PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

EDGARDO test of sufficiency of a complaint or information, but is

DIMAANO merely a conclusion of law by the one who drafted the
G.R. No. 168168 September 14, 2005 complaint. This insufficiency therefore prevents this Court
PER CURIAM: from rendering a judgment of conviction; otherwise we
would be violating the right of the appellant to be informed
The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in of the nature of the accusation against him.
such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is intended to be MELBAROSE R. SASOT and ALLANDALE R. SASOT
charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it G.R. No. 143193 June 29, 2005
does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
crime charged. Every element of the offense must be
stated in the information. The crime of Unfair Competition punishable under Article
189 of the Revised Penal Code is a public crime. It is
*********** essentially an act against the State and it is the latter
Facts: which principally stands as the injured party. The
In 1996, Maricar Dimaano charged her father, Edgardo complainant's capacity to sue in such case becomes
Dimaano with two (2) counts of rape and one (1) count of immaterial.
attempted rape.
**********
The complaint for attempted rape stated as follows:
That on or about the 1st day of January 1996, in the Facts:
Municipality of Paraaque, Metro Manila, Philippines and In May 1997, the NBI conducted an investigation pursuant
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- to a complaint by the NBA Properties, Inc., against
named accused, try and attempt to rape one Maricar petitioners for possible violation of Article 189 of the
Dimaano y Victoria, thus commencing the commission of Revised Penal Code on unfair competition. In its Report,
the crime of Rape, directly by overt acts, but nevertheless the NBI stated that NBA Properties, Inc., is a foreign
did not perform all the acts of execution which would corporation organized under the laws of the United States
produce it, as a consequence by reason of cause other of America, and is the registered owner of NBA
than his spontaneous desistance that is due to the timely trademarks and names of NBA basketball teams such as
arrival of the complainant's mother. Chicago Bulls, etc. These names are used on hosiery,
footwear, t-shirts, sweatshirts, tank tops, pajamas, sport
Issue: shirts, and other garment products, which are allegedly
Did the complaint or information for attempted rape registered with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and
sufficiently alleged the specific acts or omissions Technology Transfer. The Report further stated that
constituting the offense? during the investigation, it was discovered that petitioners
are engaged in the manufacture, printing, sale, and
Held: distribution of counterfeit NBA garment products. Hence,
No. For complaint or information to be sufficient, it must it recommended petitioners prosecution for unfair
state the name of the accused; the designation of the competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code.
offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the In a Special Power of Attorney, Rick Welts, as President
offended party; the approximate time of the commission of NBA Properties, Inc., constituted the law firm of Ortega,
of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was Del Castillo, Bacorro, Odulio, Calma & Carbonell, as the
committed. companys attorney-in-fact, and to act for and on behalf of
the company, in the filing of criminal, civil and
What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the administrative complaints, among others. The Special
designation of the offense charged or the particular law or Power of Attorney was notarized by Nicole Brown of New
part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere York County and certified by Norman Goodman, County
conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the Clerk and Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New
description of the crime charged and the particular facts York. Consul Cecilia B. Rebong of the Consulate General
therein recited. The acts or omissions complained of must of the Philippines, New York, authenticated the
be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person certification. Welts also executed a Complaint-Affidavit on
of common understanding to know what offense is February 12, 1998, before Notary Public Nicole J. Brown
intended to be charged, and enable the court to of the State of New York.
pronounce proper judgment. No information for a crime
will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege Before arraignment, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash
the elements of the crime charged. Every element of the the Information on the following grounds: (1) the facts
offense must be stated in the information. What facts and charged do not constitute an offense and (2) the court has
circumstances are necessary to be included therein must no jurisdiction over the offense charged or the person of
be determined by reference to the definitions and the accused. Petitioners argue that the fiscal should have
essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of dismissed Welts's complaint because under the rules, the
alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to complaint must be sworn to before the prosecutor and the
inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against copy on record appears to be only a fax transmittal.
him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense.
