Information; Amendment; Supervening Events (1997)

A was accused of homicide for the killing of B. During the trial, the public prosecutor received a copy of the
marriage certificate of A and B.
(a) Can the public prosecutor move for the amendment of the information to charge A with the crime
of parricide?

(b) Suppose instead of moving for the amendment of the information, the public prosecutor
presented in evidence the marriage certificate without objection on the part of the defense, could Abe
convicted of parricide?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No. The Information cannot be amended to change the offense charged from homicide to parricide.
Firstly, the marriage is not a supervening fact arising from the act constituting the charge of homicide. (Sec.
7[a] of Rule 117). Secondly, after plea, amendments may be done only as to matters of form. The
amendment is substantial because it will change the nature of the offense. (Sec. 14 of Rule 110; Dionaldo us.
Dacuycuy. 108 SCRA 736).

(b) No. A can be convicted only of homicide not of parricide which is a graver offense. The accused has the
constitutional rights of due process and to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against
him. (Secs. 1, 14 (1) and (2} Art. III. 1987 Constitution),

Information; Bail (2003)

After the requisite proceedings, the Provincial Prosecutor filed an Information for homicide against X. The
latter, however, timely filed a Petition for Review of the Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor with the
Secretary of Justice who, in due time, issued a Resolution reversing the resolution of the Provincial
Prosecutor and directing him to withdraw the Information.

Before the Provincial Prosecutor could comply with the directive of the Secretary of Justice, the court issued
a warrant of arrest against X.

The Public Prosecutor filed a Motion to Quash the Warrant of Arrest and to Withdraw the Information,
attaching to it the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice. The court denied the motion. (6%)

a)Was there a legal basis for the court to deny the motion?
b) If you were the counsel for the accused, what remedies, if any, would you pursue?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a.Yes, there is a legal basis for the court to deny the motion to quash the warrant of arrest and to withdraw the
information. The court is not bound by the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice. (Crespo v. Mogul, 151
SCRA 462 [1987]).

b. If I were the counsel for the accused, I would surrender the accused and apply for bail because the offense
is merely homicide, a non-capital offense. At the pre-trial, I would make a stipulation of facts with the
prosecution which would show that no offense was committed.

Information; Motion to Quash (2000)

BC is charged with illegal possession of firearms under an Information signed by a Provincial Prosecutor.
After arraignment but before pre-trial, BC found out that the Provincial Prosecutor had no authority to sign
and file the information as it was the City Prosecutor who has such authority. During the pre-trial, BC moves
that the case against him be dismissed on the ground that the Information is defective because the officer
signing it lacked the authority to do so. The Provincial Prosecutor opposes the motion on the ground of
estoppel as BC did not move to quash the Information before arraignment. If you are counsel for BC, what is
your argument to refute the opposition of the Provincial Prosecutor? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would argue that since the Provincial Prosecutor had no authority to file the information, the court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused and over the subject matter of the offense charged. (Cudia
v. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 173 [1999]). Hence, this ground is not waived if not raised in a motion to
quash and could be raised at the pre- trial. (Sec. 8, Rule 117, Rules of Court).

 Section 3(d) Rule 117 That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;

Information; Motion to Quash (2005)

Rodolfo is charged with possession of unlicensed firearms in an Information filed in the RTC. It was alleged
therein that Rodolfo was in possession of two unlicensed firearms: a .45 caliber and-a .32 caliber. Under
Republic Act No. 8294, possession of an unlicensed .45 caliber gun is punishable by prision mayor in its
minimum period and a fine of P30.000.00, while possession of an unlicensed .32 caliber gun is punishable by
prision correctional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than P15,000.00.
As counsel of the accused, you intend to file a motion to quash the Information. What ground or
grounds should you invoke? Explain. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The ground for the motion to quash is that more than one offense is charged in the information. (Sec. 3[f],
Rule 117, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure) Likewise, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the second offense
of