(I made it into “Question and Answer”. Q is the prof, A are the students.

*** divides the

discussion for every new student called)

Q: Is it theoretically possible for a case to be litigated without the participation of the private
offender charged? How?

A: Yes. A criminal case is under the supervision and control of the public prosecutor. So the
public prosecutor will be the ## in this case in behalf of the people of the Philippines as not the
direct injured party but the injured party in criminal cases.

Q: Are you telling me that the state-- the public prosecutor can dispense altogether will need
participation of a private offended party? Is it possible? For example, someone sues for theft.
Someone must have been offended, meaning the party who owned the property. Is it possible
for the state to sue that party without participating? How?

A: Yes, it’s possible.

Q: Let’s put it another way. His property that was stolen, he’s not interested in recovering it. His
neighbor, will now initiate it for him. Is that possible? The elements of the crime are
automatically not complied with because she has no interest in that property.

A: No sir because in criminal actions--

Q: No listen to my question properly. He owns the property that was stolen. Logically he would
be the party most interested to recover it, right? Logically, he would be the party to initiate the
action. We know based on what we’ve read that even if he does, he would have to do it for the
state and that’s why it is important to say it is always under the control and supervision of the
public prosecutor. That’s clear and obvious. If he is allowed at all the participate with his own
lawyer, his private prosecutor participates as a subordinate of the public prosecutor. And can
only do so still under the control and supervision of the public prosecutor. Now he does not want
to participate, he is not interested in recovering his property. It is not one of those alleged
private crimes. Theft is not one of them. Is it or is it not?

A: No, sir.

Q: Isn’t one of those private crimes, theft? Because it involves his private property. So it is one
of those private crimes. Yes or no?

A: No, sir.

Q: How can it not be if it involves his personal property? It is. It is a private crime.

***
Q: I’m very confused. He said rape and acts of lasciviousness are examples of private crimes.
He said theft is an example of a private crime. Why do we even bother to distinguish? Why does
it matter to us whether we call it a private or a non-private crime?

A: We distinguish it because we would be able to know what penalty will be given.

Q: Is that the determination? To know the penalty given by law? You’re familiar with private
crimes and non-private crimes?

***

Q: What does it matter that we distinguish between private and non-private crimes?

A: If it’s a private crime, only the offended party can file the case. If it’s not, it can be filed in the
name of the people.

Q: It’s always in the name of the people. The only question is there is a necessity for the
participation of the offended party.

A: If it is a private crime, it could be that the private person be included.

Q: So it matters if I call it a private crime. What is the purpose for us to distinguish? What is the
effect if according to you it is a crime that has to be litigated by the offended party and it is not?

A: If it can only by filed by the offended party, it is a private crime.

Q: What is the effect?

A: The effect is that the case cannot be tried if the offended party does not file a complaint.

Q: What does it mean when you say cannot be tried? What’s going to stop him?

A: If the private offended party did not file a complaint with the, for example, office of the
prosecutor.

Q: What is the effect nga?

A: The criminal cannot be prosecuted if the cases is not filed by the private offended party.

Q: So if it’s not one of those private crimes and there are not very many. Which tends to be that
aside from those private crimes listed, the state can do it on its own. That’s possible even if it’s
theft? Who would be interested in theft if someone owns the personal private property?

A: Theft is not a private crime, it is a public crime.

Q: So you’re telling me back to my example. He owns the personal property, is not interested to
litigate the case, the neighbor can initiate the action. Someone has to initiate it because I know
someone stole from him. Is that possible?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Is that compliant with the elements of theft? Taking the personal property of a person?

A: As long as it’s a public crime, the offended party is not--

Q: So you’re telling me the party who can initiate it, someone has to initiate it by the way.
Sometimes it will be the police, sometimes it might be the NBI, sometimes it’s initiated through a
private complaint before a fiscal’s office. And that is done by a sworn statement by the person
who will now say actually I know the facts of this case because I know that someone stole this
from this person. So the element is that it was stolen something belonging to another.

A: Yes, sir. Theft is not a private crime even though the criminal took a personal property of
another it can still be tried as long another person files the case.

***
Q: When we say that the public prosecutor controls the action, is it possible for him to do so
even if there’s a private prosecutor present? Is it possible for a public prosecutor to litigate a
case with a private prosecutor with him?

A: No, sir. The only exception would be if the workload of the public prosecutor--

Q: No he’s not delegating it. I said “with”. Is it possible for a public prosecutor to litigate it
together with a private prosecutor?

A: No, sir.

Q: When will it ever happen that a private prosecutor participates? I read it somewhere here that
I can participate as a private prosecutor.

A: Only upon the authorization of--

Q: So a private prosecutor can ## only if it was delegated to him completely. I thought the rules
said I can delegate ## if i’m so busy. So the public prosecutor cannot stand side by side with the
private prosecutor? I thought we’re interested in two different things? When can there ever be a
private prosecutor?