The presumption is that the accused has no independent The prosecutor filed his Comment/Opposition to the
knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. motion to quash, stating that he has the original copy of
the complaint, and that complainant has an attorney-in-
Notably, the above-cited complaint upon which the fact to represent it. The prosecutor also contended that
appellant was arraigned does not allege specific acts or the State is entitled to prosecute the offense even without
omission constituting the elements of the crime of rape. the participation of the private offended party, as the crime
Neither does it constitute sufficient allegation of elements charged is a public crime.
for crimes other than rape, i.e., Acts of Lasciviousness.
The allegation therein that the appellant 'tr[ied] and The trial court sustained the prosecutions arguments and
attempt[ed] to rape the complainant does not satisfy the denied petitioners motion to quash.
 sentenced to suffer a jail term of 6 months and 1 day. Both
accused applied for probation.
Issue:
Was the complaint substantially sufficient? Subsequently, the prosecutor filed two separate motions:
(1) to admit amended Information, and (2) to set aside the
arraignment of the accused. The prosecutor intended to
Held: amend the filed information because for some reason,
Yes. Under Section 3, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Lasoy and Banisa were charged of selling 42.41 grams
Criminal Procedure, a complaint is substantially sufficient instead of 42.41 kilograms of marijuana.
if it states the known address of the respondent, it is
accompanied by complainant's affidavit and his witnesses The motions were granted. Thus the information now
and supporting documents, and the affidavits are sworn states “kilograms” instead of “grams". Both accused filed
to before any fiscal, state prosecutor or government a motion to quash.
official authorized to administer oath, or in their absence
or unavailability, a notary public who must certify that he Judge Zenarosa denied the motion to quash and
personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied scheduled the arraignment of the accused under the
that they voluntarily executed and understood their amended information. Lasoy and Banisa raises a petition
affidavits. All these have been duly satisfied in the for certiorari on the ground of double jeopardy. In
complaint filed before Prosecution Attorney Aileen Marie response, respondent claims that the trial based on the
S. Gutierrez. It must be noted that even the absence of an first information was a sham and that the petitioners
oath in the complaint does not necessarily render it participated in tampering the information.
invalid. Want of oath is a mere defect of form, which does
not affect the substantial rights of the defendant on the
merits. Issue:

In this case, Welts's Complaint-Affidavit contains an Whether or not double jeopardy attaches
acknowledgement by Notary Public Nicole Brown of the
State of New York that the same has been subscribed and
sworn to before her on February 12, 1998, duly Held:
authenticated by the Philippine Consulate. While the copy
on record of the complaint-affidavit appears to be merely Yes. To invoke the defense of double jeopardy, the
a photocopy thereof, Prosecution Attorney Gutierrez following requisites must be present: (1) a valid complaint
stated that complainants representative will present the or information; (2) the court has jurisdiction to try the case;
authenticated notarized original in court, and Prosecutor (3) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (4) he has
Guray manifested that the original copy is already on been convicted or acquitted or the case against him
hand. It is apt to state at this point that the prosecutor dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
enjoys the legal presumption of regularity in the consent.
performance of his duties and functions, which in turn
gives his report the presumption of accuracy. The issue boil down to whether or not the first information
is valid.
Moreover, records show that there are other supporting
documents from which the prosecutor based his An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the
recommendation. statutory designation of the offense and the acts or
omissions constitutive thereof.
Consequently, if the information is valid on its face, and
there is no showing of manifest error, grave abuse of In other words, if the offense is stated in such a way that
discretion and prejudice on the part of public prosecutor, a person of ordinary intelligence may immediately know
as in the present case, the trial court should respect such what is meant, and the court can decide the matter
determination. according to law, the inevitable conclusion is that the
information is valid. It is not necessary to follow the
More importantly, the crime of Unfair Competition language of the statute in the information. The information
punishable under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code will be sufficient if it describes the crime defined by law.
is a public crime. It is essentially an act against the State
and it is the latter which principally stands as the injured Applying the foregoing, the inescapable conclusion is that
party. The complainant's capacity to sue in such case the first information is valid inasmuch as it sufficiently
becomes immaterial. alleges the manner by which the crime was committed.
Verily the purpose of the law, that is, to apprise the
accused of the nature of the charge against them, is
MARCELO LASOY and FELIX BANISA vs. HON. reasonably complied with.
