MANAOIS, Glynez M.

Criminal Procedure

People vs. Ave GR Nos. 137274-75. October 18, 2002 391 SCRA 225
(on Judgement)

FACTS:
Ave was charged with (1) Frustrated Murder of Atty. Napoleon, (2) with Murder of Valenzuela; and
(3) Illegal Possession of Firearms. He shot Pedro dead and hit him at the back of his head when
he was having a drinking spree with his friends and relatives. Valenzuela stood to check on Pedro
but he was shot hitting his stomach but survived because of immediate medical treatment. Ave
went into hiding for almost two years and his cases had to be archived. On August 18, 1998, he
was finally arrested and later pled not guilty to all the charges. The three cases were tried jointly.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in appreciating the unlicensed firearms as aggravating
circumstances.

RULING: YES.
The trial court applied R.A. No. 8294 in the murder case at bar and in line with our ruling in
Molina held that the use of the unlicensed firearm in the killing of Pedro aggravated the
commission of the crime. He then meted the maximum penalty of death to the appellant.

After Molina, however, the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure was promulgated by this Court
and became effective on December 1, 2000. Section 8 of Rule 110 requires that the complaint or
information must specify the qualifying and aggravating circumstances of the offense if they are
to be appreciated. In the case at bar, the special aggravating circumstance of "use of unlicensed
firearm" was not alleged in the informations. The two (2) informations at bar, for murder and
frustrated murder, merely alleged that the appellant used a "long firearm." They did not allege
that the firearm used was unlicensed. The failure of the prosecution to allege in the Information
the aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm in committing the crime of murder
prevents us from imposing the death penalty on the appellant even if the same was proved at
the trial. The appellant should, therefore, suffer the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.

DOCTRINE LEARNED:
1. Jurisprudence may always be overturned by another case or even by the passage of a new
law. This case was decided based on the case of Molina decided in 1988 where the court held
that "where murder or homicide is committed, the separate penalty for illegal possession shall
no longer be meted out inasmuch as it becomes merely a special aggravating circumstance." By
this, Ave meted out the maximum penalty of death.

The court should have decided the case with the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which
became effective in 2000 because it overturned the case of Molina. Therefore, the court must
decide the case based on the recent applicable law, the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

2. The Rules provides that the complaint or information must specify the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances of the offense if they are to be appreciated. Facts and circumstances
must be properly alleged in the Information. Otherwise, it cannot respected and valued. This is
why the Rules provide for amendment or substitution of Information. Hence, the illegal
possession of firearms case cannot prosper by shallow allegations of “use of long firearm” in the
information.

3. It is unfair for the accused to serve a penalty higher than that prescribed by the law.
 MANAOIS, Glynez M.
Criminal Procedure

Matilde, Jr. vs. Jabson GR L-38392. December 29, 1975 68 SCRA 456
(on Judgement)

FACTS:
The first Information filed against Matilde Jr was a qualified theft for stealing and carrying away
several boxes belonging to Markes Agro-Chemical Enterprises where they were then working as
laborers. It appears that the information was amended twice, first on the value of articles
involved and second on changing the nature and character of the offense from qualified to
simple theft by deleting the phrase “with grave abuse of confidence”. Accused withdrew his plea
of not guilty to the aforementioned informations. The court promulgated a judgments convicted
the accused finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of simple theft in relation
PD 133.

Petitioner sought from the court a quo a reconsideration of its judgment, contending that in the
absence of any allegation in the body of the information alleging specifically all the elements of
the offense defined and penalized under Presidential Decree No. 133, he cannot be convicted
and penalized under the aforesaid decree. This was denied, hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether the court may validly impose upon petitioner the penalty in PD 133 based on the
averments of aforementioned informations.

RULING: NO.
An accused person cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he is charged in
the complaint or information on which he is tried. It matters not how conclusive and convincing
the evidence of guilt may be an accused person cannot be convicted in the Courts of these
Islands of any offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried,
or necessarily included therein. He has a right to be informed as to the nature of the offense with
which he is charged before he is put on trial, and to convict him of a higher offense than that
charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried would be an authorized denial of
that right."

DOCTRINE LEARNED:
1. This case reiterated the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him.

2. In relation to this right, the accused must also be informed of the judgment of the court with
the form and contents provided in Rule 120 Sections 1 and 2.

3. In this case, the allegations in the information provides for the circumstances of a simple theft
with an incorrect penalty prescribed from the PD 133. PD133 was enacted to eradicate graft and
corruption in society by placing strong deterrent on workers and laborers from sabotaging the
productive efforts of the industry where they are employed through the imposition of heavier
penalties for the theft of "any material, spare part, product, or article that he is working on,
using or producing." Averments of specific facts are essential and necessary to justify the heavy
penalty prescribed in PD133.

4. What determines the criminal charge of the accused is the actual recital of facts in the
complaint or information, not the caption of the case Simple theft in relation to PD 133.

5. It is the right of the accused not to be convicted of a higher offense than that charged in the
complaint or information on which he is tried because that will be unfair on his part to be
punished for a heavier penalty than that prescribed by the law against the crime he committed.
 MANAOIS, Glynez M.
Criminal Procedure

Saludaga v. Sandiganbayan 619 SCRA 364 GR No. 184537 April 23, 2010
(on New Trial)

FACTS:
Accused Saludaga and Genio were charged with violation of Sec 3€ of RA 3019 for entering into
a Pakyaw Contract for the construction of several Barangay Day Care without conducting a
competitive public bidding. Third division of Sandiganbayan granted the motion to quash and
dismissed the Information for failure to prosecute. But OSP refilled an Information which was re-
raffled with the Fourth division of Sandiganbayan charging the petitioners for violation of Section
3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, by giving unwarranted benefit to a private person, to the prejudice of the
government. Petitioners filed a motion for Preliminary Investigation contending that the second
information charges a different offense. Hence, there was a substitution, if none, there was a
substantial amendment warranting a new preliminary investigation. They further claim that
newly discovered evidence mandates a re-examination of the finding of a prima facie cause to
file the case. The Fourth Division denied the motion for preliminary investigation as well as the
motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE:
it is necessary that a new investigation be conducted to consider newly discovered evidence, in
particular, the Affidavit of COA Auditor Carlos G. Pornelos, author of the audit report.

RULING: No.

Under Section 2, Rule 121 of the Rules of Court, the requisites for newly discovered evidence
are: (a) the evidence was discovered after trial (in this case, after investigation); (b) such
evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence;
and (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such
weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment.

DOCTRINE LEARNED:
1. Rule 121 Sec. 2 provides the grounds for new trial which are:
(a) The errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused
have been committed during the trial;

(b) The new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with
reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and
admitted would probably change the judgment.

2. Peitioners claim the second ground for new trial brought about by the newly discovered
evidence – which is the affidavit of Pornelos. The said affidavit was executed by affiant in
November 29, 2000, which was correctly found by Sandiganbayan and it was among the
documents considered during the preliminary investigation.. Hence, it is not a newly discovered
evidence.

3. This case gives body to the spirit of the law that as a requisite to consider a newly discovered
evidence, must be material, could have not been discovered and produced with reasonable
diligence, and would probable change the judgment.