A: When the public prosecutor delegates to the private prosecutor--

Q: No. When can there be a private prosecutor in the first place? It’s not the delegation. When is
the private prosecutor allowed to come in? So you’re telling me in a court when the public
prosecutor is not busy, a private prosecutor can never come in?

A: A private prosecutor can come in (inaudible)

Q: Your position is that a private prosecutor can come in only if the public prosecutor says I
can’t handle it. I thought you said a private prosecutor can come in if the civil action is being
litigated together with the criminal? I think that’s what it said? And if that’s what it says then I
can participate to litigate the civil action that my boss is always the public prosecutor in that
action.

Q: If the case has a private offended party, is it possible for a crime to have no private offended
party? Or is there always a private offended party?

A: There is always a private offended party.

Q: Always. Even in coup d'etat? So pwede. Therefore if it is a crime that has no private offended
party, then we’re not talking about private complainants or private prosecutors at all. On the
other hand if we’re talking about other types of crimes like theft or even murder or homicide, it
says that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable for the same act. And if there is an
offended party and he comes in, then he can ## private prosecutor in the same action. Yes or
no?

A: Yes.

Q: Even if the workload of the public prosecutor is light? And there are many remaining public
prosecutors?

A: Yes, sir.

***
Q: If I’m going to file a case, chances are it’s because I am interested as an offended party.
Unless it’s a high profile case, chances are it was the ## is a private offended party. That’s the
reality. If someone stole something chances are the state will not move unless someone nudged
the state to do so, and chances are that’s the private offended party. If there’s a private
offended party and a criminal case is filed in court. Is the civil aspect deemed impliedly
instituted.

Q: Do you know what that means? Even without me having to say anything, I have deemed the
civil aspect will also be litigated. Or do I need to do something for the court to know it will litigate
the civil action?

A: I need to do something.
Q: Then it cannot be implied instituted. What is it that I need to do?

A: A complaint must be filed in court--

Q: So what’s the procedure? How is a criminal case instituted?

A: By filing a complaint and information.

Q: So if you say information that means it’s instituted by the prosecutor.

A: If the offended party will be the one to file it with--

Q: Wait. A criminal action is litigated by the state. A criminal action litigated by the state is done
through the public prosecutor. And he is the boss of that prosecution. The rules of court seems
to acknowledge the situation where alongside him there could be a private prosecutor. Provided
that private prosecutor must be there for a particular purpose. What’s that?

A: For the civil aspect.

Q: But in any event if they are together, the boss is the public or private prosecutor?

A: The public prosecutor.

Q: Always after disclosure and supervision. Regardless whether the public prosecutor is busy or
not. Yes or no?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: So even if he is not busy there can be a private prosecutor so long as the private prosecutor
can note that the civil aspect is being litigated. What about the rule that says it can only be that if
the public prosecutor is busy?

A: If the public prosecutor is busy or there are lack of public prosecutors then the private
prosecutor can intervene if he is authorized in writing by the state prosecution office or the
prosecutor’s office.

Q: So what does that mean? Can the private prosecutor be in the same action even if the public
prosecutor is not busy?

A: No, sir.

Q: Ang gulo ha. Paikot-ikot tayo. Number 1, the state delegates all crimes. A crime involves a
criminal and a civil aspect. If the civil aspect is being litigated in the same action as the criminal
aspect, then there is justification for another guy called the private prosecutor who is the lawyer
of the private offended party to participate. Yes or no?

A: He can only be there if he is allowed to intervene.

Q: What is the factor that determines whether he can be allowed to intervene?

A: If he was authorized in writing.

Q: Ang gulo gulo na. So for you the rules of court says that a private prosecutor can participate
if only A) The civil aspect is being litigated, and B) the fiscal is busy. That’s the only way it can
happen?

A: No, sir. He must be authorized by writing.

Q: Kaya nga. The fiscal is busy is the trigger for him to authorize in writing the private
prosecutor? That’s the only way it will happen?

A: If the (inaudible)

Q: Yes, that’s section 5. So that is the only way that a private prosecutor can participate?

***
Q: I thought what that justified is the complete delegation.

A: The private prosecutor can be in the case along with the public prosecutor if the civil action is
instituted along with--

Q: Stop. According to her all that needs to happen for the civil action to be litigated together with
the criminal action. Therefore that fact alone authorizes or justifies a private prosecutor to
participate/intervene. How about everything we’ve been bothering with. That there is an
authority in writing under certain conditions only, what does that pertain to?

A: In the absence or when a public prosecutor is not available then the offended party, or the
accused officer or--

Q: For MTC case?

A: Yes.

Q: Those are for MTC case, what if RTC case?

A: (inaudible)
Q: What determines the intervention of the private prosecutor is what kind of court he’s filing it
at? Yes or no.

A: Yes.

Q: Really? So there is no rule that a private prosecutor can participate in an RTC case unless it
is either elevated by appeal or it’s because the fiscal is too busy? That’s what the law says? I
thought according to you, the only factor needed to justify his participation is that the civil aspect
is being litigated.

