Tickler: Records supporting the information

TERESITA TANGHAL OKABE vs. HON. PEDRO DE LEON GUTIERREZ

G.R. No. 150185, May 27, 2004
CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Doctrine: The rulings of this Court are now embedded in Section 8(a), Rule 112 of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides that an Information or complaint filed in court shall
be supported by the affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties and their witnesses

Facts:

Cecilia Maruyama executed an affidavit-complaint and filed the same with the Office of the City
Prosecutor, charging petitioner Okabe with estafa. During the preliminary investigation, the
complainant, respondent Maruyama, submitted the affidavit of her witnesses and other
documentary evidence. After the requisite preliminary investigation, Assistant City Prosecutor
came out with a resolution, finding probable cause for estafa against the petitioner. Attached to
the resolution, which was submitted to the city prosecutor for approval, was the
Information against the petitioner and Maruyama’s affidavit-complaint. The city prosecutor
approved the resolution and the Information attached thereto.6

An Information against the petitioner was filed in the Regional Trial Court Appended to the
Information was the affidavit-complaint of respondent Maruyama and the resolution of
Investigating Prosecutor. The trial court issued a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner

The petitioner asserts that the respondent judge could not have determined the existence of
probable cause for her arrest solely on the resolution of the investigating prosecutor and the
undated affidavit-complaint of respondent Maruyama. She posits that the respondent judge
should have ordered the investigating prosecutor to submit the affidavits of the witnesses of
respondent Maruyama and the latter’s documentary evidence, as well as the counter-affidavit of
the petitioner and the transcripts of the stenographic notes, if any, taken during the preliminary
investigation. The Office of the Solicitor General, on the other hand, asserts that the respondent
judge did not commit any grave abuse of discretion when he found probable cause against the
petitioner for estafa, and thereafter issued a warrant for her arrest. It argues that the respondent
judge personally determined the existence of probable cause independently of the certification
of the investigating prosecutor, and only after examining the Information, the resolution of the
investigating prosecutor, as well as the affidavit-complaint of the private complainant.

Issue: Whether the resolution of the prosecution which attaches information and affidavit-
complaint is sufficient to find probable cause

Ruling:

No. The rulings of this Court are now embedded in Section 8(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure which provides that an Information or complaint filed in court shall be
supported by the affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties and their witnesses, together
with the other supporting evidence of the resolution:

SEC. 8. Records. – (a) Records supporting the information or complaint. An information

or complaint filed in court shall be supported by the affidavits and counter-affidavits of
 the parties and their witnesses, together with the other supporting evidence and the
resolution on the case.

In this case, the investigating prosecutor submitted to the respondent judge only his resolution
after his preliminary investigation of the case and the affidavit-complaint of the private
complainant, and failed to include the affidavits of the witnesses of the private complainant, and
the latter’s reply affidavit, the counter-affidavit of the petitioner, as well as the evidence adduced
by the private complainant as required by case law, and now by Section 8(a), Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The aforecited affidavits, more specifically the fax
message of Lorna Tanghal and the document signed by her covering the amount of US$1,000,
are of vital importance, as they would enable the respondent judge to properly determine the
existence or non-existence of probable cause.
Tickler: Date and time of the crime
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDWIN LADRILLO
G.R. No. 124342. December 8, 1999
BELLOSILLO, J.:

Doctrine: The peculiar designation of time in the Information clearly violates Sec. 11, Rule 110,
of the Rules Court which requires that the time of the commission of the offense must be
alleged as near to the actual date as the information or complaint will permit.

Facts:

Jane Vazquez alleged that she was raped by her cousin Edwin. However, in her complaint Jane
could not state the month and year she was supposedly abused by her cousin Edwin Ladrillo.
Accused-appellant claims that in 1992, the year he allegedly raped Jane as stated in the
Information, he was still residing in Liberty, Puerto Princesa City, and did not even know Jane or
her mother at that time. Preliminarily, the crime was alleged in the Information to have been
committed "on or about the year 1992" thus -

That on or about the year 1992 at Abanico Road, Brgy. San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City x x x x
the said accused, with the use of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the undersigned five (5) years of age, minor,
against her will and without her consent.

The trial court found accused-appellant Edwin Ladrillo guilty as charged. Accused-appellant
contends in this appeal that the trial court erred not finding that the prosecution failed to
sufficiently establish with particularity the date of commission of the offense

Issue:

Whether the trial court erred in not finding that the prosecution failed to establish the particular
date of the commission of the offense, thus, cannot satisfy the quantum of evidence required for
a pronouncement of guilt

Ruling:

Yes. The peculiar designation of time in the Information clearly violates Sec. 11, Rule 110, of
the Rules Court which requires that the time of the commission of the offense must be alleged
as near to the actual date as the information or complaint will permit. The Information is not
sufficiently explicit and certain as to time to inform accused-appellant of the date on which the
criminal act is alleged to have been committed.

The phrase "on or about the year 1992" encompasses not only the twelve (12 ) months of 1992
but includes the years prior and subsequent to 1992, e.g., 1991 and 1993, for which accused-
appellant has to virtually account for his whereabouts. Hence, the failure of the prosecution to
allege with particularity the date of the commission of the offense and, worse, its failure to prove
during the trial the date of the commission of the offense as alleged in the Information, deprived
accused-appellant of his right to intelligently prepare for his defense and convincingly refute the
charges against him. At most, accused-appellant could only establish his place of residence in
the year indicated in the Information and not for the particular time he supposedly committed the
rape.
Indeed, the failure of the prosecution to prove its allegation in the Information that accused-
appellant raped complainant in 1992 manifestly shows that the date of the commission of the
offense as alleged was based merely on speculation and conjecture, and a conviction anchored
mainly thereon cannot satisfy the quantum of evidence required for a pronouncement of guilt,
that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed on the date and place
indicated in the Information.