Intervention of the offended party in criminal action

Sec. 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action.—Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.

GENERAL RULE: Offended party has the right to intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the criminal action, where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111.

EXCEPTIONS:

1) When from the nature of the crime and the law defining and punishing it, no civil liability arises in favor of a private offended party, and;

2) Where the offended party has WAIVED his right to civil indemnity or has expressly RESERVED his right to institute a civil action or has already INSTITUTED said action.

● The reason of the law in not permitting the offended party to intervene in the prosecution of a criminal case, if he has waived his right to institute a civil action arising from the criminal act, or has reserved the right to institute a separate action, or a fortiori, already instituted the said civil action, is that he has no special interest in the prosecution of the criminal action. (Gorospe vs. Gatmaitan, G.R. No. L-9609, March 9, 1956)

● Where the offended party withdrew a reservation to file a separate civil action, the private prosecutor may still intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case, by conducting the examination of witnesses under the control of the prosecutor.

However, once the offended party has filed a separate civil action arising from the crime, he may not withdraw such civil case in order to intervene in the criminal prosecution.  He loses the right to intervene.  He no longer has any standing in the criminal case, except to be a prosecution witness.

Why is the offended party has the right to intervene in the prosecution of the criminal action?

The reason for this rule is because of Article 100 of the RPC which provides that every person criminally liable shall also be civilly liable and also because there are certain offenses which cannot be prosecuted except upon complaint of the offended party.

Can the offended party file a civil action for certiorari in his own name if the RTC dismisses an information?

Yes.  In case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the petition may be filed by the offended party because the offended party has an interest in the civil aspect of the case.

When the trial court acquits the accused or dismisses the case on the ground of lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the civil action is not automatically extinguished since liability under such an action can be determined based on mere preponderance of evidence. The offended party may peel off from the terminated criminal action and appeal from the implied dismissal of his claim for civil liability. (Heirs of Burgos vs CA, G.R. No. 169711, February 8, 2010)

Do the offended parties have the right to move for the dismissal of a case?

No.  The right belongs only to the government prosecutor who is the representative of the complainant.

Where a criminal action has been provisionally dismissed upon motion of the prosecutor, can the case be revived upon motion of the offended party?

No, because the offended party or complaining witness cannot act for the prosecutor. 

Do the offended parties in a criminal have the legal standing to seek, in their personal capacities and without the Solicitor General’s intervention, reversal of the trial court’s order granting bail to the accused on the ground of absence of strong evidence of guilt?

No. The question of granting bail to the accused is but an aspect of the criminal action, preventing him from eluding punishment in the event of conviction.  The grant of bail or its denial has no impact on the civil liability of the accused that depends on conviction by final judgment. Trial and judgment, with award for civil liability when warranted, could proceed even in his absence. (Heirs of Burgos vs CA, G.R. No. 169711, February 8, 2010)

Cases:

● An offended party may intervene in the prosecution of a crime, except in the following instances: (1) when from the nature of the crime and the law defining and punishing it, no civil liability arises in favor of a private offended party, and; (2) when from the nature of the offense, the offended parties are entitled to civil indemnity, but (a) they waive the right to institute a civil action, (b) expressly reserve the right to do so, or; (c) the suit has already been instituted.  In any of these instances, the private complainant’s interest in the case disappears and criminal prosecution becomes the sole function of the public prosecutor. (Rodriguez vs. Ponferrada. G.R. No. 155531-34, 7/29/2005)

● It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal.  The private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal. However, the said offended party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused.

In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant. The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in name of said complainant. [Bangayan, Jr. vs. Bangayan, G.R. Nos. 172777 &  172792, October 19, 2011 citing People v. Santiago, 255 Phil. 851, 861-862 (1989)]

● Under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the offended party may intervene in the criminal action personally or by counsel, who will act as private prosecutor for the protection of his interests and in the interest of the speedy and inexpensive administration of justice.  A separate action for the purpose would only prove to be costly, burdensome and time-consuming for both parties and further delay the final disposition of the case.  The multiplicity of suits must be avoided. With the implied institution of the civil action in the criminal action, the two actions are merged into one composite proceeding, with the criminal action predominating the civil.  The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order. On the other hand, the sole purpose of the civil action is for the resolution, reparation or indemnification of the private offended party for the damage or injury he sustained by reason of the delictual or felonious act of the accused. (Ramiscal vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 140576-99.  December 13, 2004)

read more...

