Name of the Accused

 

Section 7. Name of the accused. — The 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. If his name cannot be ascertained, he must be described under a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is unknown.

Rule:

1. If name is known: the 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.

2. If name cannot be ascertained: a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is unknown.

• If true name thereafter disclosed: such true name shall be inserted in the complaint or information and record.

What is the purpose of the rule?

The manifest intent of the provision is to make a specific identification of the person to whom the commission of an offense is being imputed.

When is the error in the name of the accused not fatal to an information?

Error in the name of the accused will not nullify the information if it contains sufficient description of the person of the accused.

When should the error in the name or identity be raised by the accused?

The error should be raised before arraignment, or else it is deemed waived.

Cases:

● An error in the name of the accused is not reversible as long as his identity is sufficiently established. This defect is curable at any stage of the proceedings as insertion of the real name of the accused is merely a matter of form (People v. Padica, 221 SCRA 362).

● Verbal motion to correct spelling is sufficient. 

● PEOPLE vs. CAGADAS

G.R. No. 88044, January 23, 1991

Facts:

Roberto Cultura was indicted in the information as Jose Cultura (his father's name). It was proven, however, during the trial that he was part of the group that killed the victim. He did not question his identity at the arraignment and acquiesced to be tried under that name. 

Held: 

Appellants' contention that the trial court erred in convicting Roberto Cultura for he was not one of those indicted in the information but "Jose" Cultura (his father's name), has no merit. The erroneous designation of his name in the information will not vitiate it, as it was clearly proven that the accused, Roberto Cultura, was part of the group that arrested, hogtied and killed the victim. Besides, Cultura did not raise this question of his identity during the arraignment. His acquiescence to be tried under the name "Jose" at that stage of the case is deemed to be a waiver on his part to raise the question of his identity as one of the accused for the first time on appeal