding.
 Saludaga moved to quash the Information for failure to allege the
amount of actual damages to the government, an essential
element of the crime.
 Prosecutor refiled the Information: charging Saludaga for violating
Sec. 3-e of the said law by giving benefit to private person to the
damage of the government.
 Petitioner contended that failure to conduct new PI before filing
second Info is a violation of the law because the second Info
charged a different offense, that there was substitution of the First
Info.
 SC denied the petition. There is no substituted Information. The
Second Info charged the same offense. Only the mode of
commission was modified. It does not mean that each mode
constitutes distinct offense.
 The case may be revived by the State either by refiling of Info or
filing a new Info for the same offense; no need of PI, except:
o Provisional dismissal of the case, original witnesses
recanted—need new PI before Info refiled/new Info
filed; or
o Other persons are charged under new complaint for
same offense; or
o In new complaint, criminal liability is upgraded
(accessory became principal)
 Preceding point, not one of the exceptions is present in this case.
Ramiscal v. SB
 Ramiscal, petitioner, was president of AFP-Retirement and
Benefits System.
 He signed bilateral deeds of sale over subject property.
Congresswoman Antonino filed in Omb a complaint charging him
violation of Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and malversation
of public funds.
 Omb found probable cause. Petitioner filed second MR, to set
aside Omb findings. SB denied the petitioners motion to set aside
his arraignment pending resolution of his second MR of Omb
finding of probable cause.
 SC denied the petition. Rules of Procedure of the Office of Omb
sanction immediate filing of Info in ct upon finding of probable
cause even during the pendency of MR. The MR cannot bar the
arraignment that follows the filing of the Info.
 Speedy Trial Act of 1998: ct must proceed with arraignment within
30 days from the filing of Info or from the date accused appeared
before the ct, whichever is later.
 Sec. 11, Rule 116, Suspension of Arraignment
o Accused in unsound mental condition
o Prejudicial question
o Petition for review of the resolution of prosecutor
pending at DOJ or the President (max 60 days)
 Petitioner failed to show any ground to suspend.
Pinote v. Ayco
 Judge Ayco allowed the defense to present evidence even in the
absence of Pros. Pinote who was prosecuting the case.
 Pinote was undergoing medical treatment.
 On subsequent hearings, Pinote maintained that the proceedings
conducted without his presence is void.
 Admin complaint filed against Judge Ayco.
 SC rules that Judge Ayco violated Sec. 5, Rule 110—Who must
prosecute criminal actions.
 GR: all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the control and
direction of public prosecutor. Presence of public prosecutor in
trial is necessary to protect vital state interest to vindicate the rule
of law. The State is also entitled to due process.
Lee Pue Liong v. Lee
 Lee is the president of Centillion company. Such co. is the subject
of dispute with the petitioner (stock holder).
 Lee took over the company, and petitioner was not able to enter.
 Petitioner submitted before RTC Affidavit of Loss of owner’s
duplicate of TCT. RTC granted. ROD issued new copy.
 Lee moved to set aside the issuance since petitioner fully knew
that he possessed the copy.
 Lee accused petitioner of perjury under RPC.
 Pros. File Info. Atty. Macam was the counsel for Lee and as private
pros.
 Atty. Viesca of LRA, lawyer of petitioner, moved to exclude Lee and
Atty. Macam in the case because perjury is a public offense; that
under RPC, there is no offended private party.
 SC denied the petition. For the recovery of civil liability, private
prosecutor is allowed.
 Sec. 16, Rule 110—Intervention of the offended party in criminal
action.
 Sec. 12, Rule 110, as amended, offended party in the commission
of the crime, public or private, is the party to whom the offender
is civilly liable.
 Whether public or private crimes, it is erroneous for the trial court
to consider the intervention of private prosecutor as merely a
matter of tolerance.
 Petitioner’s statement regarding TCT is injurious to Lee’s personal
credibility.
 Civil liability arising from crimes may be determined in the criminal
proceedings if the offended party does not waive the civil action
or reserve the right to institute separate civil action. Thus,
evidence should be allowed to establish the extent of injuries.
 In this case, no waiver or reservation was made. Lee has the right
to intervene through private pros.