Benjie S Escobido

Zaldivia V Reyes Sr.

211 SCRA 277
Facts: A complaint was filed before the fiscals office constituting an offense in
violation of a city ordinance. The fiscal did not file the complaint before the court
immediately but instead filed it 3 months later. The defendants counsel filed a
motion to quash on ground that the action to file the complaint has prescribed. The
fiscal contends that the filing of the complaint before his office already interrupts
the prescription period.

Issue: Whether or not the filing of information/complaint before the fiscal office
constituting a violation against a special law/ordinance interrupts prescription.

Held: The mere filing of complaint to the fiscals office does not interrupt the
running of prescription on offenses punishable by a special law. The complaint
should have been filed within a reasonable time before the court. It is only then that
the running of the prescriptive period is interrupted.
**Act 3326 is the governing law on prescription of crimes punishable by a special
law which states that prescription is only interrupted upon judicial proceeding.

Benjie S Escobido
Reodica v CA 292 SCRA 87
Facts:
Isabelita Reodica was allegedly recklessly driving a van and hit Bonsol causing him
physical injuries and damage to property amounting to P 8,542.00. Three days after
the accident a complaint was filed before the fiscals office against the petitioner.
She was charged of "Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with
Slight Physical Injury." After pleading not guilty trial ensued. RTC of Makati rendered
the decision convicting petitioner of "quasi offense of reckless imprudence, resulting
in damage to property with slight physical injuries" with arresto mayor of 6 months
imprisonment and a fine of P 13,542.00. Petitioner made an appeal before the CA
which re-affirmed the lower courts decision. In its motion for reconsideration,
petitioner now assails that the court erred in giving its penalty on complex damage
to property and slight physical injuries both being light offenses over which the RTC
has no jurisdiction and it cant impose penalty in excess to what the law authorizes.
Reversal of decision is still possible on ground of prescription or lack of jurisdiction.
Issues:
Whether or not the penalty imposed is correct.
Whether or not reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property and reckless
imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries are light felonies.
Whether or not there is a complex crime applying Article 48 of the RPC.
Whether or not the duplicity of the information may be questioned for the first time
on appeal.
Whether or not the RTC of Makati has jurisdiction over the case.
Whether the quasi offenses already prescribed.
Held:
1. On penalty imposed
The proper penalty for reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injury is
public censure (being the penalty next lower in degree to arresto menor see the
exception in the sixth paragraph of Article 365 applies). The proper penalty for
reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property amounting to 8,542.00 would
be arresto mayor in minimum and medium periods.
2. Classification of each felony involved
Reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries is a light felony. Public
censure is classified under article 25 of RPC as a light penalty and it belongs on the
graduated scale in Article 71 of the RPC as a penalty next lower to arresto menor.
Reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property is punishable by a
correctional penalty of arresto mayor and thus belongs to less grave felony and not
as a light felony as claimed by petitioner.
3. Rule on complex crime
Art. 48 on penalty for complex crime provides that when a single act constitutes two
or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is necessary a means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the

Benjie S Escobido
same to be applied in its maximum period. Both offenses cannot constitute a
complex crime because reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries is
not either a grave or less grave felony. Therefore each felony should be filed as a
separate complaint subject to distinct penalties.
4. Right to assail duplicity of information
Rule 120, section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that when two or more offenses
are charged in a single complaint and the accused fails to object against it before
the trial, the court may convict the accuse to as many offenses as charged and
impose a penalty for each of them. Complainant failed to make the objection before
the trial therefore the right to object has been waived.
5. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of the court is determined by the duration of the penalty and the fine
imposed as prescribed by law to the offense charged. Reckless imprudence resulting
to slight physical injuries and reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property
is within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
The case was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction of the RTC of Makati and the
decision of the CA was set aside.
Court Ruling on Zaldivia v Reyes and Reodica v CA on Prescription:
1. Zaldivia v Reyes involves a violation of an ordinance while in Reodica v CA the
violation was against the RPC.
2. Filing of a complaint in the fiscals office involving a felony under the RPC is
sufficient to interrupt the running of prescription. But filing a complaint under the
fiscals office involving offenses punished by a special law (i.e. ordinance) does not
interrupt the running of prescription. Act 3326 is the governing law on prescriptions
of crimes punishable by a special law which states that prescription is only
interrupted upon judicial proceeding.

