People vs.

Lopez
G.R. No. 119380 August 19, 1999
MENDOZA, J.:

Doctrine:
The Information is formally defective as it charged more the one offense in violation of Rule 110,
sec. 13 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Facts:
At around 6:00 in the evening Mario Seldera, 11, his father Rogelio Seldera, and his cousin
Rodolfo Padapat worked in the riceland of a certain Lagula in Barangay Nancalabasaan,
Umingan, Pangasinan. It was harvest time and the three were hired to bundle the palays stalks
which had been cut. The three worked in the field until around 9:00 when they started for home
taking a trail alongside the Banila river. As they reached a sloping portion in the trail, Federico
Lopez appeared armed with a shotgun. Accused-appellant had a companion, a dark man. He
was unarmed. Lopez fired at the three, who slumped forward, face down. Accused-appellant's
companion went near the bodies of the victims and rolled them over with his foot. Satisfied that
the victims were dead, accused-appellant and his companion left. However, Mario was not
killed, although he had been wounded in the back. As soon as Lopez and his companion had
left, Mario stood up and, crying, he walked to the house of his uncle, and reported the matter.
Mario's mother was fetched from their house and told what had happened to Rogelio and
Rodolfo. The three then reported the incident to the barangay captain who lost no time in
accompanying them to the police in Umingan, Pangasinan.

In the information, it states that:

The above-named accused together with one John Doe, whose identity has not yet been
established, armed with a short firearm, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
shoot ROGELIO SELDERA and RODOLFO PADAPAT which caused their immediate
death and on the same occasion and with treachery and evident premeditation wound
MARIO SELDERA on his breast to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Rogelio
Seldera and Rodolfo Padapat and also to the damage and prejudice of said Mario
Seldera.

The trial court held the accused-appellant guilty of "Double Murder with Frustrated Murder," but
sentences him for two separate counts of murder and one count of frustrated homicide.

Hence, this appeal.

Issues:
Is the information defective?

Ruling:
Yes. The Information is formally defective as it charged more the one offense in violation of Rule
110, sec. 13 of the Revised Rules of Court. However, because of his failure to file a motion to
quash, accused-appellant is deemed to have waived objection based on the ground of duplicity
Tandoc v. Resultan
G.R. No. 59241-44 July 5, 1989
PADILLA, J.:

Doctrine:
A preliminary investigation is intended to protect the accused from the inconvenience, expense
and burden of defending himself in a formal trial unless the reasonable probability of his guilt
shall have been first ascertained in a fairly summary proceeding by a competent officer. It is
also intended to protect the state from having to conduct useless and expensive trials.

Facts:
A criminal complaint was lodged with the Office of the City Fiscal of San Carlos City,
Pangasinan, with the charges of "Serious Physical Injuries", "Slight Physical Injuries", fand
"Trespass to Dwelling", filed by Pacita Tandoc against respondents Arnulfo (Arnold) Payopay,
Beda Acosta, Manuel Cancino, Nadong Fernandez and Arturo Syloria. The investigating fiscal
found reasonable ground to believe that respondents Arnulfo (Arnold) Payopay, Beda Acosta,
Manuel Cancino, Nadong Fernandez and Arturo Syloria committed the crimes charged.

Consequently, the corresponding informations for "Slight Physical Injuries", "Trespass to

Dwelling" and "Serious Physical Injuries" were filed with the City Court of San Carlos City.

However, pending the resolution of their first complaint, the charge against petitioners for
"Serious Oral Defamation", "Grave Threats" and "Physical Injuries", the Office of the City Fiscal
recommended the dropping of said charges on the ground that they "were found to be in a [sic]
nature of a countercharge, the same having been filed after more than one (1) month from the
date of the alleged incident. However, as to the charge of "Trespass to Dwelling" a prima facie
case was found by the investigating fiscal. Thus, an informations for "Trespass to Dwelling"
was filed with the City Court of San Carlos City.

Respondents directly lodged with the City Court of San Carlos City 4 complaints against herein
petitioners. the City Court of San Carlos City issued several Orders whereby the court a quo,
after conducting a preliminary examination of the four (4) aforementioned cases, found
reasonable ground to believe that the offenses charged may have been committed by the
accused (now petitioners) and that the latter were probably guilty thereof.

A motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid resolution was filed by petitioners, but it was
denied. They moved for a re-investigation of the cases by the Office of the City Fiscal. The
court a quo denied said motion. Petitioners sought a reconsideration of said order, but it was
likewise denied, hence, this petition.

Issue:
whether or not the city court has the power and authority to conduct anew a preliminary
examination of charges, which were previously the subject of a preliminary investigation
conducted by the Office of the City Fiscal and thereafter dismissed by the latter

Ruling:
Yes. A preliminary investigation is intended to protect the accused from the inconvenience,
expense and burden of defending himself in a formal trial unless the reasonable probability
of his guilt shall have been first ascertained in a fairly summary proceeding by a competent
officer. It is also intended to protect the state from having to conduct useless and expensive
trials.
There are two (2) stages in a preliminary investigation;
first, the preliminary examination of the complainant and his witnesses prior to the arrest of the
accused to determine whether or not there is ground to issue a warrant of arrest;
second, preliminary investigation proper, wherein the accused, after his arrest, is informed of
the complaint filed against him and is given access to the testimonies and evidence presented,
and he is also permitted to introduce evidence in his favor. The purpose of this stage of
investigation is to determine whether or not the accused should be released or held before trial.

In the case at bar, the offenses charged against petitioners for "Trespass to Dwelling", "Grave
Threats" and "Physical Injuries" were all within the jurisdiction of the City Court of San Carlos
City. Under the circumstances, the complaints could be filed directly with the City Court which is
empowered to conduct a preliminary examination for purposes of issuance of warrants of arrest,
and thereafter to proceed with the trial of the cases on the merits. The preliminary investigation
proper conducted by the Office of the City Fiscal could have been dispensed with. Neither did
the earlier order of dismissal of the complaints by the investigating fiscal bar the filing of said
complaints with the city court on the ground of double jeopardy.