Substitution of Complaint or Information

Section 14. Amendment or substitution. — A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.

However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or excludes any accused from the complaint or information, can be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court. The court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended party. 

If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in accordance with section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall not be placed in double jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the trial. 

● The first paragraph provides the rules for amendment of the information or complaint, while the third paragraph refers to the substitution of the information or complaint.

When can a complaint or information be substituted?

A complaint or information may be substituted if:  

1. At any time before judgment it appears that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, and

2. The accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or of any other offense necessarily included therein

3. Provided that he will not be placed in double jeopardy.

Limitation to the rule on substitution: 

1. No judgment has yet been rendered

2. The accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or of any other offense necessarily included therein.

3. The accused would not be placed in double jeopardy.

Can the court order the dismissal of the original complaint before a new one is filed in substitution?

No.  The court will not order the dismissal until the new information is filed.

Amendment vs. Substitution

AMENDMENT	SUBSTITUTION OF INFORMATION OR COMPLAINT
May involve either formal or substantial changes	Involves substantial change from the original charge
Amendment before the plea has been entered can be effected without leave of court.	Substitution of information must be with leave of court as the original information has to be dismissed.
Amendment is only as to form, there is no need for another preliminary investigation and the retaking of the plea of the accused.	Another preliminary investigation is entailed and the accused has to plead anew to the new information
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.	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.

What  is  the  test  to  determine  if  what  is  needed  is amendment or substitution?

In determining, whether there should be an amendment under the first paragraph of Section 14, Rule 110, or a substitution of information under the second paragraph thereof, the rule is that where the second information involves the same offense, or an offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first information, an amendment of the information is sufficient; otherwise, where the new information charges an offense which is distinct and different from that initially charged, a substitution is in order. (Pacoy vs. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, September 28, 2007 citing Teehankee v. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102, March 6, 1992)

When is there identity between the two offenses?

There is identity between the two offenses:

1. when the evidence to support a conviction for one offense would be sufficient to warrant a conviction for the other, or 

2. when the second offense is exactly the same as the first, or 

3. when the second offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of, or 

4. when it necessarily includes or is necessarily included in, the offense charged in the first information. 

In this connection, an offense may be said to necessarily include another when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as this is alleged in the information, constitute the latter.  And, vice-versa, an offense may be said to be necessarily included in another when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter. (Pacoy vs. Cajigal, ibid.)

Variance between indictment and proof 

1. When the offense proved is less serious than, and is necessarily included in, the offense charged, in which case the defendant shall be convicted of the offense proved.

2. When the offense proved is more serious than and includes the offense charged, in which case the defendant shall be convicted of the offense charged.

3. When the offense proved is neither included in, nor does it include, the offense charged and is different therefrom, in which case the court should dismiss the action and order the filing of a new information charging the proper offense.

The third situation set forth above is substitution of information under Section 14, Rule 110.

read more...

Amendment of Complaint or Information

Section 14. Amendment or substitution. — A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused. xxx (Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)

Kinds of Amendment:

1. BEFORE PLEA – covers both substantial and formal amendment, WITHOUT leave of court.

2. AFTER PLEA – covers only formal amendment provided:

        a)  leave of court is obtained

        b)  such amendment is not prejudicial to the rights of the accused.

EXCEPT when a fact supervenes which changes the nature of the crime charged in the information or upgrades it to a higher crime, in which case, there is a need for another arraignment of the accused under the amended information.

PLEA

                 Formal                                              Formal

                 Substantial

                 Without leave                                    With leave

                                                                        Not prejudicial

What kind of amendment of the complaint/information can be made before arraignment?

As a rule, both formal and substantial amendments are allowed before arraignment even without leave of court. By way of exception, an amendment before plea which downgrades the nature of the offense charged or excludes any accused from the complaint or information, can be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court. (Section 14, Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure)

What kind of amendment of the complaint/information can be made after arraignment?

After arraignment, only formal amendments may be made only with leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.

Distinguish substantial from formal amendment.

A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form. (Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.160451, February 9, 2007)

What are some examples of formal amendments?

