Almeda vs.

Villaluz (wrote at the back)

Issue: whether the amendment to the information, after a plea of not guilty thereto, was
properly allowed in both substance and procedure

Ruling:

• The additional allegations of habitual delinquency and recidivism do not have the
effect of charging another offense different or distinct from the charge of qualified
theft (of a motor vehicle) contained in the information
• The said new allegations relate only to the range of the penalty that the court might
impose in the event of conviction.

Ricarze v. Court of Appeals (collector-messenger Caltex -PCIB)

Issue: Whether or not the substitution of Caltex by PCIB as private complainant at this late
stage of the trial is prejudicial to his defense.

Ruling:

• In the case at bar, the substitution of Caltex by PCIB as private complaint is not a
substantial amendment. The substitution did not alter the basis of the charge in both
Informations, nor did it result in any prejudice to petitioner. The documentary
evidence in the form of the forged checks remained the same, and all such evidence
was available to petitioner well before the trial.

Cabo vs. Sandiganbayan (Note: pleaded not guilty, abroad, under the law) - Section 3(b),
R.A. No. 3019

Issue: whether double jeopardy would attach onthe basis of the "not guilty" plea entered
by petitioner on the original information

Ruling:

• the original information can be cured by amendment even after she had pleaded
thereto, since the amendments ordered by the court below were only as to matters
of form and not of substance
• In the case at bar, while certain elements of the crime charged were missing in the
indictment, the amended information did not change the nature of the offense which
is for violation of Section 3(b), R.A. No. 3019. The amended information merely
clarified the factual averments in the accusatory portion of the previous information,
in order to reflect with definiteness the essential elements of the crime charged.

Kummer vs. People (Boy Mallo, gun, door) -homicide

Fact: The petitioner claims that she was not arraigned on the amended information for which
she was convicted.

Issue: Whether or not change in the date of the commission of the crime is a formal
amendment

Ruling:

• A mere change in the date of the commission of the crime, if the disparity of time is
not great, is more formal than substantial. Such an amendment would not prejudice
the rights of the accused since the proposed amendment would not alter the nature
of the offense.
• Applying these rules and principles to the prevailing case, the records of the case
evidently show that the amendment in the complaint was from July 19, 1988 to June
19, 1988, or a difference of only one month. It is clear that consistent with the rule
on amendments and the jurisprudence cited above, the change in the date of the
commission of the crime of homicide is a formal amendment.

Mendez vs. People (Quezon City, Makati, Dagupan, San Fernando >> Mendez Medical Group,
Muntinlupa City, Mandaluyong City and Makati City) - BIR -failed to file his income tax
returns for taxable years 2001 to 2003

Fact: The petitioner failed to file his comment to the motion within the required period;
thus on June 12, 2007, the CTA First Division granted the prosecution's motion

Issue: Whether the prosecution's amendments made after the petitioner's arraignment are
substantial in nature and must perforce be denied? No

Ruling:

• In the present case, the amendments sought by the prosecution pertains to (i) the
alleged change in the date in the commission of the crime from 2001 to 2002; (ii) the
addition of the phrase "doing business under the name and style of Mendez Medical
Group"; (iii) the change and/or addition of the branches of petitioner's operation;
and (iv) the addition of the phrase "for income earned". We cannot see how these
amendments would adversely affect any substantial right of the petitioner as
accused.
• 2001 > 2002: the added phrase merely states with additional precision something
that is already contained in the original information, i.e. , the income tax return is
required to be filed precisely for the income earned for the preceding taxable year
• Mendez: the addition of the phrase "doing business under the name and style" is
merely descriptive of the nature of the business organization established by the
petitioner as a way to carry out the practice of his profession
 Rule 110 Sec. 15

Isip vs. People (seven carat diamond (men's ring), valued at P200,000.00) -estafa