MONINA A. ZENAROSA
G.R. No. 129472. April 12, 2005 With respect specifically to the trial courts point of view
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: that the accused cannot claim their right against double
jeopardy because they participated/acquiesced to the
An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the tampering, we hold that while this may not be far-fetched,
statutory designation of the offense and the acts or there is actually no hard evidence thereof. Worse, we
omissions constitutive thereof. cannot overlook the fact that accused were arraigned,
entered a plea of guilty and convicted under the first
*********** information. Granting that alteration/tampering took place
and the accused had a hand in it, this does not justify the
Facts: setting aside of the decision dated 16 July 1996. The
alleged tampering/alteration allegedly participated in by
Lasoy and Banisa were charged before the RTC with the accused may well be the subject of another inquiry.
violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 for transporting
and selling 42.41 grams of marijuana fruiting tops. Both In Sanvicente v. People, this Court held that given the far-
pleaded guilty on arraignment and were later on reaching scope of an accused’s right against double
jeopardy, even an appeal based on an alleged HELD:
misappreciation of evidence will not lie. The only instance Castor does not refute the above findings of the trial court
when double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court that treachery was sufficiently proven during the trial. All
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or that Castor claims before us is that the qualifying
excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was circumstance of treachery was not specifically alleged in
denied the opportunity to present its case or where the the Information. The Information filed against the Batins
trial was a sham. states that the accused, conspiring together,
confederating with and mutually helping each other, did,
The Constitution is very explicit. Article III, Section 21, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
mandates that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of intent to kill, with treachery, taking advantage of superior
punishment for the same offense. In this case, the strength, and with evident premeditation, attack, assault
accused had been arraigned and convicted. In fact, they and employ personal violence upon the person of one
were already in the stage where they were applying for EUGENIO REFUGIO y ZOSA, by then and there shooting
probation. It is too late in the day for the prosecution to him with a handgun, hitting him on the right side of his
ask for the amendment of the information and seek to try stomach, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal
again accused for the same offense without violating wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his
procedural rules and their rights guaranteed under the untimely death.[28] Castor claims that this charge does
Constitution. not allege the specific treacherous acts of the accused.
According to Castor, the allegation therein that the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CASTOR BATIN accused with treachery x x x, attack, assault and employ
G.R. No. 177223 November 28, 2007 personal violence is a mere conclusion of law by the one
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: who drafted the said Information. Hence, it did not satisfy
the test of sufficiency of Information as provided in
FACTS: Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.
Eugenio’s wife, Josephine Refugio, was with him when he
was shot, facing him as he leaned against the mango tree This Court went on to affirm the conviction of the accused
and, in fact, had her arms resting on his shoulders. She therein with murder qualified by treachery. Jurisprudence
recalled that before the shooting, she was at home at No. is replete with cases wherein we found the allegation of
4-A St. Peter Street that afternoon when, looking out of treachery sufficient without any further explanation as to
the window, she caught sight of Castor Batin washing his the circumstances surrounding it.
feet at a nearby faucet. Castor was angrily muttering, and
she distinctly heard him say, among the other things he PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LARRY
said: "Mga matatandang kunsintidor, dapat manahimik CACHAPERO
na." Then, being through with washing himself, Castor G.R. No. 153008 May 20, 2004
moved towards the street. Seeing this, she went down PANGANIBAN, J.:
and also went to the street because of a feeling of
uneasiness ("Para po akong kinakabahan, kasi, ganoon CASE: Larry Cachapero was accused of raping 7-year-
naman ang ginagawa nila lagi, eh, pag nalalasing"). old Anna Toledo. Anna confessed the matter to her
Finding her husband leaning against the mango tree on teacher, and a medical examination showed hymenal
the side of St. Peter Street, she went to him. She tried to lacerations. Cachapero denied it saying that he was at his
talk Eugenio into going home with her because Castor parents' at the time of the incident, and that the case was
was again into one of his wild ways ("Nagwawala na filed against him because his family and that of the girl
naman, daldal ng daldal"). As he was talking with had a long-standing feud. He alleges that the information
Eugenio, she glanced to her left and saw Neil Batin was insufficient.