The following have been held to be mere formal amendments: 

1) new allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty that the court might impose in the event of conviction; 

2) an amendment which does not charge another offense different or distinct from that charged in the original one; 

3) additional allegations which do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume; 

4) an amendment which does not adversely affect any substantial right of the accused; and 

5) an amendment that merely adds specifications to eliminate vagueness in the information and not to introduce new and material facts, and merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the original information and which adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged. (Leviste vs. Almeda, G.R. No. 182677, August3, 2010) 

When are the rights of the accused prejudiced by an amendment?

1. When a defense which he had under the original information would no longer be available

2. When any evidence which he had under the original information would no longer be available 

3. When any evidence which he had under the original information would not longer be applicable to the amended information.

What is the test whether the amendment is substantial or merely formal? 

The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment is whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other. An amendment to an information which does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to be one of form and not of substance. (Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, ibid.)

According to the case of Ricarse, the test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment, is whether a defense under the original information would be available after the amendment is made. If the answer is yes, it is only a formal amendment that will not prejudice the rights of the accused.

What are the distinctions between amendment and substitution?

1. Amendment may involve either formal or substantial changes, while substitution necessarily involves a substantial change.

2. Amendment before plea can be effected without leave of court, but substitution is always done with leave of court since it involves the dismissal of the original complaint or information.

3.  Where the amendment is only as to form, there is no need for a new preliminary investigation or plea;  in substitution, another preliminary investigation and plea is required.

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. Substitution requires or presupposes that the new information involves different offense which does not include or is not necessarily included in the original charge, hence the accused cannot claim double jeopardy (Teehankee vs. Madayag, 207 SCRA 685)

Before arraignment, can amendment of the complaint/information be allowed to cure any and all defects thereof?

No. It must be clarified that not all defects in the information are curable by amendment prior to entry of plea. An information which is void ab initio cannot be amended to obviate a ground for quashal. An amendment which operates to vest jurisdiction upon the trial court is likewise impermissible. (Leviste vs. Almeda, G.R.No. 182677, August 3, 2010)

After the accused entered his plea, may the Information for homicide be still amended to charge the more serious offense of murder?

No, because such amendment upgrading the charge from homicide to murder is a substantial amendment. The amendment of the Information from homicide to murder is "one of substance with very serious consequences. In keeping with Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, only formal amendment can be allowed after arraignment but it is always upon leave of court and provided no prejudice can be made on the rights of the accused. After the accused is arraigned, substantial amendment is proscribed except if the same is beneficial to the accused. (Fronda-Baggaov. People, G.R. No. 151785, December 10, 2007)

The original Information alleged that on October 16, 1992, petitioner Danilo Buhat, armed with a knife, unlawfully attacked and killed one Ramon George Yu while the said two unknown assailants held his arms, "using superior strength, inflicting . . . mortal wounds which were . . . the direct . . . cause of his death." In filing the information, the prosecutor expressly designated it as one for homicide. After arraignment, the prosecution moves to amend the original Information by changing the express designation of the crime charged from homicide to murder. Can this be allowed?

Yes. The original information already contains the allegation that the killing was done with the “use of superior strength”. This allegation already qualified the killing as murder regardless of how such killing is technically designated in the information filed by the public prosecutor.

When the appellation of the crime charged as determined by the public prosecutor does not exactly correspond to the actual crime constituted by the criminal acts described in the information to have been committed by the accused, what controls is the description of the said criminal acts and not the technical name of the crime supplied by the public prosecutor. In other words, the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of the law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law which in no way affect the legal aspects of the information, but from the actual recital of facts as alleged in the body of the information.

Under these circumstances, the amendment of the Information by merely changing its express designation from homicide to murder is only a formal amendment and no prejudice can be made against the rights of the accused. (Buhat vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119601 December 17, 1996)

Is an additional allegation of habitual delinquency and recidivism a substantial amendment?

No.  These allegations only relate to the range of the imposable penalty but not the nature of the offense.

Is an additional allegation of conspiracy a substantial amendment?

Yes because it changes the theory of the defense.  It makes the accused liable not only for his own acts but also for those of his co-conspirators. (Old J. Sabio answer)

The new answer is: No, it is not a substantial amendment in the following example: X is charged with murder as principal.  Later, the complaint is amended to include two other persons who allegedly conspired with X.  Can X invoke double jeopardy on the ground that the amendment is substantial? No. The amendment is merely a formal amendment because it does not prejudice the rights of X, who was charged as a principal to begin with.

Is a change in the items stolen by the accused a substantial amendment?

Yes, because it affects the essence of the imputed crime and would deprive the accused of the opportunity to meet all the allegations in preparation of his defense.

Is a change in the nature of the offense due to supervening event a substantial amendment?

No, it is merely a formal amendment.

Can the court order an amendment without a motion to amend? Enumerate instances where the court can order an amendment.

In criminal cases, if there is a motion to quash on the ground that the information does not constitute an offense or is defective, the court instead of dismissing it, will order the amendment. Only when you fail to amend, will the court order the dismissal of the case. (See Rule 117)

In a civil case, can a court order an amendment without a motion to amend or notice to amend under Rule 10? 

Yes.

1. If there is a motion for Bill of Particulars, instead of denying or granting it the court can order an amendment.

2. If there is a motion to dismiss, the court can either grant or deny the motion or order an amendment of the pleading (Sec. 3, Rule 16, Rules of Court)

Section 3. Resolution of Motion. — After the hearing, the court may dismiss the action or claim, deny the motion, or order the amendment of the pleading.

read more...

Duplicity of the Offense

Section 13. Duplicity of the offense. — A complaint or information must charge but one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.

What is meant by duplicity of charges?

Duplicity of charges simply means a single complaint or information charges more than one offense. (John Eric Loney vs. People, G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006)

What is the rule on duplicity of offenses?

General  rule:  

A  complaint  or  information  must  charge  only  one offense. ONE INFORMATION, ONE OFFENSE.

Exception:  

When  the  law  provides  only  one  punishment  for  the various offenses.

1. Complex and compound crimes

2. Special Complex crimes

3. Continuous crimes or delicto continuado

4. Crimes of which another offense is an ingredient

What is the reason for the rule against duplicitous complaint or information?

The Rules prohibit the filing of such Information to avoid confusing the accused in preparing his defense. (John Eric Loney vs. People, ibid.)

What is the remedy of the accused against a duplicitous information or complaint?

The remedy of the accused is to file a motion to quash before arraignment pursuant to Section 3 (f) of Rule 117.

What is the effect of the failure of the accused to object to a duplicitous information?

If the accused fails to object (file a motion to quash) before arraignment, he is deemed to have waived the defect in the Information, and he may be convicted of as many offenses as are charged and proved during trial.

Section 3. Judgment for two or more offenses. — When two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each offense. (Rule 120, Rules of Court)

● An accused, who fails to object prior to arraignment to a duplicitous information, may be found guilty of any or all of the crimes alleged therein and duly proven during the trial, for the allegation of the elements of such component crimes in the said information has satisfied the constitutional guarantee that an accused be informed of the nature of the offense with which he or she is being charged.  Verily, a duplicitous information is valid since such defect may be waived and the accused, because of such waiver, could be convicted of as many offenses as those charged in the information and proved during trial. (Dimayacyac vs. People, G.R. No. 136264, May 28, 2004)

Can we join offenses in one information? Can we join as many offenses as there are in one information? Let’s say there are 5 counts of rape, 5 counts of estafa, can it be included in one information? 

The answer is NO! For every offense, there should be one information – that is the general rule! EXCEPT if there is a single punishment for various offenses.

X fired his gun once, but the bullet killed two persons. He was charged with two counts of homicide in one information. Can he be convicted under that information?

Yes. It falls under the exception to the rule. This is a compound crime in which one act results in two or more grave or less grave felonies. The law provides only one penalty for the two offenses.

X was charged with both robbery and estafa in one information. Can he be convicted of both offenses?

It depends. If he objects to the duplicitous information before arraignment, he cannot be convicted under the information. But if he fails to object before arraignment, he can be convicted of as many offenses as there are in the information.

What is the principle of absorption?

In cases of rebellion, other crimes committed in the course of the crime are deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion either as a means necessary for its commission or as an unintended effect of rebellion. They cannot be charged as separate offenses in themselves. The exception is when the common crimes are committed without any political motivation. In such a case, they will not be absorbed by rebellion.

If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, how many offenses are there?

There is only one offense – murder or homicide aggravated by the use of unlicensed firearm. This is by special provision of RA 8294. (Dissenting opinion of J. Sabio – How can you complex when one is an RPC offense/malum in se  and the other is a violation of a special law/malum prohibitum?)

