Rule 116.

Arraignment and Plea

Rationale for Arraignment:

To comply with the Constitutional Right of the Accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of accusations against him. This right may not be waived. Arraignment is the stage where
the accused is formally informed of the charges against him. Due to this, strict compliance with
the rules on arraignment is needed.
• *Memorize Sec. 1 of Rule 116.

Rule 116. Sec. 1: Arraignment and plea; how made.

a) The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint or information
was filed or assigned for trial. The arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge
or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or information,
reading the same in the language or dialect known to him, and asking him whether he
pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those
named in the complaint or information.

b) The accused must be present at the arraignment and must personally enter his plea.
Both arraignment and plea shall be made of record, but failure to do so shall not affect the
validity of the proceedings.

c) When the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a plea of not guilty
shall be entered for him.

d) When the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence, his plea shall be
deemed withdrawn, and a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him.

e) When the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall be raffled and its
records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was raffled within three (3) days from
the filing of the information or complaint. The accused shall be arraigned within ten (10)
days from the date of raffle. The pre-trial conference of his case shall be held within ten
(10) days after arraignment. (BUT see A.M. No. 15-06-10, 9-1-17, Revised Guidelines
For Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases)

f) The private offended party shall be required to appear at the arraignment for purposes
of plea bargaining, determination of civil liability, and other matters requiring his
presence. In case of failure of the offended party to appear despite due notice, the court
may allow the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily
included in the offense charged with the conformity of the trial prosecutor alone.

g) Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or Supreme Court circular, the
arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The time of the pendency of a motion to
quash or for a bill of particulars or other causes justifying suspension of the arraignment
shall be excluded in computing the period. (BUT see A.M. No. 15-06-10, 9-1-17,
Revised Guidelines For Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases)

Note:
• Always remember that a valid arraignment and plea will cure defects in the complaint or
information, preliminary investigation, and illegality of arrest. These issues must be
raised before the accused is arraigned and enters his plea.

What are the two parts of arraignment? / How is arraignment done? (Rule 116 Sec. 1)
 The two parts of arraignment are the following: / Arraignment is done in the following
manner:
• 1) The complaint or information furnished and read to the accused in open court in a
language or dialect known by him.
 *Any defect may be a ground to impugn the validity of arraignment. (BUT see A.M.
No. 15-06-10, 9-1-17, Revised Guidelines For Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases which
allows waiver of the reading of the information. see slide 452)

2. The accused personally enters his plea.

*The presence of the accused during arraignment is required by the Rules of Court.

Strict Compliance with the Rules on Arraignment and Plea is Needed

Note: *Any defect in the arraignment and plea will make the subsequent proceedings void. But
even so, without a valid plea and arraignment, the right against double jeopardy may not set in.

Note: *In order to have a valid trial in absencia, the accused must have been validly arraigned
and his plea validly entered.

But an Accused’s Constitutional Right to Due Process and Right to be Informed of the Nature
and Cause of Accusation Against Him May be Satisfied even without Strict Compliance to the
Rules of Arraignment and Plea.

Note: *While as a rule, strict compliance with the rules of arraignment and plea is required, there
are exceptional instances when the Supreme Court ruled that compliance with the Constitutional
Right of the Accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him and to due
process has been sufficient despite errors in the arraignment and plea.

Case: The accused is arraigned after trial when the prosecution has rested its case and the defense
presented its evidence. In this case, the defense counsel actively participated in the trial and the
Supreme Court ruled that by such act, the accused was aware of the nature and charges against
him and he was given his day in Court. (People v Pangilinan, 518 SCRA 358)

Note: This is a very exceptional case so caution must be taken in answering questions presenting
situations where one is required to look into the validity of the arraignment and plea. Wait for the
circumstances justifying the exceptions to arise before ruling that the arraignment is valid.

In what court must arraignment be made?/ Where is arraignment made? (Rule 116 Sec. 1)

The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint or information was filed
or assigned for trial.

Effect of Accused’s Nonappearance During Arraignment & Trial on his Bail Bond.

Question: May his bond be forfeited if the accused does not appear during trial?

Answer: Not necessarily. The accused may waive the right to be present in court so that
failure to appear in court does not automatically lead to forfeiture of bail.

Question: May his bond be forfeited if the accused does not appear during arraignment?

Answer: Yes. The presence of the accused is required by the Rules during Arraignment. As
such, he may not waive his right to be present at all stages of the proceedings.

