Case 18 – DUPLICITY OF OFFENSE, DOUBLE JEOPARDY

 Whether or not there is duplicity of offense.

The general rule is that a complaint or information must charge only one offense. Duplicity of offense is
when a single complaint charges more than one offense which can be a ground for quashal of information
or complaint. However, in this case, each information charges only one offense. Hence, there is no
duplicity.

 Whether or not the petitioners can be charged of one offense only.

If a single act offends two or more distinct provisions, the accused can be charged for more than one
offense. The different laws involved cannot absorb one another as the elements of each crime are
different. In this case, there were violations that are covered under RPC and the others are under special
law.

 Whether or not there is double jeopardy.

Double jeopardy means that a person cannot be charged with the same offense when the person was
already convicted or acquitted of a similar crime. In this case, there is no double jeopardy because each
offense involves essential element that is not essential to the other. (107)

Case 19 – PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

 Whether or not the respondents can intervene in the crime of perjury, a crime against public interest.

As a general rule, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. When a criminal action is instituted,
the civil action arising from the offense is deemed instituted unless the respondent waived, reserved, or
instituted the civil action separately. In this case, since the civil liability was instituted in the criminal case,
the offended party can intervene in the prosecution of the offense.

The offended party is a person whom or against whose property was committed. Under this case, the
offense of the petitioner is injurious to the respondent’s reputation as a Treasurer of the company. (148)

Case 20 – AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION

 Whether or not the complainant is allowed to file an amended information with leave of court.

A complaint or information may be amended in form or in substance, without leave of court, before the
accused enters his plea. However, only a formal amendment with leave of court can be made after the
plea or during the trial. In this case, the court finds the amendment as formal, not of substance because a
change in amount written in the complaint is erroneous and inexistent. The change does not alter the
nature and essence of the offense.

 Whether or not the remedy of certiorari must be granted.

The petition for certiorari can be granted if there is a grave abuse of discretion of the court. In this case,
the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion by denying the Ombudsman’s motion to file amended
information despite the absence of prejudice on the part of the accused. (133)
Case 21 – AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION, SUBROGATION OF COMPLAINANT
 Whether or not the substitution of private complainant at the late stage of trial is valid.

The substitution of name as private complainant is not a substantial amendment. It did not alter the basis
of the charge nor prejudiced the petitioner. It can be cured by inserting the name of the offended party in
the information. The body of the complaint and its nature were not affected.

 Whether or not the appearance of a new prosecutor without written or oral withdrawal of the counsel.

Subrogation is the transfer of rights to a third person. It can be legal subrogation, which takes place
without agreement but by operation of law, and conventional subrogation which takes place by
agreement of the parties. Therefore, the petitioner’s consent is not necessary for subrogation because the
case is a legal subrogation. (146)

Case 22 – INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION, PREJUDICIAL QUESTION)

 Whether or not the civil case served as a prejudicial question to suspend the criminal case.

Under Art. 33 of the Civil Code, in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. It does not operate as a prejudicial question that
justifies a suspension of a criminal case.

A prejudicial question is understood to be that which must precede the criminal action that requires a
decision before the final judgment is rendered. The reason for this is to avoid two conflicting decisions in
the civil and criminal case. The prejudicial question will not arise if the criminal case was instituted prior to
the civil case.

In this case, even if the respondent is declared a mere agent of his mother, he cannot be free from
criminal liability because he conspired to falsify the public document. (167)