i. Names of the Accused and the Offended Party

Effects of Exclusion of Other Persons from the Information

• If during the trial, evidence is shown that such persons should have been charged, the fact that they were not included in the information does not relieve them of criminal liability, and they can be subsequently prosecuted.
• The accused that has been charged with the offense is not allowed to escape punishment merely because it develops in the course of the trial that there were other guilty participants in the crime.
• It does not vitiate the validity of the information. Neither is the same a ground for a motion to quash (Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 116259-60 February 20, 1996)

Name of the Accused

• If name is known: The name and surname of the accused or any appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known
• If name cannot be ascertained: A fictitious name with a statement that his true name is unknown.
• If true name thereafter disclosed: Such true name shall be inserted in the complaint or information and record. (Rule 110, Sec. 7)

While one or more persons, along with specified and named accused, may be sued as “John Does,” an information against all accused described as “John Does” is void; an arrest warrant against them is also void.

An error in the name of the accused is not reversible as long as his identity is sufficiently established. This defect is curable at any stage of the proceedings as insertion of the real name of the accused is merely a matter of form (People v. Padica, G.R. No. 102645, 1993)

A mistake in the name of the accused is not equivalent, and does not necessarily tantamount to, a mistake in the identity of the accused especially when sufficient evidence is adduced to show that the accused is pointed to as one of the perpetrators in the crime. (People v. Amodia, G.R. No. 173791, 2008)

Note: Filing of Information instead of complaint by the prosecutor in private offenses, is valid provided that the complaint affidavit is attached thereto.

General Rule: An accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearly charged in the complaint or information. To convict him of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or information would be violative of the Constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. (Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457, 2012)

Exception: Crimes necessarily included or includes the offenses charged in the complaint.

Note: Every element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense. The presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. (People v. Valdez, G.R. No. 175602, 2013)

Note: As embodied in Section 14 (1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. Further, paragraph 2 of the same section, it provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. It is further provided under Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court that a complaint or information to be filed in court must contain a designation given to the offense by the statute, besides the statement of the acts or omissions constituting the same, and if there is no such designation, reference should be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. (People v. Taundo, G.R. No. 207816, 2016)

Note: Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, expressly states that the information must include, inter alia, both "the designation of the offense given by the statute" and "the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense." Failure to aver this crucial ingredient – that the purported acts were employed as a prerequisite for admission or entry into the organization – would prevent the successful prosecution of the criminal responsibility of the accused, either as principal or as accomplice, for the crime of hazing. Plain reference to a technical term – in this case, hazing – is insufficient and incomplete, as it is but a characterization of the acts allegedly committed and thus a mere conclusion of law.

However, failure to allege that the purported acts were not covered by the exemption relating to the duly recommended and approved "testing and training procedure and practices" for prospective regular members of the AFP and the PNP is not fatal. This exemption is an affirmative defense in, not an essential element of, the crime of accomplice to hazing. It is an assertion that must be properly claimed by the accused, not by the prosecution. (People v. Bayabos, G.R. No. 171222, 2015).

Name of the Offended Party

The complaint or information must state the:

• Name and surname of the persons against whom or against whose property the offense was committed or any appellation or nickname by which such person has been or is known
• If the offended party is a juridical person, it is sufficient to state its name, or any name or designation by which it is known or by which it may be identified, without need of averring that it is a juridical person or that it is organized in accordance with law.
• If there is no better way of identifying him, he must be described under a fictitious name. If true name is thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the Court must cause true name to be inserted in the complaint or information and record.
• In crimes against property, if the name of the offended party is unknown, the property must be described with such particularity as to properly identify the particular offense charged (Sec. 12, Rule 110).

To constitute larceny, robbery, embezzlement, obtaining money by false pretenses, malicious mischief, etc., the property obtained must be that of another person, and indictment for such offense must name the owner and a variance in this respect between the indictment and the proof will be fatal.

Rule in Crimes Against Property