Note:Refer to earlier discussions on when is the accused’s presence required by Court or by

the Rules of Court.
 The Offended Party’s Presence is Needed During Arraignment and Plea
 Note: It is not just the accused that must be present during the arraignment and plea. The
offended party must also be present during arraignment and plea for purposes of plea
bargaining, determination of the accused’s civil liability, and other matters requiring his
presence. When an accused pleads not guilty, it constitutes a joinder of issues in the
criminal action.

 Note: But absence of the Offended Party during Arraignment and Plea will not render
subsequent proceedings void.

Must Accused Personally Enter His Plea?

• General Rule:
 The accused must personally enter his plea.

• Are there instances where the Court enters a plea of not guilty for the accused?
 YES. They are:
 1) The accused refuses to enter a plea, such as in cases where the accused wants
to quash the information or hold in abeyance the proceedings to conduct
preliminary investigation;

 2) The accused enters a conditional plea of guilty. A conditional plea of guilty is

not a valid plea.

 Examples of a conditional plea:

 (a) I admit raping the victim but she seduced me;
 (b) Pleading guilty to an offense charged but asking for a lesser penalty to
be imposed.

 3) The accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence.

 Example: The accused admits the killing but the defense asks that the
court allow them to prove the circumstance of incomplete self-defense.

• Case: Accused was charged with homicide wherein he pleaded guilty with condition to
prove incomplete self defense. The judge found evidence for complete self defense and
thus acquitted the accused. In the present case, it is true, the accused had first entered a
plea of guilty. Subsequently, however, he testified, in the course of being allowed to
prove mitigating circumstances that he acted in complete self-defense. Said testimony,
therefore — as the court a quo recognized in its decision — had

• the effect of vacating his plea of guilty and the court a quo should have required him to
plead anew to the charge, or at least direct that a new plea of not guilty be entered for
him. Acquittal in such manner deprives the prosecution of due process. If a subsequent
case is filed, it may proceed. There will be no double jeopardy as he was not validly
arraigned. (People v Balisacan, 17 SCRA 1119)

Effect of Entering Plea

 a) Entering a plea of not guilty constitutes joinder of issues in the criminal case.
 b) Entering a plea of guilty is a judicial confession of guilt. All the material facts alleged
in the information, including aggravating circumstances are admitted. However,
conclusions of law are not admitted. (Note: This is the same effect as that of filing a
demurrer to evidence.)

Effect of a Voluntary Plea and Involuntary Plea:

a) Voluntary Plea:
 A voluntary plea will always cure defects in the complaint or information,
preliminary investigation, or illegality of arrest.
b)Involuntary Plea:

 The plea was not made by the accused but by the Court.
• Problem:
 The accused, who claims that he was illegally arrested, refused to enter a plea when
arraigned; whereupon, the court entered a plea of not guilty for him. May he still
question the validity of his arrest?

• Answer:
 Yes. The principle that the accused is precluded from questioning the legality of his arrest
after arraignment is true only if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates during the
trial, without previously invoking his objections thereto. (Borlongan Jr. v. Pena, et al.
G.R. No. 143591, Nov. 23, 2007). Thus, the accused may still question the legality oh
his arrest, etc. where, at the arraignment, it is the court that entered the plea of not guilty
for him.

• Plea of Guilty in a Capital Offense:

• Note: (Rule 116 Sec. 3) *There is no rule requiring automatic conviction upon plea of
guilty for a capital offense. Instead, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and shall require
the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may
present evidence in his behalf.

• Plea of Guilty to a Non-Capital Offense:

 (Rule 116, Sec. 3) When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, the
court may receive evidence from the parties to determine the penalty to be imposed.

• Plea Bargaining :
 In a plea bargaining, the accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense necessarily
included in the offense charged or pleads guilty to an account involved in multiple
accounts.
 Example: An accused is charged of rape. He pleads guilty to seduction or acts of
lasciviousness.

• What are the requisites of a valid plea bargain? (Sec. 2, Rule 116):
• They are:
 a) Consent of the offended party;
 b)Consent of the prosecutor;
 c) Approval of the court.

• May a plea for a lesser offense with the consent of the prosecutor be valid even without
the consent of the offended party? (Rule 116 Sec. 1 [f])
 Yes, provided the offended party is duly notified of the arraignment but
notwithstanding the notice, he failed to appear for arraignment.

• When is plea bargaining allowed?

