G.R. No. 129874 December 27, 2002
JOAN M. FLORES, petitioner, vs. HON. FRANCISCO C. JOVEN, Presiding Judge of Branch 29, Regional Trial Court, Bislig, Surigao del Sur, and EMMANUEL NAVARRO, respondents.

FACTS

On January 23, 1996, petitioner Joan M. Flores filed a criminal complaint for Rape against respondent Emmanuel Navarro and nine others. After preliminary investigation, an Information dated June 14, 1996 was filed. Before arraignment, Navarro filed a motion to dismiss, prompting the prosecution to file an Amended Information on November 27, 1996, specifically naming Navarro as the principal accused who had sexual intercourse with Flores, while his co-accused held the victim and stood as guard. Similar Informations were filed against the other accused individually. Navarro filed a motion to quash the Amended Information, arguing it did not comply with a prior court order, conflicted with Flores’s affidavit (which initially named only Rodulfo Codira), and failed to sufficiently describe the event. On March 4, 1997, the Regional Trial Court granted the motion to quash, finding Navarro was not identified by Flores as having abused her and that the Information failed to show his particular participation. Flores’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 6, 1997. Flores, through her private prosecutors, filed this special civil action for certiorari. Meanwhile, Navarro escaped from detention on October 3, 1998, and remains at large. The prosecution later moved to withdraw Informations against six other principal accused for insufficiency of evidence, which was granted, leaving Navarro as a co-accused in other pending cases.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petitioner has the personality or right to file the petition for certiorari.
2. Whether the writ of certiorari should issue due to grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in quashing the Amended Information.

RULING

1. Yes, the petitioner has the personality to file the petition. The Supreme Court ruled that an offended party in a criminal case has sufficient interest and personality as a “person aggrieved” to file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Citing precedents such as Paredes vs. Gopengco and Perez vs. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc., the Court held that the private offended party retains the right to bring such an action in her own name, especially when public prosecutors would not initiate it due to having filed the motion that led to dismissal. Double jeopardy does not apply because Navarro had not been arraigned.
2. Yes, the writ of certiorari should issue. The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing the Amended Information. The Court found that the records adequately showed Navarro was identified by Flores during the clarificatory hearing as one of her abusers. The Amended Information sufficiently alleged the essential elements of rape by stating that Navarro had sexual intercourse with Flores against her will, with force, and with the help of co-accused. An information only needs to state the ultimate facts constituting the offense, not the evidentiary details. The alleged variance between the Amended Information and Flores’s affidavit is not a ground for quashing, as the information controls. The trial court erred in dismissing the case based on its assessment of evidence, which is a matter for trial. The Orders dated March 4, 1997 and May 6, 1997 were nullified and set aside. Criminal Case No. 1736-B was reinstated, and the trial judge was directed to proceed and issue a warrant for Navarro’s arrest.