A: Sir, they’re separate.

Q: They’re not. They’re not separate.

A: The civil action cannot get the intervention of the public prosecutor if there is a civil action ##
in the RTC. But the delegation--

Q: Really? You cannot delegate in an RTC? That’s the rule? Imposible. In fact the rule says that
it can be delegated to people other than the private prosecutor if it’s an MTC. My question is
when do the private prosecutor-- when is that rule applicable when there is a delegation? When
does that happen?

A: In a Municipal Trial Court--

Q: Only? So you were delegating to a private prosecutor only if it’s an MTC case?

**
Q: I can’t if it’s an RTC case?

A: Sir, you can.

Q: So what’s the basis for distinction? Where does it say that in the rule? That it only in the MTC
can I only delegate to a private prosecutor?

A: The rule is that in the absence of the public prosecutor, you can delegate to a private
prosecutor.

Q: Even if i’m in the RTC?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: So what is the distinction? The public prosecutor is the one in charge of the criminal action,
yes? There is this guy called the private prosecutor who’s a private lawyer like us. Working in a
law firm, not for the state. Can he act like a private prosecutor? Yes or no? Can I, a private
lawyer, I am not employed by the DOJ, I am not employed by a Fiscal’s office. Can I prosecute
a case? Yes or no?

A: Yes.

Q: Under what conditions?

A: For example in a criminal action and a civil action is being instituted with it he could
participate.

Q: Number 1 the question is the interplay between the fiscal who is part of the state and
somewhat like a private lawyer who is acting to also prosecute the action. First question, is it
possible? Yes. Sure it’s possible. Is it possible in the RTC? Where did it say that it can’t be in
the RTC? When is that possible? Listen to the question. Discriminate diba? When is that
possible for a private prosecutor to litigate the case? According to you, if the civil action is
implied or is instituted. It’s litigated in the same action. Because now I can vouch in court the
private interest of my client which by the way is done because the civil action is litigated
together with the criminal. But at that point I am litigating it under the control of supervision of
the public prosecutor. Which means literally we are side by side. Try to go to a court during your
internship in a criminal case. There will be a public prosecutor the fiscal and many private
prosecutors coming in from private law firms and private practitioners litigating the action under
the control and supervision of the public prosecutor. It’s in Riano it says at any point the public
prosecutor can step in and say, “I will take charge again.” Which means they can litigate side by
side but the boss between the 2 of them is the public prosecutor. Clear? That’s not the situation
where it is delegated to him completely. The situation he needs an authorization in writing is
when?

A: Is in the absence of a public prosecutor. And if he has a ##. Or if there is a lack of prosecutor.
And if there is a an order in writing.

Q: The justification of the participation of the private prosecutor is that the civil aspect, which
pertains to this private offended party is being litigated in the same action. That justifies his
presence in court. But his boss is the prosecutor. When is he justified to do it alone? If he gets
the authorization in writing under those conditions. But that’s not a necessity for him to
participate side by side. Which brings me to my question earlier: When does that happen?
When does it happen that a civil action is also litigated with the criminal?

A: It is impliedly instituted.

Q: So if I don’t say anything, it is impliedly instituted. And the rule is in reverse, unless there are
certain things already done. Which are what?

A: inaudible. Or if you have instituted a criminal action. Or you waive your right to a civil action.
Q: Is it clear? The boss is the public prosecutor. However, it is possible for there to be a private
prosecutor if the civil action is also being litigated. And my question earlier is, without me doing
anything is the civil action impliedly instituted with the criminal? Yes. Because it says in Riano
unless he has waived it saying, “I don’t want to litigate the civil action anymore,” or I say, “Nope.
I reserved it. I want to litigate it with another action,” therefore the civil action will not be part of
the decision, or it’s already pending because I filed it ahead of time. In which case, very clearly
you will see that the determining factor to justify his participation is the existence of the civil
aspect. Now my question is what happens if the public prosecutor is absent. Can the case
proceed?

A: No, sir. Because of jurisdiction.

Q: Does it matter what states the proceedings were at? It makes sense to me if what was
happening was the presentation of prosecution evidence, and the public prosecutor was absent.
It makes sense to me for the supreme court to say that the court should not have proceeded.
Because it is the presentation of his evidence. What if it is already defense evidence and his
only job is to cross-examine anyway? Because if the rule is that all the public prosecutor needs
to do is absent himself and the case will be stalled, then that’s unfair also to the defense.

A: Inaudible. Sorry ang hina talaga.

Q: What’s the problem with Quniote?

A: In Quinote sir, the public prosecutor has a medical reason.

Q: When was that fact given to the court?

A: Before he was hospitalized.

Q: So there was prior notice? So that’s unfair. Did they file the motion?

A: The public prosecutor notified the court--

Q: Prior to the date? So may motion. In a piece of paper because--

A: Inaudible.

Q: A motion has to be in writing.

A: Inaudible.