 Plea bargaining is allowed in the following instances.
• 1) During arraignment; and
• 2) After arraignment but before trial

• May plea bargain be allowed even after the trial has begun? (Daan v. Sandiganbayan
GR No. 163972-77, March 28, 2008 citing People v. Villarama, GR No. 99287, June
23, 1992, 210 SCRA 4266)
 Yes, plea bargaining is valid even after the prosecution rested its case provided
that the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to convict the accused of the crime
 charged. This is an exception to the rule that plea bargaining is only allowed during
arraignment or after arraignment but before trial.

• Is there Double Jeopardy in Plea Bargaining?

 None.
• Is there a need to amend the complaint or information in Plea Bargaining? (Rule 116
Sec. 2)
 No, amendment of the complaint or information is not necessary.

• Suspension of Arraignment

• May arraignment be suspended? (Rule 116 Sec. 11)

 Yes, arraignment may be suspended on the following grounds:
 a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which
effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to
plead intelligently thereto;
 b) Existence of a prejudicial question;
 c) Pendency of a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor either at
the DOJ of the Office of the President. The period of suspension shall not exceed
sixty (60 days) counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.

Bill of Particular (Rule 116 Sec. 9)

•
• If the complaint or information is vague, the accused may move or file a motion for bill
of particulars to enable himself to properly plead and prepare for trial.

• When may a bill of particular be filed?

 A Bill of particular is filed before arraignment.

• What is the ground for filing a bill of particular?

• A bill of particular is filed when the complaint or information is vague, or any
matter is not averred with sufficient definiteness or particularity to enable the accused to
properly plead and prepare for trial.

• *Note:
• The material matter is averred but it is not averred with sufficient definiteness or
particularity. In other words, the material averment is complete but unclear. If the
material matter is not averred, the complaint or information may or may not be defective.

• What is the purpose of a Bill of Particular in a Criminal Case?

 A bill of particular in a criminal case enables the accused to properly plead and
prepare for trial. In civil case, its purpose is to enable a party to properly prepare his
responsive pleading.

• Is a bill of particular a mode of discovery?

 No, a bill of particular is not mode of discovery.

• May a bill of particular cure any defects in the complaint or information?

 No. It is not the office of a bill of particulars to supply material allegations
necessary to the validity of a pleading, or to change a cause of action or defense stated in
the pleading, or to state a cause of action or defense other than the one stated.

• Note: prohibited pleadings under A.M. No. 15-06-10, 9-1-17:

• Prohibited motions shall be DENIED OUTRIGHT before the arraingment without need
of comment and/or opposition:
 i. Motion for judicial determination of probable cause;
  ii. Motion for preliminary investigation filed beyond the five-day reglementary
period in inquest proceedings under Sec. 6, Rule 112, or when preliminary
investigation is required under Sec. 8, Rule 112, or allowed in inquest
proceedings and the accused failed to participate in the preliminary investigation
despite due notice;
 iii. Motion for reinvestigation of the prosecutor
 recommending the filing of information once the information has been filed
before the court (1) if the motion is filed without prior leave of court; (2) when
preliminary investigation is not required under Sec. 8, Rule 112; and (3) when the
regular preliminary investigation is required and has been actually conducted, and
the grounds relied upon in the motion are not meritorious, such as issues of
credibility, admissibility of evidence, innocense of the accused, or lack of due
procees when the accused was actually notified among others;
 iv. Motion to quash information when the ground is not one of those stated in Sec.
3, Rule 117;
 v. Motion for bill of particulars that does not conform to Sec. 9, Rule 116;
 vi.Motion to suspend the arraignment based on grounds not stated under Sec. 11,
Rule 116;
 vii. Petition to suspend the criminal action on the ground of prejudicial question,
when no civil case has been filed, pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 117.

• Mode of Discovery in Criminal Case:

• Production or Inspection of Material Evidence in Possession of the Prosecution. (Rule
116 Sec. 10)
 Upon motion of the accused showing good cause and with notice to the parties,
the court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression or alteration, may order the
prosecution to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of any
written statement given by
• the complainant and other witnesses in any investigation of the offense conducted by the
prosecution or other investigating officers as well as any designated documents, papers,
books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or other tangible things, not otherwise
privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the
case and which are under the possession or control of the prosecution, police, or other
law investigating agencies.