Benjie S Escobido
U.S. vs. TICZON
25 Phil. 67
FACTS: A complaint was filed by the woman stating that while the offended
party was inside her house at night and all the doors were locked and all the
windows were closed, the accused surreptitiously entered the house and
approached the offended party who was asleep, raised her skirt and at that very
moment the woman woke up and resisted. [This can be an attempted rape but the
element of the crime was not fully accomplished because of an act or accident other
than her own resistance.] But sabi ng caption, for trespass to dwelling pwede
man din.

HELD: Sabi mo, trespass. OK, eh di trespass! So the caption prevails. When
the facts appearing in the complaint or information are so stated that they are
capable of two or more interpretations, then the designation of the offense in the
caption controls.

Benjie S Escobido
PEOPLE vs. VENUS
63 Phil. 435
FACTS: The City Fiscal of Manila file with the CFI of Manila an information
charging the accused with the crime of robbery in an inhabited house. The
information alleges, among others, that the accused is a habitual delinquent, he
having been previously convicted by final judgement rendered by a competent
court, once for the crime of attempted robbery in an inhabited house and once for
theft, the date of his last conviction being November 14, 1934.
Note: There is habitual delinquency when, for a period of ten (10) years, from the
date of his last conviction or release for a crime of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robbery, theft, estafa and falsification, he is found guilty of any of said
crimes, a third time or oftener.

ISSUE: Was there a sufficient allegation of habitual delinquency?

HELD: NO. Habitual delinquency, can not be taken into account in the present
case because of the insufficiency of the allegation on this point in the city fiscal's
information. While the information specifies the particular offense (attempted
robbery in an inhabited house) for which the defendant-appellant was alleged to
have previously been convicted and also the date of the last conviction for theft
which occurred prior to the date of the commission of the offense now charged. But
this does not make the information sufficient in law for it fails to specify the date of
the conviction of the accused for the crime of attempted robbery. For all we know,
the two previous convictions for attempted robbery in an inhabited house and theft
may have taken place on the same date (November 14, 1934) or on two different
dates so close together as to warrant the court in considering the two convictions as
only one for the purposes of the application of the habitual delinquency law.
Upon the other hand, it may happen that a person accused of robo, hurto,
estafa or falsificacion may have been convicted of any of said offenses after the
commission of the crime with which he is charged. We have already held that
previous convictions in order to be considered for the purpose of imposing the
additional penalty for habitual delinquency, must precede the commission of the
crime charged. Other instances may be mentioned but those given suffice to
demonstrate the necessity of charging the existence of habitual delinquency with
sufficient clearness and certainty to enable the courts to properly apply the
provisions of our law on the subject.
It is therefore urged upon prosecuting attorneys that in the prosecution of cases
of this nature, they should not content themselves with a general averment of
habitual delinquency but should specify the dates:
1.
2.
3.

of the commission of the previous crimes,

of the last conviction or release, and
of the other previous convictions or release of the accused.
Informations filed in these cases should be sufficiently clear and specific to avoid
the improper imposition of the additional penalty on a plea of guilty to a general
allegation of habitual delinquency, no less than the frequency with which hardened

Benjie S Escobido
criminals escape the imposition of the deserved additional penalty provided for by
law.

Benjie S Escobido
PEOPLE vs. BUENVIAJE
47 Phil. 536

FACTS: There was a special law penalizing in once section the crime of illegal
practice of medicine AND illegally advertising oneself as a doctor. The penalty of 5year imprisonment shall be imposed on a person who, not being a physician,
practice medicine or advertise himself as a physician. There is only one penalty for
these acts. The information alleges: That the accused is charged of violating that
law because he practiced medicine, or IN THE ALTERNATIVE, he advertised himself
as a doctor when in fact, he is not.

ISSUE: Is the information duplicitous?