Q: And that’s got to be in writing because if there’s no ## I cannot verbally relay that. It had to
be in writing. How?
A: The court was notified--

Q: How nga? Before the hearing date? So was there prior notice or wasn’t there prior notice?

A: There was prior notice.

Q: When?

A: Before the hearing started.

Q: A prior. Not prior to the date, prior to the start of the hearing.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Prior means prior date. So my question is was it at the hearing itself or the date prior?

A: At the hearing itself.

Q: How? He was not there. How was it relayed?

A: He sent a letter.

Q: Saying what?

A: That he was not going to be there. Inaudible.

Q: What type of case was being litigated?

A: A criminal case.

Q: Of course. Inaudible.

A: There was a ##.

Q: Is there an offended party in illegal possession? Is it the opposite? The offended party is the
illegal possession?

A: No, sir.

Q: So who is the offended party in illegal possession of firearms? There was no offended party?
I’m very confused. So what happened to the case?

A: The public prosecutor was not present because he was sick.

Q: But what was the incident at play?

A: The witness for the defense was presented. Only one--

Q: Only one because only one hearing date? It was in several occasions. So he was absent
twice. How many witnesses were presented? Two witnesses. And what happened after that?
What’s so wrong with that? If you’re absent, shouldn’t you be penalized?

A: No, sir because it was for a valid reason.

Q: So the middle ground is let us not waste our time, I will present the defense witness, we will
defer your cross-examination to a future date. Sounds fair. Yes?

A: No, sir. The public prosecutor should still be there. Inaudible.

***
Q: Is that correct? What she said.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: How many dates were set? How many times was he absent?

A: There are two ## but he was absent for the hearing of the defense-- the presentation of the
evidence.

Q: What is the reason why it logically became impractical? Don’t think like a lawyer first. We’re
litigating an action as an adversarial procedure. I’m presenting my case and you will be
presenting yours. And we are the flipside of each other therefore what I will do you will block,
and what you do I will block. And the way I will exercise my right if I am the party opposing you
is by poking holes into his logic. So I will say your testimony is here and I will cross-examine you
and that’s the test of the credibility and veracity of that witness. And that is also the embodiment
of my due process rights whether I am the prosecution or I am the defense. So you were there,
he was absent. He just told the court he was going to be absent too late and never gave us
information. Is it unfair for the court ##. It didn’t say present the witness and then discharge him.
It said present the witness and then defer the clause to a future date. And since clause is
embodiment of my due process rights, what harm is there to the prosecution ##.

A: If indeed the judge actually suggested that Quinote would just cross-examine ## but the fact
that the judge suggested he can cross-examine the ## does not certify the fact he should be
present--

Q: What does he still need to do? Never mind the technicality. What this case shows is the
absolute importance of the presence of the public prosecutor. And it is easier to understand it if
you are looking at the point of view of the prosecution evidence. Obviously if the public
prosecutor is not present, then the case should not proceed. This case highlights that his
presence is so important that even he’s already on the other side, he still has to be present.
Why does he have to be present every single second?

A: The prosecutor is the real ## in internal cases so since he is an indispensable part he should
not be absent since he is protecting the vital state’s interest.

Q: How will he do that when he is present? If the cross-examination was not being deadweight,
what is the importance of his physical presence in every single second of the proceedings? I
understand absolutely why the case cannot proceed if it’s your witness being presented. I
understand that their presence is important if they’re meant to cross-examine. That’s why there
appear to be sort of a solution which was half the testimony now can cross-examine at a future
date.

A: The prosecution if absent he would be deprived of due process. If the defense witnesses’
were presented without his presence then he cannot make suggestions to the testimonies and
he could not verify the conduct of those witnesses.

***
Q: Next case.

A: In people vs. ##. The president of ##. Group of companies that include ## filed a complaint
affidavit of libel. (Very inaudible)

Q: You’ve heard of the Pacific Plaza ## in your life?

A: No, sir.

Q: Not long ago there was a big issue about one of the insurance arms of the Yuchengco group
where the allegation was that they were not able to pay out the student plans. Because of that
this group FC, they’re on a crusade allegedly for information purposes. What ##?

A: The group published an article through the website which was according to # highly
defamatory of a #.

Q: Who in a libel case is the offended party?

A: The party allegedly defamed.

Q: Defamation. Is a public or a private crime?

A: Public crime.
Q: I thought it’s still a private case? What again is the significance knowing the distinction
between a public and a private crime?

A: If it’s a private crime, ## and prosecute without the offended party.

Q: Otherwise, he can’t do it on its own. In this case, the offended party filed a libel case. The
respondents were moved.

A: ##

Q: You cannot sue criminally a group. You’re suing its members. So what’s the issue here?

A: The issue here is because the prosecutor with probable cause against the officers of Pepsi.
The respondents filed ## on the grounds that information gave to allege the case ##

Q: Because it matters in a libel case when it was printed or first published. What is the difficulty
in this kind of a case?

A: The defamatory material is an article.