• Is it necessary that the accused allege that he intends to use as evidence the material
evidence in possession of the prosecution, police, or other law investigating agencies?
 No. There is no rule requiring that the accused must aver and intend to use the
pieces of evidence he intends to be produced by the prosecution. In fact, he may not even
use or copy any of the material evidence that he moves to be produced by the
prosecution.
 Note: The other modes of discovery available in a civil case may be availed of in a
criminal case.

• Are there evidence that the prosecution, police, or other law investigating agencies may
not produce despite motion by the accused and order of the court?
 Yes. These are documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects,
or tangible things which are privileged. The prosecution, police, or other law
investigating agency though must show the nature of such evidence as privileged.

•
Note: A.M. No. 15-06-10, 9-1-17; Revised Guideline on Continuous Trial in
Criminal Cases
 Applicability: Revised Guidelines shall apply to all newly-filed criminal cases, including
those governed by Special Laws and Rules, in the 1st and 2nd Level Courts, the
Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals as of effectivity date. It shall also apply to
pending cases with respect to the remainder of the proceedings.
  Unless otherwise specifically provided in the guidelines, the Revised Guidelines shall not
apply to criminal cases filed under the Rule on Summary Procedure.

• (a) Schedule of Arraignment & Pre-trial.-

1. Detained : within10 calendar days from the date of the court's receipt of the case;
2. Non-detained: within 30 calendar days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction
over a non-detained accused.

Note: Court must set the arraingment of the acucsed in the commitment order as to a detained
accused, or in the order of approval of bail, in any other case. For this purpose, where the
Executive Judge act on bail applications in cases assigned to other courts, they shall coordinate
with the courts to which the cases are actually asfor scheduling purposes.

(b) Notice of Arraignment & Pre-trial.- shall be sent to the accused, his counsel, private
complainant or complainaing law enforcement agent, public prosecutor, and witnesses
whose names appear in the information for purposes of plea-bargaining, arraignment and
pre-trial.

(c) Waiver of Reading of the Information.- In multiple cases, the court, upon personal
examination of the accused, may allow a waiver of the reading of the information upon
full understanding and express consent of the accused and his counsel, which consent
shall be expressly stated in both the minutes/certificate of arreaignment and the order of
arraignment. The court shall explain the waiver to the accused in the language or dialect
known to him, and ensure the accused's full understanding of the consequences of the
waiver before approving the same.

(d) Arraignment Proper:

 i. Plea Bargaining.-If the accused desires to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser
offense, plea bargaining shall immediately proceed, provided the private offended
party in private crimes, or the arresting officer in victimless crimes, is present to
give his consent with the conformity of the public prosecutor to the plea
bargaining. Thereafter, judgment shall be immediately rendered in the same
proceedings.
 ii. Plea of Guilty to the Crime Charged in the Information.- If the accused
pleads guilty to the crime charged in the information, judgment shall be
immediately rendered, except in those cases involving capital punishment.
 iii. Where No Plea Bargaining or Plea of Guilty Takes Place.- the court
immediately proceed with the arraignment and the pre-trial, in accordance with
the succeeding provisions on pre-trial.
 The schedule of the trial dates, for both the prosecution and the accused, shall be
continuous and within the periods provided in the Regular Rules/Special Rules.
The dates may be shortened depending on the number of witnesses to be
presented. In this regard, a flowchart shall be prepared by the court which shall
serve as the final schedule of hearings.

Sample flowcharts:
A. Regular Rules (10 months):
B. Special Laws/Rules
1. Drug Cases: (2.5 months)
2. Environmental Cases (10 months):
3. Intellectual Property Rights Cases (9 months)
4. Arraingment & Pre-trial of cases REferred to Mediation (10 months)

(e) Arraignment & Preliminary Conference of Mediatable Cases Subject to the Rule on
Summary Procedure.- Arraignment and pre-trial shall be simultaneously held, and the court
shall take up all the matters required under Sec. 14, Rule on Summary Procedure during the
preliminary conference.
  i. If the accused pleads guilty to the crime charged in the information, follow
same procedure earlier discussed.
 ii. If the accused pleads guildty to a lesser offense, follow same procedure earlier
discussed.
 iii. If accused does not enter a plea of guilty, whether to a lesses offense or to the
offense charged in the information, the court shall immediately proceed to
arraignment and preliminary conference, and thereafter refer the case to
mediation.

Sample flowchart:
• Rule on Summary Procedure of Criminal Cases referred to Mediation(4 months):

Rule 117 – Motion to Quash

Note: When to file a motion to quash and effect of not filing a motion to quash (refer to
earlier discussions)

What is the form of a motion to quash?