HELD: NO. When the information merely recites in the alternative or otherwise the
different ways of committing the offense like the information charges the accused
for illegal practice of medicine and with illegally advertising himself as a physician,
there is only one crime because these are only alternative ways of committing the
crime.

Benjie S Escobido
TEEHANKEE JR. vs. MADAYAG
207 SCRA 134

FACTS: This case was about the murder of Maureen Hultman. She was shot but did
not die immediately. So the crime charged was frustrated murder. But while the
case was pending, Hultman died. Therefore, the fiscal filed a new information for
consummated murder.

ISSUE: Distinguish amendment of information from substitution of information?

HELD: The first paragraph provides the rules for amendment of the information or
complaint, while the second paragraph refers to the substitution of the information
or complaint.
It may accordingly be posited that both amendment and substitution of the
information may be made before or after the defendant pleads, but they differ in
the following respects:
1.
AMENDMENT may involve either formal or substantial changes, while
SUBSTITUTION necessarily involves a substantial change from the original charge;
2.
AMENDMENT before plea has been entered can be effected without leave of
court, but SUBSTITUTION of information must be with leave of court as the original
information has to be dismissed;
3.
Where the AMENDMENT is only as to form, there is no need for another
preliminary investigation and the retaking of the plea of the accused; in
SUBSTITUTION of information, another preliminary investigation is entailed and the
accused has to plead anew to the new information; and
4.
An AMENDED information refers to the same offense charged in the original
information or to an offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in
the original charge, hence substantial amendments to the information after the plea
has been taken cannot be made over the objection of the accused, for if the original
information would be withdrawn, the accused could, invoke double jeopardy. On the
other hand, SUBSTITUTION requires or presupposes that the new information
involves a different offense which does not include or is not necessarily included in
the original charge, hence the accused cannot claim double jeopardy.

Benjie S Escobido
People vs Gorospe January 20, 1988
FACTS:
Parolan was an authorized wholesale dealer of SMC. He was charged with violations
of BP22 and estafa for allegedly issuing checks in favor of SMC but when the
check was presented, it was dishonored for having insufficiency funds.
This
is even more aggravated by the allegation that Paralan failed to make good the
check to the prejudice of SMC.
Issue: Where should the complaint should be filed?
HELD:
Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check may be a transitory or
continuing offense.
Its basic elements of deceit and damage may arise
independently in separate places. In this case, it did and jurisdiction may be
conferred in any of the two places wherein the two elements arose.
For while the subject check was issued in Bulacan, it wasn't completely
drawn thereat, but in Pampanga.
What is of decisive importance is the
delivery thereof. The delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to its
consummation as an obligation. For although the check was received by the
SMC Supervisor in Bulacan, that was not delivery in the contemplation of
law. The rule is that the issuancve as well as the delivery of the check must be to a
person who takes it as a holder, which means the payee or indorser of a bill or
note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof.
The said
representative had to forward the check to the SMC regional office, who
thereafter forwarded it to the Finance Officer and later on to the depository bank.

Benjie S Escobido

PEOPLE vs. ABUYEN

213 SCRA 569 (1992)

FACTS: The accused here killed two (2) children, one was aged 6 years and the
other was 13 years old. He stabbed them. The information charges the accused with
the killing the 2 minors. There is no statement that there was treachery. All that the
information says is that the accused killed the 2 minors.

ISSUE: Was there a murder?

HELD: YES. When the accused killed the minors, that is equivalent of killing by
treachery and therefore qualifies the killing to murder.
It has, time and again, been held that the killing of minor children who, by
reason of their tender years, could not be expected to put up a defense is
considered attended with treachery even if the manner of attack was not shown.
The allegation in the Information that the victims are both minors is to be
considered compliance with the fundamental rule that the qualifying circumstances
should be alleged in the information.
It is commonly understood in practice that when the victim in physical injuries,
homicide, or murder cases is a child of tender years, he is described in the
information as a minor. Minority in such a case should not be equated with its
statutory meaning that is, below eighteen (18) years old. It is used not so much
as to state the age of the victim (otherwise, the charging fiscal would have simply
placed the exact ages) rather, it is more of a description of the state of helplessness
of the young victim.