Rule 110- PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
The offended party may not intervene in the
1. People vs Bautista- (Physical Injuries) the prescriptive
period for the offense remains tolled from the time the
complaint was filed with the office of the prosecutor
until such time that the respondent is either convicted
or acquitted by the proper court.
2. People vs Tayco- The court ruled that complaint or
information referred to in Art 91 is the one file in the
proper court and not the accusation.
3. People vs Olarte- the court ruled that filing of the
complaint before justice of the peace for preliminary
investigation as sufficient to interrupt the prescriptive
period for the offense.
4. Zaldiva vs Reyes- The period of prescription shall be
suspended when the proceedings are instituted against
the guilty person, the proceedings referred to are
judicial proceedings and not administrative
proceedings.
5. Sanrio Company Limited vs Lim- the prescriptive
period fpr violations of special laws starts on the day
such offense was committed and is interrupted by the
institution of proceedings against respondent.
6. Panaguiton Jr. vs D.O.J- the prescription for the
offenses of B.P. 22 shall interrupt by filing of the
complaint or information to the office of prosecutors
for preliminary investigation.
7. Chua vs Padillo- all criminal actions shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of a public
prosecutor, since a criminal offense is an outrage
against the sovereignty of the state, it follows that a
representative of the state shall direct and control the
prosecution thereof.
The public prosecutor, in the execise of his functions,
has the power and discretion to: a. determine whether
a prima facie case exists, b. decide which of the
conflicting testimonies should be believed free from the
interference or control of the offended party, and c.
subject only to the right against self-incrimination,
determine which witnesses to present in court.
8.
prosecution of the offense through a private prosecutor
if the offended party a. waves the civil action, b.
reserves the right to institute it separately or c.
institutes civil action prior to criminal action. (RULE 111)
9. Lazarte Jr. vs Sandiganbayan- the crime must be
described in the intelligible terms with such particularity
as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of
the offense charge.
10. P.p. vs Vallejo- Objections relationg to the form of
the complaint or information cannot be made for the
first time on appeal.
11. People vs Cinco- The rule provides that it is not
necessary to the state in the complaint or information
the precise date the offense was committed except
when the date of the commission is a material element
of the offense.
12.People vs Anguac- the nature and the character of
the crime charge are determined not by the designation
of the specific crime, but by the facts allege in the
information. The particularity must be such that a
person of ordinary intelligence immediately knows what
the charge is.
13. People vs Amodia- a mistake in the name of the
accused is not equivalent, and does not necessarily
amount to, 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 of the crime.
14. Sayson vs People- in case of offenses against
property, the designation of the name of the offended
party is not absolutely indispensable for as long as the
criminal act charge in the compliant or information can
be properly identified.
15. People vs Tapus- Every Infrmation must state the
qualifying and the aggravating circumstances attending
the commission of the crime for them to be considered
in the imposition of penalty.
16. Francisco vs People- the absence of the words
conspiracy, conspired or in conspiracy with in the
complaint or information does not necessarily mean
that the absence of these words would signify that
conspiracy was not alleged.

17. Matrido vs People- no matter how conclusive the

evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be
convicted of any offense unless it is charged in the
information on which he is tried or is necessarily
included therein.\

18.