It is in writing(Rule 117, Sec. 2)

Who files a motion to quash?

It is only the accused or his counsel who files the motion(Rule 117, Sec.2)

What is the nature of a motion to quash?

 A motion to quash is a class by itself/sue generis. It is filed only upon the grounds
mentioned in Rule 117, Sec. 3. There can never be any other grounds for a motion to
quash criminal informations except those provided under Rule 117, Sec. 3.

Note: Under A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, the Revised Guideline for Continuous Trial of
Criminal Cases (Sept. 1, 2017), a Motion to Quash is a prohibited pleading when the
ground is not one of those stated in Sec. 3, Rule 117.

Consequently, the court shall deny it outright before the scheduled arraignment without
need of comment and/or opposition.

Grounds for Filing a Motion to Quash (Rule 117, Sec. 3)

Note: These grounds are exclusive. It is a MUST to memorize these grounds.

The grounds are:

1) The facts charged do not constitute an offense;
2) The court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense (Lack of jurisdiction over
the offense);
3) The court trying the accused has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused (Lack
of jurisdiction over the person of the accused);
4) The officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
5) The complaint or information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
6) More than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various
offenses is prescribed by law;
7) The criminal action or liability has been extinguished (Extinction of penal action);
8) The complaint or information contains averments which, if true, would constitute a
legal excuse or justification, and;
Eg. The information avers that the accused is insane or a minor.
 9) The accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the
case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent
(Double jeopardy).

Test for Sufficiency of the Complaint or Information

• By way of Jurisprudence: An information is sufficient if its averments, if hypothetically
admitted, whether the facts alleged would establish the essential elements of the offense
as defined by law without considering matters aliunde.

Note: This is very similar to the test to determine the sufficiency of a petition or complaint in
a civil action.

Note: Only the ultimate, and not evidentiary facts are considered. Ultimate facts are those
that allege the cause of action or elements of a crime. Evidentiary facts are those that support the
allegations of the ultimate facts.

Example:
• In a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage for absence of essential requisites, the
following will be the ultimate facts:
 a)The parties were married;
 b) At the time the parties were married, either or both of them do not possess all
the essential elements for marriage – ie consent, contracting capacity such as legal
age, former marriage that has not been nullified or annulled, etc.;
 c) If applicable, the following are added:
• (i) Allegations as to having children and their custody;
• (ii) Allegations as to acquisition of property;

The evidentiary facts will be the following:

a)How the parties met;
b)Making allegations as to psychological incapacity;
c)Describing their life and feelings before and after the marriage, etc.

Simply said:
 Sufficiency of Criminal Information: A criminal information is complete, if by just
looking at it, a judgment of conviction may be had. It can sustain a judgment of
conviction.

 Sufficiency of a Complaint/Petition in a Civil Action/ Special Proceeding: A

complaint is sufficient, if just by itself, judgment may be rendered in favor of the plaintiff
and granting the prayers therein.

• Are there grounds for a motion to quash that may not be waived?
Yes. As a rule, failure to file a motion to quash constitutes a waiver over its grounds.

However, the following grounds may not be waived:

• 1) The facts averred do not constitute an offense;
• 2) Jurisdiction over the offense is absent;
• 3) Extinction of Criminal Liability; and
• 4) Double Jeopardy
• Is the court mandated to grant a motion to quash?
 No. A court may grant or deny a motion to quash upon its discretion.

• What is the implication of a court’s denial of a motion to quash?

 The Court is not persuaded by the accused’s argument.
 • What is the remedy of an accused whose motion to quash has been denied?
 The accused whose motion to quash has been denied must enter his plea and go
to trial.

What if the accused still wants to question the order of the Court denying his Motion to
Quash?
 The accused may resort to a Rule 65 petition/ Petition for Certiorari under Rule
65.
Note: Appeal is not the proper remedy in case the motion to quash is denied. There being no
appeal, if the accused still wants to question the order denying the motion to quash, he must
resort to a Rule 65 Petition/Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. Nonetheless, before such
petition may be acted upon, two things need to be alleged and shown, to wit:
 a) first, there is no appeal, or any other plain, adequate, and speedy remedy
provided for by law and;
 b) second, the grounds for the petition must be alleged and shown – grave or
abuse of discretion resulting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or lack or excess of
jurisdiction.