standing at the gate to their (Batins’) compound, looking
towards her and her husband. A few moments later, Neil The Supreme Court ruled that the lack of a specific hour
went to one of the parked cars, opened its door, and took and date of the crime is not fatal to the information.
a gun from inside. She next noticed Castor going towards Furthermore, such is not an element of the offense. All
Neil as the latter stood at the side of the car and shouting: that the law requires is the approximate time of the
"Huwag!" Castor grabbed the gun from Neil. After the gun commission of the crime, and this was sufficiently proven.
was taken from him, Neil just proceeded towards the right
rear of the car. Castor followed Neil and handed the gun DOCTRINE: The approximate time of the commission of
back to him. the crime is sufficient to support filing of the information,
UNLESS the exact hour and date is a necessary element
When she shifted her glance from the Batins, Josephine of the offense charged.
heard Castor ordering his son: "Sige, banatan mo na."
Neil responded by drawing the gun from his waistline, FACTS:
raising and aiming it at her and her husband, and firing Sometime in March 1998, complainant Anna Toledo, who
twice from his eye-level. Both Josephine and Eugenio fell was seven (7) years old, went to play with Lorena
to the ground, the former, backwards, and the latter Cachapero and Dino Cachapero at a nearby house in
landing on top of her. As they tried to get up, Eugenio Barrio Bancay 1st, Camiling, Tarlac. During that occasion,
uttered to her: "Nanay, may tama ako." She then pulled appellant Larry Cachapero, brother of Lorena, made her
her husband by the shoulder of his shirt so that she could lie down and removed her shorts and panty. He inserted
take him to their house as he was already slumped to the his penis into her sexual organ and she felt pain. Larry
right. She later rushed her husband to the Quezon City told her not to tell her parents because he might be
General Hospital, where he underwent surgery, but later scolded.
expired.
On September 2, 1998, witness Conchita Donato was
The trial court rendered its Decision finding both accused conducting a remedial class in Reading to her Grade I and
guilty of murder, qualified by treachery. II students. While they were reading the word ‘tagtuyot’ or
‘saluyot,’ one of her students Jocelyn Meneses told her
ISSUE: that Anna was sexually abused by ‘Manong Larry.’ She
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in appreciating then ordered the students to leave the room and asked
the aggravating circumstance of treachery. Jocelyn and Anna to stay behind. She confronted Anna
and asked her the truth. Anna covered her face with her
two hands, cried, and said yes. The teachers had a practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to
conference, after which they decided to report the matter be unlawful:
to the parents of Anna.
xxxx
ISSUE:
Whether or not the information filed was suffiecient. (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
HELD: benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
Major Point 1: The time of occurrence is not an essential official administrative or judicial functions through
element of rape. This being so, the precise date and hour manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
of the rape's commission need not be alleged in the negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and
complaint or information, and such absence is not fatal to employees of offices or government corporations charged
the filing of information. with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

Section 11 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides: That there are two (2) different modes of committing the
Date of commission of the offense. — It is not necessary offense: either by causing undue injury or by giving private
to state in the complaint or information the precise date person unwarranted benefit. That accused may be
the offense was committed except when it is a material charged under either mode or under both. Hence a new
ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to preliminary investigation is unnecessary.
have been committed on a date as near as possible to the
actual date of its commission. SSGT. JOSE M. PACOY vs. HON. AFABLE E.
CAJIGAL
Major Point 2: All that Section 6 of Rule 110 of the Rules G.R. NO. 157472 September 28, 2007
of Court merely requires that the information must state, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
among others, the approximate time of the commission of
the offense. The Information in this case alleged that the FACTS:
crime was committed "sometime in March 1998" which, SSGT. Jose Pacoy seeks to annul the order of
according to private complainant, was more or less at the Presiding Judge Afable Cajigal of RTC 68 of Camiling
closing of the school year. Being reasonably definite and Tarlac.
certain, this approximation sufficiently meets the
requirement of the law. On July 4, 2002, an information for Homicide was filed in
Major Point 3: Objections as to the form of the complaint the RTC against petitioner for shooting and killing
or information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. his commanding officer, 2Lt. Frederick Esquita with an
Failure to object is deemed a waiver to any formal defect armalite rifle. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not
in the information. If Cachapero found the Information guilty.
insufficient, he should have moved before arraignment
either for a bill of particulars, for him to be properly However, on the same day and after the arraignment, the
informed of the exact date of the alleged rape, or for the respondent judge issued another Order, likewise
quashal of the Information, on the ground that it did not dated September 12, 2002, directing the trial prosecutor
conform with the prescribed form. to correct and amend the Information to Murder in
view of the aggravating circumstance of disregard of
rank alleged in the Information which public respondent
registered as having qualified the crime to Murder.
