Sec. 7. Name of the accused. — The complaint or information must state the name and surname of the accused or any appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known. If his name cannot be ascertained, he must be described under a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is unknown.

If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by him or appears in some other manner to the court, such true name shall be inserted in the complaint or information and record (Rule 110, Rules of Court).

When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information (Rule 110, Sec. 6, Rules of Court).



How to state the name of the accused

1. If the name of the accused is known - the complaint or information must state the name and surname of the accused or any appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known.

2. If his name cannot be ascertained - he must be described under a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is unknown.

3. If his true name is thereafter disclosed - such true name shall be inserted in the complaint or information and record.


Error in the name of the accused

●The rule is that the complaint or information should sufficiently allege the name of the accused, failing which the complaint or information would be rendered invalid (People v. Padica, G.R. No. 102645, April 7, 1993).

● The accused should raise the error as to his identity by filing a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his person (People v. Padica, G.R. No. 102645, April 7, 1993).

● The error should be raised before arraignment, or else it is deemed waived.

● Verbal motion to correct spelling is sufficient. 

● The error in the name of the accused will not nullify the information if it contains sufficient description of the person of the accused.


People v. Amodia
G.R. No. 173791, April 7, 2009

Facts: Pablo Amodia was charged with the crime of murder. He raised the defense of mistaken identity, claiming that his real first name is “Pablito” and not “Pablo” as stated in the information. During trial, two of the neighbors pinpointed him as one of the persons who killed the victim.

Held: "Positive identification pertains essentially to proof of identity and not necessarily to the name of the assailant. A mistake in the name of the accused is not equivalent, and does not necessarily amount to, a mistake in the identity of the accused especially when sufficient evidence is adduced to show that the accused is pointed to as one of the perpetrators of the crime." 


People v. Cagadas
G.R. No. 88044, January 23, 1991

Facts: Roberto Cultura was indicted in the information as "Jose Cultura", which was his father's name. He did not question his identity at the arraignment and acquiesced to be tried under that name. The RTC convicted him of murder. On appeal, he contended that the trial court erred in convicting him for he was not one of those indicted in the information but "Jose" Cultura." 

Held: "The erroneous designation of his appellant's name in the information will not vitiate it, as it was clearly proven that the he was part of the group that arrested, hogtied and killed the victim. Besides, he did not raise this question of his identity during the arraignment. His acquiescence to be tried under the name "Jose" at that stage of the case is deemed to be a waiver on his part to raise the question of his identity as one of the accused for the first time on appeal."


People v. Padica
G.R. No. 102645. April 7, 1993

Facts: Appellant Leon Marajas, Jr. and several other accused were charged with kidnapping for ransom with murder and illegal possession of firearms before Military Commission. However, the counsel for appellant prayed for the transfer of the case to the civil courts. An information for kidnapping for ransom with murder was subsequently filed before the CFI of Pasay City. The name of appellant, however, was inadvertently omitted. 

Appellant entered his plea during the arraignment under the name of "Leonardo Marajas." Upon discovery of the omission of herein appellant’s name in the information, the prosecution filed a motion for the admission of an amended information including appellant’s name as one of the accused. The trial court issued an order admitting the amended information. Thereafter, appellant, duly assisted by counsel, entered a plea of guilty upon being arraigned on the amended information. The trial court pronounced appellant guilty of the offense charged. On appeal, appellant contended that the failure of the prosecution to charge him as an accused in the original information is a fatal defect. 

Held: 

"Appellant should have raised the error as to his identity by filing a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his person. Appellant did not do so but instead voluntarily appeared at the arraignment and pleaded not guilty thereat, albeit under a different name. Consequently, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over his person and it could have rendered a valid judgment of conviction based on the original information even without need of an amendatory information to correct appellant’s name. What we stated in Narvaes is worth repeating:

". . . (w)hen the appellant was arraigned under the name of Pedro Narvaes, which is the name appearing in the information, he merely entered his plea of ‘not guilty’ under the said name. It was on that occasion that he should have for the first time raised the question of his identity, by filing a demurrer based on the court’s lack of jurisdiction over his person, inasmuch as he was then considered as Pedro Narvaes, not Primo Narvaes. Not having filed the said demurrer, it must necessarily be understood that he renounced it and therefore he is now estopped from raising, or insisting to raise, the same question, not only in this appeal but even at the trial."