Q: So it is difficult to establish the venue. Since there was no allegation, and venue is
jurisdictional they moved to quashed successfully or unsuccessfully?

A: Successfully.

Q: So quashed. If an information is quashed who is happy? The accused because there is no

more case against them. Who is sad?

A: The complainants.

Q: Therefore the aggrieved party is the Yuchengco group. If you’re the aggrieved party, what is
the remedy if there is an adverse decision against you?

A: It depends. If the aggrieved party still wants to pursue the criminal action, then you appeal.

Q: Therefore in this case what happened was it was elevated. By whom?

A: It was elevated by the private prosecutor which was ## by the public prosecutor. However,
prior to the date, the ## filed a manifestation saying that the chief complaint had no information
about the alleged ##.

Q: What is the takeaway from this case? Relative to our subject matter.
A: The state is the aggrieved party in crimes an appeal of a criminal action can only be
successful-- a decision can be successful if ## to a Solicitor General.

Q: Even if it appears that the private offended party is the party most interested, you cannot
actually appeal it on your own unless it says your appeal is the civil aspect. However, there’s an
importance nuance in this case, the appeal was actually signed by the public prosecutor. Why is
that still not sufficient? Because the case highlights that on appeal the state is still presented by
the OSG. Public prosecutor litigates it at trial level, OSG appeals it.

***
A: Sir the next case is about ##. This is about a rape case.

Q: Public or private crime?

A: Now it’s a public crime but at the time it was still a private crime under ##.

Q: What is the significance if we call it private or public crime?

A: The significance is that the prosecution shall not commence if the complainant is the
offended party if it’s a private crime.

Q: How about defamation?

A: Defamation ## including the crimes adultery and ## and acts of lasciviousness.

Q: So all of those are so called private crimes. Acts of lasciviousness is a private crime, but if it’s
consumated it is now a public crime. If acts of lasciviousness graduates into a consummated
sexual act, it is now rape which is a public crime according to you.

A: Yes, sir. Now.

Q: Which tells us that a rape case can be litigated even without the participation of the offended
party. Now, let us assume that rape was still a private crime, like acts of lasciviousness. Can he
not be pardoned or can you ## exoneration from those types of crimes?

A: ## if the offended spouse pardoned ## doesn’t necessarily-- For the other crimes ##.

Q: Let us assume that rape is still like acts of lasciviousness. How will I manifest my express
pardon? How is that manifested? Is it the best expression of that by way of a document?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Is it the best kind of document? An affidavit of resistance? Isn’t it the absolute proof that I’m
no longer interested to pursue the case and therefore that’s an express pardon?
A: Not entirely sir because (inaudible). It should still be filed before.

Q: Very important document in this case on the assumption that it still a private crime and
therefore applies to all those private crimes. The pardon must be done when?

A: Before the institution of the criminal case.

Q: So what happened in this case? When was the affidavit decision presented?

A: The trial started before the affidavit was submitted before the defense.

Q: Next case.

A: The next case is ##.

Q: Why is it assigned? ## Isn’t it out of place? The PDIC doesn’t have anything to do with the
government.

A: This is a case involving a complaint by PDIC against Go and Dela Rosa regarding
falsification of public documents.

Q: What is the issue pertinent to us here?

A: The constitution took a while or years before they-- because Dela Rosa filed for motion to
dismiss because the constitution failed after 5 years to prosecute.

Q: If the case is dismissed who is happy?

A: The accused.

Q: Who is sad?

A: Dela Rosa.

Q: The prosecution. Therefore who is going to challenge him? Who challenges the dismissal of
a case? Dismissal makes the accused happy and the prosecution sad therefore the prosecution
wants it reversed. What did they do?

A: They filed for motion for reconsideration.

Q: They sought a reversal by an MR. Successful, not successful?

A: They were successful.

Q: Therefore the dismissal was reversed, easily reinstated. Who’s happy? Who’s sad? The
prosecution was happy and the accused was sad. Who is going to elevate it?

A: The accused.

Q: If I am going up as the accused I can challenge it. If I am going up, I have to notify my
enemy. Who is the enemy is in this case? The PDIC diba? Which appears to be semi-
government. So therefore I notify by furnishing a copy to the PDIC. This case is so important
because the previous cases said: No. 1 only the public prosecutor is authorized to litigate the
case. In fact it is so important that his absence in effect nullifies that particular ##. What else
does it say? It also says that if I am going to appeal the matter and I am the private prosecutor, I
cannot do it on my own. I have to do it as an appellant through the state, which at the appeal
level is not just the public prosecutor. Now the state is so important in a criminal case that even
if he’s the opposing side, it has to be the correct party whom I serve. So in this case what
happened? They serve a copy of their ## only with the PDIC. What’s so wrong with that?

***
A: Because the PDIC is only a private party and the--

Q: Isn’t it a semi-government.

A: But the OSG should--

Q: Because the OSG initiated the action. If in fact the complainant or the prosecution in this
case was the recipient of the appeal because the party aggrieved was the accused because of
the reversal of the dismissal. What is the materiality of the participation of the state.

A: Sir they should still be informed of the--

Q: They already informed the PDIC. It was a different entity litigating his enemy. What’s wrong
with that? Correct or not correct? What the appellants did? Notifying just the PDIC?

A: Not correct.

Q: What are the so called private crimes?

A: Defamation--

Q: So the pepsi was private crime. What is the import when I say that use of something is a
private crime.

A: The offended party should be the one to litigate it.

Q: For example, that there is a newsman that I am a thief or that I am corrupt, the only party
who can litigate that action is the party who is alleged to have been corrupt. The state cannot do
it for me.

A: Yes, sir. Adultery…

***
Q: Defamation. I called you a crook and I published it. Can the state initiate the libel case
against me without your participation?

A: In that case yes, sir.

Q: So she’s right, that defamation is a private crime?

A: No, sir. Only with respect to private crimes.

Q: I said you’re a crook, you’re a thief, you’re corrupt. And I published it. You don’t want to sue
me, you’re the offended party. But the state sues me anyway. Can the state do that without you
participating? Yes or no?

A: It can be the state sir. It’s not included in the private crimes.

Q: I said that you are a concubine. Can the state sue me?

A: In that case, no sir.

Q: No, it has to be you. Why? Because in defamation including what? It’s not all kinds of
defamation.

A: (inaudible)

Q: How about adultery?

A: Also.

Q: Also any one of them. Defamation is not a private crime per se. Adultery. Husband 1, wife 1,
husband 2, wife 2. Who’s happy, who’s sad in this situation?

A: Wife 1 and husband 2 are sad.

Q: This is adultery - a private crime. The state cannot come in to sue on their behalf. According
to you, wife 1 is not happy. And husband is not happy. So wife 1, most commonly will be mad at
wife 2. Can she sue wife 2?
A: In that case, yes.

Q: Without including husband 1?

A: It has to be both of them.

Q: So wife 1 can sue provided she’s suing both of them. Can husband 2 sue anyone?

A: He may sue husband 1 and wife 2.

Q: Even wife 2? His wife?

A: Yes.

Q: There is no reason for him to be upset at her, right? Most likely he’s upset at him. So he
wants to sue just this guy. Possible not possible?

A: Not possible.

Q: Must sue both of them. So the 2 parties who can sue are either wife 1 or husband 2.

***
Q: Is that correct? Who is the aggrieved party in an adultery?

A: In an adultery the aggrieved party is (inaudible cough cough). Husband 2.

Q: It’s still sexist. Husband 2 is the real offended party and he has to sue who?

A: He has to both husband 1 and wife 2.

Q: What’s a complaint and what’s an information? What’s the difference?

A: A complaint is a ##. It is a statement and it is taken under oath. It is a sworn statement in

writing.

Q: Sworn statement and under oath mean the same thing. Subscribed and under oath are not
the same thing. So when I say subscribed and sworn that’s not redundancy. So when I say
something subscribed what does that mean?

A: Something subscribed means signed by.

Q: If it’s a complaint, does it have to be signed? Does it have to be under oath? Sworn, ok. By
whom?
A: It has to be subscribed by the offended party or ## or the commission tasked by--

Q: Information on the other hand. Does it have to be in writing? Who signs it?

A: Yes, sir. The prosecutor.

Q: Does it have to be under oath?

A: No, sir.

Q: Why does it appear to be less stringent for information-- What is the practical import that I
see for someone who is under oath?

A: It means that the person under oath was ## the veracity of the--

Q: And if he lies?

A: If he lies, he can be charged for perjury.

Q: Therefore, if you hear that something is required to be under oath, or must be verified, or has
been given affidavit, it sort of implies that that matter is so important you have to swear it, and if
you lie I will sue you. So therefore it says so that a complaint has to be true under oath. Are we
saying that information is not that important?

A: No because the prosecutor files the information under oath in his office.

Q: So it is also deemed to have already been under oath. If I say that a case filed information, is
it correct to say that it is always filed by a prosecutor? Can you remind me what is that rule
again? How will I initiate a criminal action?

A: For ## in the revised penal code, the punishment is it does not exceed 4 years 2 months and
1 day, it can be filed--

Q: Therefore can be filed by complaint because it can be filed directly. If it can be filed only by
information, that means that’s the type of case has to pass through a prosecutor. Under what
instances is a case required to pass through a prosecutor?

A: The imposable penalty of the offense exceeds 4 years 2 months and 1 day.

Q: Why? What is that cut off point? It’s correct but what does it mean?

A: It means that these cases are more severe.

Q: It’s not that. What does it say in the ##. You saying 4-2-1 is not actually a ## of section 1.
What does it say? ## is not 4-2-1. It’s 6. Is that what it says in section 1? What’s that 4-2-1, what
type of case? If it’s beyond 4-2-1?

A: You have to go to a prosecutor

Q: Why? You have to do what? What will the prosecutor do?