Saludaga and Genio vs Sandiganbayan
GR No. 184537 April 23, 2010 The prosecutor entered his amendment by crossing out
MENDOZA, J.: the word Homicide and instead wrote the word Murder
in the caption and in the opening paragraph of the
FACTS: Information. The accusatory portion remained exactly the
Saludaga and Genio entered into a Pakyaw Contract for same as that of the original Information for Homicide, with
the construction of Barangay Day Care Centers without the correction of the spelling of the victims name from
conducting a competitive public bidding as required by Escuita to Escueta.
law, which caused damage and prejudice to the
government. An information was filed for violation of Sec. Petitioner was to be re-arraigned for the crime of
3 (e) of RA 3019 by causing undue injury to the Murder. Counsel for petitioner objected on the ground that
Government. The information was quashed for failure to the latter would be placed in double jeopardy,
prove the actual damage, hence a new information was considering that his Homicide case had been
filed, now for violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019 by giving terminated without his express consent, resulting in
unwarranted benefit to a private person. The accused the dismissal of the case. As petitioner refused to enter
moved for a new preliminary investigation to be his plea on the amended Information for Murder, the
conducted on the ground that there is substitution and/or public respondent entered for him a plea of not guilty.
substantial amendment of the first information.
Respondent judge denied the Motion to Quash. The MR
ISSUE: was likewise denied. Thus, petitioner went straight
Whether or not there is substitution and/or substantial to SC and filed a petition for certiorari.
amendment of the information that would warrant an new
preliminary investigation. ISSUE:
WON respondent judge erred in amending the
HELD: Information after petitioner had already entered in
No, there is no substitution and/or substantial plea to the charge of information for homicide.
amendment.
HELD:
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition In the present case, the change of the offense charged
to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized from Homicide to Murder is merely a formal amendment
by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt and not a substantial amendment or a substitution
as defined in Teehankee.
 conditional arraignment and the legal consequence
While the amended Information was for Murder, a reading thereof.
of the Information shows that the only change made was
in the caption of the case; and in the opening Thereafter, the Special Prosecutor concluded his
paragraph or preamble of the Information, with the reinvestigation and found probable cause to charge her
crossing out of word Homicide and its replacement by with the violation of RA 3019. The SB then set a new
the word Murder. There was no change in the recital schedule for arraignment in October 2004. On the day
of facts constituting the offense charged or in the before arraignment, Cabo filed a motion (“reiterate-not-
determination of the jurisdiction of the court. The guilty motion”) praying that she be allowed to reiterate her
averments in the amended Information for Murder are previous plea in the conditional arraignment so that she
exactly the same as those already alleged in the may be excused from attending the arraignment the
original Information for Homicide, as there was not at next day. SB, however, did not act on her said
all any change in the act imputed to petitioner, motion.
i.e., the killing of 2Lt. Escueta without any qualifying
circumstance. Thus, we find that the amendment made Balahay, on the other hand, filed a motion to quash the
in the caption and preamble from Homicide to information on the ground that the same did not charge
Murder as purely formal. any offense. It failed to allege that Balahay had
to intervene in the said contract under the law,
Section 14, Rule 110 also provides that in allowing formal in his official capacity as mayor.
amendments in cases in which the accused has
already pleaded, it is necessary that the The SB sustained Balahay’s contention that the
amendments do not prejudice the rights of the accused. information was defective for lack of necessary facts, but
The test of whether the rights of an accused are it did not immediately quash the complaint. Instead, the
prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or court, in accordance with Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules
information is whether a defense under the of Court, ordered only the amendment of the
complaint or information, as it originally stood, information and ordered the prosecution to correct the
would no longer be available after the amendment is defect. The amended information was filed in
made; and when any evidence the accused might have February2005 containing all the necessary elements
would be in applicable to the complaint or information. of the crime charged.