X was speeding on a highway when his car collided with another car. The other car was totally wrecked and the driver of the other car suffered serious physical injuries. How many information should be filed against X?

Only one information should be filed for serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence. The information against X cannot be split into two because there was only one negligent act resulting in serious physical injuries and damage to property.

Same case, but the injuries suffered by the driver were only slight physical injuries. How many information should be filed?

Two informations – one for the slight physical injuries and the other for damage to property. Light felonies cannot be complexed. 

What is delito continuado?

Delito Continuado or Continued crime is one where the accused is impelled by a single criminal impulse but commits a series of overt acts at about the same time in about the same place and said acts violate the same offense. 

The reason is that neither the criminal act nor the intention is susceptible of the division.

Delito Continuado or Continuing offense exists if there is a plurality of acts performed during a period of time, unity of penal provision violated, and unity of criminal intent or purpose which means that two or more violations of the same penal provisions are united in one and the same intent or resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim.

Delito Continuado or continuing offense consists of several crimes but in reality, there is only one crime in the mind of the perpetrator.

Delito Continuado or continuing offense consists of a series of acts arising from one criminal intent or resolution.

In the above views, since there is only a single criminal intent, even though there is a series of criminal acts, only one information should be filed against the offender.

Example:

The taking of the accused of several things, whether belonging to the same or different owners, at the same time and place constitutes but one larceny.

In American jurisprudence, the applicable principle is the “Single Larceny” Doctrine which looks at the commission of the different criminal acts as but one continuous act involving the same “transaction” or as done on the same “occasion”.

The above doctrine, which we adopted, abandoned the “Separate Larceny” Doctrine which views that there is as many larceny as there are properties taken from the victim or victims. Also abandoned was the doctrine that the government has the discretion to prosecute the accused for one offense or for as many distinct offenses as there are victims.

To stick with the abandoned rules would violate the constitutional guarantee against putting a man in jeopardy twice for the same offense. It has also been observed that the doctrine of Single Larceny is humane since if a separate charge could be filed for each act, the accused may be sentenced to jail in perpetuity or for the rest of his life.

The law requires however that where the offense charged in the information is a complex crime as defined by law, every essential element of each of the crimes constituting the complex felony must be stated in the information.

NOTE: The single larceny rule is commonly applied by our courts to malversation and falsification cases but not so in estafa cases.

What is the equivalent on the rule of duplicity of offenses in civil procedure? In civil cases, can you join causes of action in one complaint? 

Yes. Rule 2, sec 5. That is what you call joinder of causes of action. 

Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. — A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties;

(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;

(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and

(d) Where the claims in all the causes action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.

1. You cannot join those covered by? SPECIAL RULES. Special proceeding and ordinary civil action? You cannot join. Adoption and sum of money? You cannot join. Petition for certiorari and specific performance? You cannot join. But, unlike criminal cases, in civil procedure allows joinder of causes of action. 

2. Can you join parties in cases of multiple causes of action? And multiple parties? YES. Rule 3 Sec. 6. 

Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. — All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action.

Take note of that. If there is more than one party on one side, it should arise from the same transaction or series of transaction. Jointly severally or in the alternative.

3. Also there is what you call in civil cases, the TOTALITY RULE. It is the sum of all of the claims. So if all of the claims are claims for sums of money, can you claim? Can you join them together? Yes. How about estafa and BP 22? No! because that is a criminal case.

4. And finally in joinder of causes of action, if you join and one is with the RTC, it will be joined in the RTC respecting the rule on JURISDICTION AND VENUE. But in criminal cases, again, can we join? No! ONE OFFENSE, ONE INFORMATION unless it is a complex crime, or there was inaction on the part of the accused when offenses have been joined or included in one information and he failed to object. Can the court render a valid judgment? Yes! (from the lecture of Atty. Tranquil Salvador)

Case:

The Rules of Court, particularly Sec. 13 of Rule 110, indeed frown upon multiple offenses being charge in a single information. However, petitioner failed to raise the issues during arraignment. His failure to do so amounts to a waiver and his objections on this point can no longer be raised on appeal. (Abalos vs. People, G.R. No. 136884, 09/17/2002)

read more...

Sufficiency of Complaint or Information

Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. — A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.

When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information. (Rule 110, Rules of Court)

When is a complaint or information deemed sufficient?