Note: Courts are given a wide array of discretion. It is only grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess or jurisdiction that is condemned by the rules.

By simply alleging and invoking the grounds and requisites for a Rule 65 petition, is the
Court mandated to entertain such petition?
 No. Claiming that the court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction, lack or excess of jurisdiction, or invoking
substantial justice, liberal application of rules are never magic words that will
automatically warrant the Courts to review its findings.

Granting a Motion to Quash

What is the prosecution’s remedy in case a motion to quash is granted?

The following are the remedies available to the prosecution when a motion to quash has
been granted:
1) Amend the complaint or information if such cures the defect.
Eg. (i) Duplicity of complaint or information; (ii) The facts charged
do not constitute an offense.
2) Refile the complaint or information.
Eg. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense.

3) Appeal from the order granting the motion to quash. This is applicable only if the
motion to quash is sustained on the grounds of extinction of criminal liability and double
jeopardy.

WHY???
• Answer: Sustaining a motion to quash over the said grounds constitutes a final order or
an adjudication by merits, which is the proper subject of an appeal. Appeal is available
only for a final order or an adjudication by merits, and not for interlocutory orders.

Void and Defective Information

 A void information may be assailed anytime while a defective information may
only be assailed before arraignment.
 A void information does not confer any jurisdiction to the courts over the offense
while the defects in a defective information may be waived and the courts may
still acquire jurisdiction over the offense.
Rule on Supervening Facts (Rule 117 Sec. 7)
Note: Rule 117, Sec 7 is otherwise known as the Supervening Fact Doctrine.

 The conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense
which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information
under any of the following instances:
• a) The graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same
act or omission constituting the former charge.
• b) The facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered
only after a plea was entered in the former complaint o information; or
• c) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the
prosecutor and offended party except as provided under in Sec. 1(f),Rule 116.

Note: this is an exception to the general rule on Double Jeopardy.

Note:
Where after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes for which the accused is
responsible, which  changes the character  of theoffense  and,  together  with  the  facts  existing 
at  the  time, constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second
jeopardy if indicted for the second offense.
A new fact supervenes which, would change the nature of the crime.

Origin of the Rule

 This present rule was brought about as a result of jurisprudence.

People vs. Tarok, 73 Phil. 260; People vs. Villasis, 46 O.G. 268; Carmelo vs People, G.R.
No. L-3580, March 22, 1950; Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. 766; People vs. Buling, 107 Phil.
712; People vs. Adil, 76 SCRA 462; People vs. Tac-an, 182 SCRA 601; and People vs.
City Court of Manila, 121 SCRA 637.

• Prior to this rule, in a case, a former charge of grave physical injuries was not allowed to
be amended to Homicide. In this case, the charge for Grave Physical Injuries was filed
while the victim is still in the hospital. The accused was arraigned, and he entered a plea
of not guilty. Subsequently, the victim died of his injuries. When the prosecutor
expressed his desire to upgrade the former charge, the Court ruled that it may not be
allowed as Double Jeopardy has set in. In another case, an accused was charged with
serious physical injuries, for which he was convicted. When the victim, who happens to
be his own wife, died from meningitis contracted from her injuries, the Court did not
allow the second charge of parricide to prosper (People vs. Villasis, 46 O.G. 268; People
vs. Tarok, 73 Phil. 260;)

• Melo v. People, Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. 766:  (The SC abandoned the Tarok doctrine)
This has already repealed the doctrine laid down in the Tarok case as contrary to the real
meaning of double jeopardy as intended by the Constitution and the Rules of Court and
"obnoxious to the administration of justice," and has reverted to the rule that "where after
the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is responsible, which
changes the character of the offenses and together with the facts existing at the time,
constitutes a new and distinct offense." That rule applies to the present case where, after
the first prosecution for a lesser crime, new facts have supervened which, together with
those already in existence at the time of the first prosecution, have made the offense
graver and the penalty first imposed legally inadequate. (PEOPLE vs.
MAXIMO MANOLONG, G.R. No. L-2288, March 30, 1950)

 Melo v. People (ibid): it was held that an accused who pleaded guilty to the offense of
frustrated homicide, the offended party thereafter dying in the evening of the same day,
 could not rely on a plea of double jeopardy if, as a result thereof, the information was
amended to charge him with homicide.  As was clarified in the opinion of this Court
through the then Chief Justice Moran, one of the dissenters in the Tarok case:

"This rule of identity does not apply, however, when the second offense was not in
existence at the time of the first prosecution, for the simple reason that in such case there is
no possibility for the accused, during the first prosecution, to be convicted for an offense that
was then inexistent. Thus, where the accused was charged with physical injuries and after
conviction the injured person dies, the charge for homicide against the same accused does not
put him twice in jeopardy." 