A: The prosecutor will have to see if there is probable cause.

Q: How? How is he going to do that? By what means? What procedure? Tell me what the
prosecutor is doing there, he is conducting what?

A: A preliminary investigation.

Q: And we know that is required that’s why we need a cut-off of 4-2-1. I’m saying this now
because it would be instinctive, if you see a case has to be filed only by information, you
automatically know that you have to go through a prosecutor. And we know that No. 1 you go to
a prosecutor if the imposable penalty is beyond 4-2-1. Is that the only case where you go to a
prosecutor?

A: In the case of ##.

Q: You have to go to a prosecutor anyway that’s why you will see that it says cases can be filed
only by information. It sort of loses option. Even if a PI is not required sometimes you have the
option to go to a prosecutor anyway.

A: You can file a ## in the court.

Q: Your option now. By the way, it’s a practical matter, okay? Not all places with courts have
their own prosecutors. In Manila of course if there’s an RTC, there’s a city prosecutor of Manila.
But in provinces for example there could be a court but no prosecutor. In which case if it is
below 4-2-1, then you can go straight to a court. But the practical reality is in all cases where
there are prosecutors, they will require you to go to a prosecutor first.

***
Q: When is a complaint or information deemed sufficient?

A: If it states the name of the accused, if it states the venue where the crime was committed, if it
states the approximate date of the commission of the crime, if it states the name of the offended
party. It has to state the crime committed.

Q: Rioflorido committed theft, thank you. Sufficient information?

A: No, sir.

Q: Rioflorido committed theft under Article 308 of the revised penal code. Sufficient information?
Yes, because I stated the number.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: So that’s all I need to do to charge you. Rioflorido, your name, committed theft against Torio
in Manila under Article 308 of the revised penal code on or about August 20. Sufficient?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Really? All I need to say is theft, estafa? Based on what I said earlier, does that satisfy the
test of sufficiency?

A: No, sir. You have to indicate the acts or omissions constituting the crime. The elements of the
crime.

Q: I thought it should appeal to someone who is a non-lawyer? I thought it would not appeal to
an intelligent person, I thought it just has to appeal to a non-lawyer? So I say theft, if I go to
elements then you are presuming that the reader is a lawyer. For me one of the most important
parts of this portion of rules in court talks about how to draft a complaint or information. By the
way, why is it so important that I draft it correctly? Is it fatal if I draft it erroneously?

A: Yes, sir. It violates the right of the accused to information. He has to be informed of the trial of
the case.

Q: Is that jurisdictional?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What does it mean again when I say something is jurisdictional?

A: Without it, the proceedings will not continue.

Q: So if I drafted erroneous or a vague information, and you did not object to it, and we
proceeded to trial, and you were convicted. You can say that that was a jurisdictional defect and
therefore this conviction is invalid.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Really? So me crafting an incorrect information, it’s never waived. The defect can never be
waived. It’s so important that it cannot be waived.
***
Q: What she said?

A: (inaudible)

Q: So it’s not jurisdictional. So why is it important that I draft it correctly?

A: Sir because of the jurisdiction of the court

Q: So it is jurisdictional.

A: (inaudible sorry!!)

Q: What are the requisites for a complaint or information to be submitted? What does it have to
state? Name of the accused. What if I don’t know the exact name?

A: You can put a fictitious name like John Doe.

Q: How will I convict someone whose name I don’t even know.

A: Based on Riano, what is important exactly is the (inaudible).

Q: Aside from the name of the accused which is really important.

A: The name of the offended party.

Q: Is that essential? Yes, no, depends?

A: Depends on the type of crime.

Q: If it’s a crime against property, when is it material that state specifically the name of the
offended party.

A: When the subject matter is generic.

Q: Generic. What’s the general form?

A: Money.

Q: Money. What is the logic behind that? Why am I required to be very specific as to the owner
of the property, if the property is generic. And why is the reverse true? If the property is specific,
the property itself is specific, you’re telling me that I can dispense with the specific identification
of the offended party?
A: Yes, sir. The reason for that specification sir it can actually be ##.

Q: So again it’s the right to be informed and you already know what it is you’re being charged
with. Because if you can identify the particular property then you know what it is you supposed
to have committed. Where as if I say money, then I have to say whose money.

A: Approximate day.

Q: Why do you always say approximate? Does it not have to be specific?

A: It depends.

Q: Rape.

A: For rape, since the ##.

Q: So what type of offense can you think of that requires the date as an element?

A: The only time that requires the date is estafa in relation to the ##.

Q: Why is date an element of that?

A: It comes with (inaudible talaga)

Q: So all types of crimes, the date is merely an identifier, it is not an element of the offense.

A: The designation of--

Q: What does it mean when you say designation versus acts of omission constituting the
offense.

A: In acts of omission constituting the offense, those are acts that happen

Q: For me if I’m going to pick one of these that is most contentious is that because it is a
balance between me being very very specific which is not ## in the information stage, and being
very general or vague in which case it is quashable. So if I say hazing, for example, can I say
that that is a sufficient description enough to inform the party? What happened in Payatos?