A complaint or information is sufficient if it states:

1. the NAME of the accused; 

2. the DESIGNATION of the offense given by the statute; 

3. the ACTS OR OMISSIONS complained of as constituting the offense; 

4. the name of the OFFENDEDPARTY; 

5. the approximate DATE of the commission of the offense; and 

6. the PLACE where the offense was committed.

What is the purpose of the rule?

To safeguard the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him so that he can duly prepare his defense.

● Substantial defect in the information cannot be cured by evidence that would jeopardize the accused’s right to be informed of the true nature of the offense he is charged with.

● Matter of evidence need not be averred

● Allegation prevail over designation. The title of information or designation of offense is not controlling, It is the actual facts recited in the information that determines the nature of the crime. 

Cases:

● The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the material averments of an information is whether or not the facts alleged therein, which are hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime defined by law. 

The court has ruled that evidence aliunde or matters extrinsic of the information are not to be considered. Sec. 3(a) of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court authorizes the quashal of an information when the facts therein do not amount to an offense.  The fundamental test in reflecting on the viability of a motion to quash under this particular ground is whether or not the facts asserted, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime defined in the law.  In this examination, matters aliunde are not considered.  Anent the sufficiency of the information, Sec. 6 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court requires, inter alia, that the information must state the acts or omissions so complained of as constitutive of the element of the offense. (Cabrerra vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162314-17, 10/25/2004)

● While it is necessary to allege the essential elements of the crime in the information, failure to do so is not an irremediable vice.  When the complaint or the resolution by the public prosecutor, which contains the missing averments, is attached to the information, and forms part of the records, the defect in the latter is effectively cured, and the accused cannot successfully invoke the defense that his right to be informed is violated.       

The character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information. (Olivarez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163866, 7/29/2005)

● The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged and enable the court to know the proper judgment. The information must allege clearly and accurately the elements of the crime charged. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definition and elements of the specific crimes. The purpose of the requirement of alleging all the elements of the crime in the information is to inform an accused of the nature of the accusations against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare for his defense. Another purpose is to enable the accused, if found guilty, to plead his conviction in a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. The use of derivatives or synonymous allegations of the basic facts constituting the offense charged is sufficient.

It is not necessary to allege in the amended information a pattern of overt criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy because as Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 7080 specifically provides that the same is evidentiary and the general rule is that matters of evidence need not be alleged in the information. (Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468, 01/28/2003; Laurel vs. Abrogar, 483 SCRA 243, March 27, 2006)

● Our rulings have long settled the issue on how the acts or omissions constituting the offense should be made in order to meet the standard of sufficiency. Thus, the offense must be designated by its name given by statute or by reference to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. The information must also state the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002). 

CONSPIRACY

As a Crime

When conspiracy is charged as a crime, the act of conspiring and all the elements of said crime must be set forth in the complaint or information. For example, the crime of conspiracy to commit treason is committed when, in time of war, two or more persons come to an agreement to levy war against the Government or to adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort, and decide to commit it. The elements of this crime are: 

(1) that the offender owes allegiance to the Government of the Philippines; 

(2) that there is a war in which the Philippines is involved; 

(3) that the offender and other person or persons come to an agreement to: (a) levy war against the government, or (b) adhere to the enemies, to give them aid and comfort; and 

(4) that the offender and other person or persons decide to carry out the agreement. 

These elements must be alleged in the information.

As a mode in the commission of the crime

It is enough to allege conspiracy as a mode in the commission of an offense in either of the following manner: 

(1) by use of the word conspire, or its derivatives or synonyms, such as confederate, connive, collude, etc; or 

(2) by allegations of basic facts constituting the conspiracy in a manner that a person of common understanding would know what is intended, and with such precision as would enable the accused to competently enter a plea to a subsequent indictment based on the same facts.

The requirements on sufficiency of allegations are different when conspiracy is not charged as a crime in itself but only as the mode of committing the crime as in the case at bar. There is less necessity of reciting its particularities in the Information because conspiracy is not the gravamen of the offense charged. The conspiracy is significant only because it changes the criminal liability of all the accused in the conspiracy and makes them answerable as co-principals regardless of the degree of their participation in the crime. The liability of the conspirators is collective and each participant will be equally responsible for the acts of others (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002).

read more...