“A criminal information charging more than one offense is defective because it violates the rule on ‘one offense charged in one criminal information’”
“THE [general] rule is that there should only be one offense charged in one [criminal] Information.”
This procedural rule is embodied in Rule 110, Section 13 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which states that “[a] complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.” (People v. Oledan, et al., G.R. 263920, Aug. 14, 2024)
A criminal information charging more than one offense is defective because it violates the rule on “one offense charged in one criminal information.”
The accused in order not to waive the right to question the defect in the criminal information must file a motion to quash before plea [is entered] on the grounds that “more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law.” [See Rule 117, section 3(f)]
“The rationale behind this rule prohibiting duplicitous complaints or information is to give the accused the necessary knowledge of the charge against him [to] enable him to sufficiently prepare for his defense. The State should not heap upon the accused two or more charges which might confuse him in his defense.” (Op cit. citing People v. Jugueta)
In People v. Caloring, the Supreme Court ruled “there [being] four victims, four Information for Kidnapping for Ransom should have been filed against all the accused. Yet, a perusal of the records would show that none of the accused… objected to the defect in the Amended Information…” (Op cit. citing People v. Caloring)
Instead, “all of the accused entered pleas of not guilty during their arraignment… [t]hus, the defect was deemed waived, and all of [them] could be convicted of four counts of Kidnapping for Ransom[.]”
However, the accused in the Caloring case were not convicted of said four counts because of specific factual circumstances leading to their acquittal. (Op cit. citing People v. Caloring).
In People v. Jugueta, the accused “entered a plea of not guilty during arraignment and failed to move for the quashal of the [criminal] information; [hence,] he is deemed to have waived his right to question the same. Section 9 of Rule 117 provides that ‘[t]he failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads… shall [be deemed to have waived] any objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule.’” (cited in Op cit.)
“It is also well-settled that when two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information [and] the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose upon him the proper penalty for each offense[.]” (Op cit. citing People v. Jugueta)
In the recent case of People v. Dela Cruz, the Supreme Court En banc declared “there was only one information filed against [all the] accused for the kidnapping of spouses Jason and Elisa Huang to extort ransom.
Clearly, there was duplicity (sic) of crimes, [but considering] none of the accused objected to the infirmity by filing a motion to quash before arraignment” the defect was deemed waived. (Op cit.)
The rulings in Dela Cruz and Caloring were applied in People v. Oledan.
In Oledan, “there are four victims, the Prosecutor should have filed four [criminal] information for Kidnapping for Ransom against accused-appellant and his co-accused.
However, only one Information was filed against them for the kidnapping of the three children and Eulalia.” (Op cit.)
None of the accused objected to the defective Amended Information before entering their plea. “Thus, the defect is deemed waived and accused-appellant and his co-accused can be convicted of four counts of Kidnapping for Ransom.” (Op cit.)
“However, it must be stressed that in the [Oledan] case, only accused- appellant can be convicted of four counts of Kidnapping for Ransom considering that he is the only one who appealed the [Court of Appeals] Decision” (Op cit.)
This is consistent with Section 11, Rule 122 of Criminal Procedure which provides that “an appeal by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal…”