A: In Payatos, the student of ## died that’s why there was a ## filed against--

Q: Against who?

A: The principal, there were the school authorities

Q: What were the school authorities participation?

A: Accomplices.

Q: What if the case against the principal is already dismissed? Is it possible to proceed if the
office ##

A: In the supreme court it is possible since they have to ## offenses.

Q: So long as the dismissal say there is not crime committed. Next question, why did the
Sandiganbayan ##?

A: Because the (inaudible)

Q: What if say hazing? The allegation is that there was no allegation in the information saying
that it was a prerequisite ##. But I already said hazing, which everybody knows what it is what it
means. Is it sufficient to informed the accused?

A: No, because it is the duty of the prosecution to actually prove every element of the case

Q: Will you already in the information phase? To prove with moral certainty?

A: I mean that the elements are already established.

Q: So correct. That’s precisely my question. This is the initiatory document, give me a chance to
prove this during trial and I will convict you. So I’m just saying believe it now, and don’t worry I
will be able to prove it given time. According to #cough# that hazing is insufficient. Why not?

A: Because when it comes to hazing there might be the possibility that the prosecution will only
be charged with physical injuries or murder.

Q: But we already said hazing is the information. Precisely did not attempt to say only physical
injuries or in this case murder or homicide. Relating it to the requirements of a sufficient
information, why is the term hazing not sufficient?

A: Because there is a presumption that the accused does not know the facts that he committed

Q: Why is the term not sufficient to inform me? For me this is an important part because if you
look at it, it’s really a tricky balance. I’m not required to state everything but I can’t be too vague.
And if I’m too vague, then it is possible to be quashed or dismissed. So we’re looking at
Supreme Court decisions saying what is particular enough and what is too vague. In this case if
there are many issues in the case that’s why it’s important. I want to focus on the term hazing.
Why is it not sufficient? Tell me already what you’re supposed to have done.
A: (inaudible)

Q: Important there is it seems to say that hazing is a legal conclusion. Therefore if I say theft,
estafa that’s a legal conclusion. Which means I did not to the reader who is presumed to not
know anything about it, I have to tell it in layman’s what you are being charged with. So I can’t
say it easy that you know what it is. You read the case carefully and there are many other
issues. The law seems to say that if it was a legitimate psychological prerequisite to entry to the
organization, for example it says it is a justification. That’s why the allegation was that you did
not say it is not a legitimate psychological exercise for entry. What did the Supreme Court say?
That’s a matter of defense. That is not an element of the crime.

***
Q: What are the elements for a sufficient complaint or information?

A: Name of the accused. Name of the offended party. Acts or omissions constituting the
offense. Designation of the offense. Approximate date of the commission of the offense. And the
place where it was committed.

Q: If I say date, can it be an approximation? Except if?

A: Except if it is a material crime.

Q: If I did not comply with any of these, is it a jurisdictional #cough# of information? What is the
import again when I say jurisdictional versus if it is procedural?

A: Jurisdictional is determining whether the ## of power or authority to hear the dates.

Q: Therefore it is a jurisdictional defect, then I can raise it anytime.

A: No, sir

Q: If it is a jurisdictional defect I cannot raise it anytime? Listen to my question. If it is a

jurisdictional defect, can I raise it at any time?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Can the parties agree to it?

A: No, sir.

Q: Can the parties waive it?

A: No, sir
Q: Can the court moto propriu vs procedural which is opposite of everything I said. My question
is defect of the information, is it jurisdictional or is procedural?

A: It is procedural.

Q: Only. Meaning if I don’t point it out and I participate in trial I deemed ##. So what if it is the
signature of the person whose information that is inferred. Is it also procedural?

A: No, sir.

Q: So it’s jurisdictional now? So a mere defect in the signature, let’s say it was not signed by the
proper authority, is now a jurisdictional defect? Look at the import if I say jurisdictional. It’s so
strong I can ## any time. It is absolutely void.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Really? So a mere ## in the signature is jurisdictional but my error in stating the acts and
omissions is procedural? What is an example of a defect in the information that is a sufficient
ground to quash. Hazing. I say hazing without how that happened, it is a defect which is
sufficient for dismissal. But it is not a jurisdictional defect. If I do not point at the time, I’m ##.
How about I say cashier and bookkeeper without going through all of the acts that show that it
with an abuse of confidence that there was a ##. Is it vague or is it specific enough?

A: It’s specific enough.

Q: What is the difference between the two? I say hazing and it’s not specific. I say cashier and
bookkeeper and I am assumed to know that it it is in a position of confidence? You remember
what qualified theft is? Someone committing theft who is in a position of confidence. And I
simply say done by a cashier and bookkeeper. Sufficient? What if I identify the person, I identify
the act, but I didn’t identify the drug and it’s a drugs case? I failed to identify the very drugs that
is the subject matter of the case.

A: It is material to the information.