Information not under oath

9. Estodillo vs Baluma
FACTS:
In a verified complaint, Jovelyn Estudillo assisted by her mother, Visitacion L. Estodillo,
charges Judge Teofilo D. Baluma with Gross and Inexcusable Ignorance of the Law.
Complainant alleges that her administrative complaint arose from the dismissal of a
criminal case by respondent judge of the RTC of Bohol Branch 1 a family court.

The criminal case was originally filed for preliminary investigation. After the requisite
preliminary investigation, Judge Himalaloan found that there was sufficient ground to
hold the herein accused for trial for the offense. The record of the case was transmitted
to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor where, after a review by Third Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor he failed an Information.

Respondent dismissed the Information in an Order on the ground that the same is not
subscribed and sworn to by the prosecutor.

ISSUE:

Whether respondent judge is correct in dismissing the subject Information on the ground
that it was not under oath.

Held:

No. Section 4, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Sec. 4. Information defined. An information is an accusation in writing charging a

person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court.
There is no requirement that the information be sworn to. Otherwise, the rules
would have so provided as it does in a complaint which is defined as a sworn written
statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any
peace officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law
violated.[13] In a case, we ruled that the information need not be under oath, the reason
therefore being principally that the prosecuting officer filing it is charged with the special
duty in regard thereto and is acting under the special responsibility of his oath of
office.[14] Clearly, respondent had confused an information from a complaint.
Evidently, respondent was of the belief, albeit erroneous, that both a complaint
and an information need to be under oath. But the oath is not required when it is a
public prosecutor who files the information because he does so under the oath he took
when he qualified for his position. The position of the public prosecutor was that the
preliminary investigation had been conducted by the municipal circuit trial judge of
Tubigon-Clarin and the latters resolution was concurred in by the prosecutors.
Remedy where date is not specific
38. People vs Desuyo

FACTS:
Maricel Peru Desuyo instituted a complaint against her father, accused Antonio Desuyo, for
having repeatedly raped her.
In the course of the preliminary examination conducted by the municipal trial court judge,
accused Antonio Desuyo asked forgiveness from his daughter and promised to leave her alone
should she withdraw the charge she filed against him. Maricel vehemently refused as her father
grovelled for forgiveness. As a consequence, an Information was filed against the accused
Antonio Desuyo alias "Tony" for raping his fifteen (15)-year old daughter Maricel.
The accused denied having raped Maricel. The trial court did not give credence to the bare
denials of the accused. Solely on account of Maricel's testimony, the court a quo found the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of "multiple incestuous rape" and sentenced
him to suffer the supreme penalty of death.
Accused avers that the Information for "multiple rape" filed against him is deficient since by
merely stating that the sexual assaults were repeated it failed to state the exact dates when the
alleged rapes were committed.
ISSUE:
Whether the Information is defective for failing to allege the time of the commission of the
offense
HELD:
At the outset, it must be emphasized that the remedy against an indictment that fails to allege the
time of commission of the offense with sufficient definiteness is a motion for bill of
particulars. The records show that the accused never asked for a bill of particulars in accordance
with the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.[9]
The failure of the accused to move for the specification of the date when the alleged crime was
committed or for the quashal of the Information on the ground that it does not conform
substantially to the prescribed form[10] deprives him of the right to object to evidence which could
lawfully be introduced and admitted under an information of more or less general terms but
which sufficiently charges the accused with a definite crime.[11] It is indeed too late in the day for
the accused to raise this issue because objections to matters of form or substance in the
information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. At any rate, it is settled that the exact
date of the commission of rape is not an essential element thereof and need not be stated in the
information.[12]