Stated differently, if after the first prosecution "a new fact supervenes on which
defendant may be held liable, resulting in altering the character of the crime and giving rise to a
new and distinct offense, "the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the
new offense." 

People vs. Yorac, 42 SCRA, 230:

 Stated differently, if after the first prosecution 'a new fact supervenes on which
defendant may be held liable, resulting in altering the character of the crime and
giving rise to a new and distinct offense, 'the accused cannot be said to be in
second jeopardy if indicted for the new offense

In People vs. Buling, 107 Phil. 112, We explained how a deformity may be considered as a
supervening fact. Referring to the decision in People vs. Manolong, 85 Phil. 829, We held:

No finding was made in the first examination that the injuries had caused deformity and the loss
of the use of the right hand. As nothing was mentioned in the first medical certificate about the
deformity and the loss of the use of the righthand, we presumed that such fact was not apparent
or could have been discernible at the time the first examination was made. The course (not the
length) of the healing of an injury may not be determined before hand; it can only be definitely
known after the period of healing has ended. That is the reason why the court considered that
there was a supervening fact occurring since the filing of the original information.

PEOPLE vs.RENATO TAC-AN Y HIPOS, G.R. No. 76338-39 February 26, 1990:

• The claim of double jeopardy.
• It is contended by appellant that because he had already been charged with illegal
possession of a firearm and ammunition in Criminal Case No. 4007, aggravated by the
use of such unlicensed firearm to commit a homicide or murder, he was
unconstitutionally placed in jeopardy of punishment for the second time when he was
charged in Criminal Case No. 4012 with murder "with the use of an unlicensed
[firearm]," in violation of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 17
of B.P. Blg. 179.

• Ruling:
• It is elementary that the constitutional right against double jeopardy protects one against a
second or later prosecution for the same offense, and that when the subsequent
information charges another and different offense, although arising from the same act or
set of acts, there is no prohibited double jeopardy. In the case at bar, it appears to us quite
clear that the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 4007 is that of unlawful possession of
an unlicensed firearm penalized under a special

• statute, while the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 4012 was that of murder
punished under the Revised Penal Code. It would appear self-evident that these two (2)
offenses in themselves are quite different one from the other, such that in principle, the
subsequent filing of Criminal Case No. 4012 is not to be regarded as having placed
appellant in a prohibited second jeopardy.
People v Espino, 69 Phil 471:
• In this case, an accused was charged for Grave Physical Injuries. His arraignment was
scheduled in the afternoon. On the morning of the day of his arraignment, the victim died
and the accused was informed of it. The accused kept silent and never informed the
prosecutor or the court. The prosecutor and court were unaware that the victim died.
Arraignment and plea proceeded as scheduled.

• Upon learning that the victim died, the prosecutor expressed his desire to upgrade the
offense from Grave Physical Injuries to Homicide. This time, the Court allowed it. It
pointed out that the accused knowingly pleaded to the lesser offense.

• This was reiterated in another case (People v City Court of Manila 121 SCRA 637 –
compare this with the Ivler Doctrine). The accused was charged with Reckless
Imprudence Resulting In Serious Physical Injuries and the accused pleaded to such.
However, the victim died on the day that the first information was filed. The information
was amended into a charge for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide.

• On the issue whether double jeopardy has set in preventing the amended charge to
prosper, the Court ruled that there will be double jeopardy if the accused is unaware
that the victim is dead while entering the plea. But if the accused is aware that the
victim died and still he entered a guilty plea, there will be no double jeopardy.

People v City Court of Manila, 121 SCRA 637

• The victim died on the day that the first information for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries was filed. 2 days later, the accused was
arraigned, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced. The prosecutor though, received
information that the victim died. He moved to hold in abeyance the arraignment and
proceedings in the first charge to allow amendment of the information.

• The court did not allow it. When the amended information was filed, the Court dismissed
it. It made this pronouncement, “the accused was arraigned, pleaded guilty and
sentenced accordingly. Thus, jeopardy had attached and no new fact supervened
after the arraignment and conviction of the accused.”