Since the facts alleged in the accusatory portion of the
amended Information are identical with those of the cabo was notified of her re-arraignment in April 2005,but
original Information for Homicide, there could not be she filed a Motion to Cancel Second Arraignment on the
any effect on the prosecution's theory of the case; ground that she could no longer be re-arraigned on the
neither would there be any possible prejudice to the rights amended information since amendment of the information
or defense of petitioner. based on the substance is not allowed after the plea has
been made.

Jocelyn Cabo v Sandiganbayan SB denied petitioner’s motion. It held that her

G.R. No. 169509 June 16, 2006 arraignment on the original information was only
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: conditional in nature to accommodate her request to
travel abroad so that she could be tried in absentia. She
FACTS: agreed to the condition that should the information be
On June 24, 2000, Cabo and Bonifacio Balahay, Mayor of amended, she is deemed to waive her right to
Barobo, Surigao del Sur, were charged for violation of object to the amendment and to waive her
Section 3(b) of RA 3019. In the information, it was alleged constitutional protection against double jeopardy. She
that Mayor Balahay received from Cabo the amount was considered estopped from raising her objection to the
of P104,000, and that said mayor “intervened in the amended complaint. Petitioner filed an MR on the ground
undertaking by Cabo’s company (OIDCI) for that double jeopardy had set in. She asserted that her
consultancy services with the Municipality of Barobo”. conditional arraignment had been confirmed by her
October motion (“reiterate-not-guilty motion”)
Cabo claimed that she was deprived of her right reiterating her plea of not guilty. Thus, her arraignment on
to preliminary investigation so she filed a motion the original information was no longer conditional, and
for reinvestigation. The Sandiganbayan (SB) granted her double jeopardy must consequently attach. SB
motion and directed the Special Prosecutor to conduct denied her resolution. This prompted her to file
one. the petition for review on certiorari.

Meanwhile, Cabo filed another motion seeking

permission to travel abroad for a family vacation. The SB
granted it in an order dated May 2004, which stated that, ISSUE:
in light of the case still being under reinvestigation, WON double jeopardy had attached on the basis
and considering that she had not yet been arraigned, of the“NOT GUILTY” plea.
Cabo expressly consented to the order that she be
arraigned conditionally. HELD:
[CONDITIONS:] If it is found that there is no probable NO. DJ did not attach. The SB was declared to have
cause to proceed against her, the arraignment will unequivocally laid down petitioner’s conditions for
have no effect. However, if there is a need to amend the arraignment. Among those specified was that if there
present information, then Cabo would have then was a need to amend the original information, she forfeits
waived her right to object under Section 14,Rule 110 of her right to object and her RIGHT TO DOUBLE
the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure as well as her JEOPARDY”. She was assisted by counsel and thereby
constitutional right against double jeopardy. informed of the legal consequences of such conditions.

When she was arraigned, she was duly assisted by her With regard to her formal manifestation reiterating her not
counsel and pleaded NOT GUILTY to the offense guilty plea (“reiterate-not-guilty motion”), there was no
charged. She also duly affixed her signature in showing that Sandiganbayan affirmed her motion.
the minutes to signify her conformity to the Section 1(b), Rule 116 of the Rules of Court explicitly
requires the accused to be present at arraignment
and personally enter his plea. With respect to the
applicability of double jeopardy to the case, two
requisites were absent: The first requisite of double
jeopardy was not present since the original
information failed to allege the essential elements forthe
violations allegedly committed by petitioner and her co-
accused. There was also NO DISMISSAL
ORTERMINATION OF THE CASE
AGAINSTPETITIONER (fourth requisite). The SB
merely ordered an AMENDMENT. According to
Section 4,Rule 117, the prosecution is given an
opportunity to amend the defective information if the
facts charged do not constitute an offense. It is only
when the prosecution fails to properly amend the
information that the motion to quash be granted. -
Contrary to petitioner’s submission, 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 (Section 14, Rule 110)