People v Ceradon

Facts:
- 10 complaints were filed against Ceradon charging him of rape
- In multiple instances, he allegedly raped his youngest sister from the years 1995- 2000
o The informations filed against him only made mention dates in the format of That
sometime in (year)
- AAA was only 10 years old at the time the first raped at knife point occurred
- This occurred constantly until AAA reached the age of 15
- AAA reported the instances of rape to her sister, friend, and later on to her teacher, Teresa, who
was prompted to report the allegations of rape to the head teacher who suggested to report the
instances to the police and barangay captain
- On the second confrontation of AAA and her brother, Ceradon, he admitted, at first to only raping
her thrice but upon his wife beseeching him to admit to the allegations in order for AAA to
forgive him, he later on admitted to the 10 instances of rape and begged AAA to forgive him
- The information was filed to the RTC, Ceradon pleaded not guilty but later was re-arraigned
upon his desire to plead guilty for all counts of rape
- RTC found Ceradon guilty
- CA affirmed RTC decision and imposed penalty of death
- Defense alleged that CA erred in its ruling since
o Dates of the instances of rape were not particularly established
o Death penalty should not have been imposed since prosecution failed to properly
allege the qualifying circumstance of rape by a relative within the second degree
of consanguinity
Issue: Whether or not dates need to be particularly established in the crime of rape
Whether or not prosecution sufficiently alleged the qualifying circumstance
Held: Yes, yes
- The particularity of dates of the commission of crime need not be alleged when it is not an
essential element of the crime (Information is sufficient when it alleges all essential elements of
the crime)
o The gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge through force or
intimidation
o It is sufficient that the complaint or information states the crime occurred at the
time nearest as possible to the date of actual commission
- The qualifying circumstance can be mentioned in laymans terms
o Mentioning that Ceradon raped his youngest sister is enough to properly allege
the qualifying circumstance
No need to specifically state that the accused is a relative within second
degree of consanguinity
Since brother and sister relationships are always within second degree
unlike niece- uncle relationships which can extend beyond third degree
- AAAs testimony of her age is enough for qualifying circumstance
o Certificate of live birth is not a requirement to prove the age of the victim
When there is absence of certificate of live birth, authentic document,
testimony of victims mother or relatives concerning victims age, the
victims testimony will suffice provided that the accused clearly admitted
to such
Ceradon during the second confrontation admitted that he raped AAA when
she was only 10 in 1995 to 15 in 2000
- Objections to matters of form in information cannot be raised first time on appeal
People v Sandiganbayan

Facts
An information was filed by the Office of the Ombudsman to the Sandiganbayan for an
administrative complaint for Simple Misconduct against Castillo, Mayor of Bacoor,
Cavite.
The information filed was for Simple Misconduct for violating Anti-Graft and Corruption
Practices Act, Section 3(e), which states:
o (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of
his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and
employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses
or permits or other concessions.
Castillo allegedly allowed the private co-defendants Melencio and Arciaga to
operate Villa Esperanza dumpsite without the requisite Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Environmental Management Bureau
(EMB). The penalty for the charge is a suspension for 1 month and 1 day.
Castillo moved to quash the information on the ground that the undue injury to
the government or any private person was not quantified and the unwarranted
benefits to co-defendants was not precise.
Sandiganbayan granted the quashal of the administrative complaint. CA upheld
Sandiganbayan decision upon appeal.

ISSUE:
W/N the information the Ombudsman filed was sufficient?

HELD:
YES.
According to Section 6 of Rule 110, for a complaint or information to be sufficient, it must
state the name of the accused, designation of the offense, acts or omissions complained
of constituting the offense, name of the offended party, approx date of the commission,
place of the commission of the offense. According to Section 9 of Rule 110, the acts and
omissions as well as the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in
ordinary and concise language that it is sufficient to enable the person of common
understanding to know the offense being charged and the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances.
The purpose of the information or complaint: (1) enables the accused to suitably prepare
for his defense; (2) if found guilty, to plead conviction in a subsequent prosecution for the
same offense (i.e. to prevent double jeopardy)
True test to ascertain validity and sufficiency: whether the crime if described in intelligible
terms with such particularity as to apprise the accused with reasonable certainty, of the
offense charged
Elements of the crime under RA 3019, Section 3(e):
o Accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official
functions
o Manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence
o Caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private
party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
functions
 The elements were all in the information, and hence sufficient
o Accused was the mayor of Bacoor
o Partiality evidenced by allowing co-defendants to operate without ECC
o Caused undue injury to the residents and students in the area who had to endure
the stench, flies, mosquitoes from the dumpsite
Information need not to allege with precision the benefits and the undue injury.
These are better presented in trial. The information needs to specify only the
ultimate facts constituting the offense.
Further, outright quashal is not the proper course of action. Rule 4 of Section 117
allows for the amendment of the complaint or information, with Courts
permission. By denying allowing the quashal and not ordering the amendment,
the State is denied opportunity to cure the defect.