assignment ltd

1. CLARITO T. ARAGOS JR. II
Assignment 3
1. A. No. The motion cannot be granted. As stated in Sec.13 Rule 110 of
Rule of court duplicity of the offense a complaint or information must
charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single
punishment for various offenses. However in Sec.29, RA 10 291 the
use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime
punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws, shall
be considered as an aggravating circumstance. In this case Roger
violated article 248 of RPC with aggravating circumstance of treachery.
The prosecution here must charge the accused of only one offense of
Murder and the maximum penalty will be imposed not necessary to
have a duplicity for the offense charge to the accused. Hence, Roger
cannot move to quash that the information charges is more than one
offense because of the aggravating circumstance of and violated
Sec.29, RA 10591 that use of unlicensed fire armed is inherent to the
commission of the crime.
B. No. The court cannot convict Roger of one count of Murder. The
accused violated of 248 and article 48 of RPC a complex crime. The
accused here killed the victim and using unlicensed fire armed. There
is only one criminal resolution, killing the victim.
2. A. Yes, it is allowed. As stated in Section 14 of Rule 110 of Rules of
Court, amendment after plea shall only be formal amendments and
may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done without
causing prejudice to the rights of the accused. The rule, however,
admits of exceptions. Substantial amendments shall be allowed if it is
beneficial to the accused, or if the doctrine of supervening event
applies that mark has the carnal knowledge of the victim and killing of
the victim is a continuing crime. Here, mark will be charged of only
homicide not murder there is no qualifying circumstance that mark
charged with murder.

2. B. Yes, in can be amended but a formal amendment. Because it
changes the theory of the defense. It makes the accused liable not only
for his own acts but also for those of his co-conspirators. It is not a
substantial amendment of Anthony. The amendment is merely a
formal amendment because it does not prejudice the rights of accused
who was charged as a principal to begin with. In this case Anthony is a
conspirator of mark as a principal and Anthony is a mere accessories.
3. The counsel of Katrina challenge on the ground that only the Provincial
Prosecutor can sign the information. In the case Gomez vs PP the court
held that need of a prior written authority contemplated by section
3(d) Rule 117 was perceived by the SC only a as procedural tool meant
to regulate rules on pleading, practice and procedure, and not as
determinative of conferring jurisdiction over the court. Here the
sufficiency of all information is not stipulated that associate
prosecutor Celina Grace L. Tan is authorized to sign the information.
4. Sharon and Rose cannot convict the offense charge. The accusation of
Sharon and Rose is not enough to impute crime. In the case of Abeto
vs PP the court held he cannot justifiably held guilty of deliberate,
misrepresentation, and his failure or inability to render service could
have been due to a change of mind, if not to a lawful cause. Non-
performance on his part and failure to return the money give rise only
to civil liability. Here in this case the accused failure to render services
to the victim is not sufficient to charge the crime of Estafa. Only civil
liability not a criminal liability.