Fact: the RTC found that the transactions involved in these cases were sufficiently shown
to have taken place at complainant Atty. Leonardo Jose's ancestral house in Cavite City when
the latter was on leave of absence from the Bureau of Customs where he was connected. It
said the defense failed to substantially prove its allegations that the transactions occurred
in Manila, particularly in the Towers Condominium

Issue: Whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction over the offense imputed to
petitioner and for which he was

CONVICTED

Ruling:

• The concept of venue of actions in criminal cases, unlike in civil cases, is jurisdictional.
The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the
action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for
jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense should have been
committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court.
• In the instant case, petitioner failed to establish by sufficient and competent
evidence that the transaction happened in Manila. Petitioner argues that since he and
his late wife actually resided in Manila, convenience alone unerringly suggests that
the transaction was entered into in Manila. We are not persuaded. The fact that
Cavite City is a bit far from Manila does not necessarily mean that the transaction
cannot or did not happen there.

Rule 111 Sec. 1

Yakult vs. CA (side swiped motor yakult) -reckless imprudence slight physical injuries

Issue: Whether or not a civil action instituted after the criminal action was filed prosper
even if there was no reservation to file a separate civil action

Ruling:

• In this case, the offended party has not waived the civil action, nor reserved the
right to institute it separately. Neither has the offended party instituted the civil
action prior to the criminal action. However, the civil action in this case was filed in
court before the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution in the criminal
 action of which the judge presiding on the criminal case was duly informed, so that
in the disposition of the criminal action no damages was awarded.

Heirs of Simon vs. Chan (336, 000 pesos) -BP 22

Issue: whether or not Chan's civil action to recover the amount of the unfunded check was
an independent civil action

Ruling: To repeat, Chan's separate civil action to recover the amount of the check involved
in the prosecution for the violation of BP 22 could not be independently maintained under
both Supreme Court Circular 57-97 and the aforequoted provisions of Rule 111 of the Rules
of Court, notwithstanding the allegations of fraud and deceit.

Neri vs. Sandiganbayan (botched Philippine- ZTE 3 National Broadband Network (NBN)
Project) - Section 3 (h) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019

Issue: Whether or not the consolidation order is void

Ruling:

• Applying the lessons of People v. Sandiganbayan to the instant case, a consolidation

of the Neri case to that of Abalos would expose petitioner Neri to testimonies which
have no relation whatsoever in the case against him and the lengthening of the legal
dispute thereby delaying the resolution of his case. And as in People v. Sandiganbayan ,

consolidation here would force petitioner to await the conclusion of testimonies against
Abalos, however irrelevant or immaterial as to him (Neri) before the case against the
latter may be resolved — a needless, hence, oppressive delay in the resolution of the
criminal case against him.

Rule 111 Sec. 2

San Ildefonso Lines Inc vs. CA (bus hit van, insurerer SILI seeks recovery)

Issue: Whether or not an independent civil action based on quasi-delict under Article
2176 of the Civil Code be filed if no reservation was made in the said criminal case

Ruling:

• The Court held that it is deducible from the wording of Section 3 of Rule 111 of the
Rules of Court as brought about by the 1988 amendments to the Rules of Criminal
Procedure — particularly the phrase "which has been reserved" — that the
"independent” character of the said civil actions does not do away with the
reservation requirement. Prior reservation is a condition sine qua non before any of
 these independent civil actions can be instituted and thereafter have a continuous
determination apart from or simultaneous with the criminal action.

Ching vs. Nicdao (common law wife. Checks stolen) BP 22

Issue: Whether or not notwithstanding respondent Nicdao's acquittal, she should be

held liable to pay petitioner Ching the amounts of the dishonored checks

Ruling:

• A painstaking review of the case leads to the conclusion that respondent Nicdao's
acquittal likewise carried with it the extinction of the action to enforce her civil
liability. There is simply no basis to hold respondent Nicdao civilly liable to petitioner
Ching.

Rule 111 Sec. 6-7

Dreamwork Contrsuction, Inc. v. Janiola (construction agreement between the

parties) BP22

Issue: