Below is an extensive discussion of the principle of duplicity of the offense under Philippine criminal procedure, with emphasis on Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, its rationale, exceptions, remedies, and relevant jurisprudence.

I. OVERVIEW

Duplicity of the offense (sometimes referred to as “multiplicity of offenses”) occurs when a single complaint or information charges more than one offense. The general rule in Philippine criminal procedure is that an information should charge only one offense to avoid confusion and to enable the accused to properly prepare a defense.

Legal Basis:

Rule 110, Section 13 of the Rules of Court provides:

“Duplicity of the offense. — A complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.”

This rule aims to safeguard the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him (Section 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution).

II. PURPOSE AND RATIONALE

Clarity of the Charge
- The accused should be able to clearly understand the charge(s) in order to prepare a proper defense. When more than one offense is alleged in a single complaint or information, there is a risk of confusion as to which specific acts the accused has to answer for.
Avoidance of Prejudice
- Combining multiple offenses in a single charge could unduly prejudice the accused by overwhelming him with multiple allegations, making it more difficult to craft a coherent defense.
Orderly Administration of Justice
- Courts, prosecutors, and defense counsel must handle cases in an orderly manner. Trying multiple offenses in a single information can complicate evidentiary presentations, create unnecessary delays, and possibly affect the fairness of the trial.
Due Process Considerations
- The fundamental requirement that every accused be given an opportunity to know and meet the charge against him is rooted in due process. Duplicity of offenses can violate this due process requirement.

III. APPLICATION: WHEN DUPLICITY ARISES

A complaint or information is considered duplicitous if:

It explicitly charges more than one offense in a single count.
It alleges multiple criminal acts, each of which would normally constitute a separate offense or violation under the law.

Example:

If an information charges the accused with both (1) murder and (2) illegal possession of firearms in a single paragraph without treating them as a complex crime or a special complex crime (and there is no law prescribing a single penalty for these two offenses), then the charge is duplicitous.

IV. EXCEPTIONS: WHEN CHARGING MORE THAN ONE OFFENSE IS ALLOWED

1. When the Law Prescribes a Single Punishment for Various Offenses

The rule itself (Rule 110, Section 13) states an exception if a single penalty is prescribed by law for several acts. In such instances, those acts may be included in a single complaint or information without violating the rule on duplicity. For example:

Complex Crimes (Article 48, Revised Penal Code)
A complex crime occurs when:
1. An offense is a necessary means to commit another (e.g., falsification of documents to commit estafa).
2. Two or more offenses are committed by a single act or by a series of acts constituting a single offense under the law (e.g., homicide with rape that is penalized as a special complex crime).
Under Article 48, if the conditions for a complex crime are met, the law prescribes a single penalty (usually the penalty for the more serious offense) for the entire act. Hence, it is permissible to charge the accused with the complex crime in a single information.
Special Complex Crimes
Certain crimes under the Revised Penal Code or special laws specifically combine multiple felonies into a “special complex crime,” such as “robbery with homicide,” “kidnapping with homicide,” or “rape with homicide,” for which a single, indivisible penalty is prescribed.

2. Continuing Offenses or “Delito Continuado”

A “continuing crime” or “delito continuado” may also be charged in one information despite involving several acts if those acts are part of a single, continuous intention or scheme.
Example: Illegal recruitment in large scale can involve multiple acts of recruitment, but if they form part of a single, continuing scheme, they may be charged in one count if the law also penalizes them under a single penalty framework.

3. Offenses Forming Part of a Single Statutory Offense

Some special laws define an offense in such a way that multiple acts or modes are included within one punishable act. For instance, a law that punishes different modalities of a cybercrime offense but imposes one penalty for the offense as a whole would not violate the rule against duplicity if those modalities are alleged in one charge.

V. REMEDIES AND PROCEDURE

1. Motion to Quash (Rule 117, Section 3(f))

When faced with a duplicitous charge, the accused (or counsel) may file a motion to quash on the ground that “more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law.”
A motion to quash is a procedural tool used before entering a plea. If granted, the court may order the prosecutor to file separate informations or to choose which offense to pursue.

2. Prosecutor’s Amendment of the Complaint or Information

If the court finds that duplicity exists, it may order the amendment of the complaint or information to charge only one offense or to separate the charges.
Amendment is typically allowed before the accused pleads, provided it does not prejudice the rights of the accused.

3. Severance of Charges

If the duplicitous information contains allegations of distinct offenses that do not qualify as complex or continuing crimes, the court may require the prosecution to file separate informations—one for each distinct offense.

4. Effect if Not Raised

If the accused fails to raise the duplicity issue before the trial court (e.g., does not file a motion to quash), he may be deemed to have waived the defect.
However, courts sometimes still rule on duplicity when it is manifest that the rights of the accused were compromised by the improper joinder of offenses.

VI. RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE

People v. Dichao, 364 SCRA 207 (2001)
- The Supreme Court reiterated that an information must charge only one offense. The Court also recognized that the remedy when an information charges two or more offenses is a motion to quash.
People v. Resano, 32 SCRA 510 (1970)
- The Court explained the rationale for the one-charge rule, emphasizing the due process requirement that the accused must know precisely the charges to prepare a defense.
People v. Abellera, 8 Phil 612 (1907)
- One of the earlier cases discussing duplicity of offenses, clarifying that more than one offense cannot be charged unless it falls under the exceptions provided by law.
People v. Polo, 162 SCRA 585 (1988)
- The Court underscored that if a motion to quash is not filed despite duplicity, the accused is deemed to have waived the defect unless substantial prejudice or violation of due process is found.
Ferrer v. People, G.R. No. 187961, 26 November 2014
- The Court discussed the concept of complex crimes and continuing offenses, emphasizing that if a single penalty is prescribed for a set of acts or multiple modes of commission, it may be charged in a single information.

VII. PRACTICAL POINTS AND GUIDANCE

Drafting the Complaint or Information
- Prosecutors must carefully evaluate the facts to determine whether the allegations constitute a single offense, a complex crime, or multiple separate offenses.
- If it is a complex or special complex crime, it is essential to clearly allege the factual nexus showing that one offense was committed as a necessary means of another, or multiple felonies were committed by a single act.
Defense Counsel’s Role
- Defense counsel should promptly check for duplicity in the complaint or information. If duplicity is found, file a motion to quash before entering a plea.
- If the prosecution or the court tries to proceed with a duplicitous charge, the defense must timely object or it risks waiving the defect.
Court’s Responsibility
- The trial court, upon noticing duplicity, may, on its own initiative, require the prosecutor to rectify the defect in the information to protect the rights of the accused and to ensure orderly proceedings.
Effect of Waiver
- If the accused pleads and proceeds to trial without objecting to duplicity, the irregularity may be considered waived. However, if it is shown later that such duplicity impaired the accused’s constitutional rights, the issue can still be raised on appeal in the interest of justice.
Ensuring Fairness
- Both the prosecution and defense should bear in mind that the ultimate goal of the rule against duplicity is to promote fairness, clarity, and due process in criminal proceedings.

VIII. SUMMARY

General Rule: One complaint or information must charge only one offense.
Exceptions:
- The law prescribes a single penalty for various offenses (e.g., complex crimes, special complex crimes).
- Continuing crimes (delito continuado) or when the offense by its nature involves a series of acts.
Remedy: A motion to quash (before plea) on the ground of duplicity; amendment or splitting of the complaint or information if granted.
Rationale: To protect the due process rights of the accused and to ensure clarity in framing the charges.
Waiver: Failing to object before pleading may result in waiver of the defect unless substantial prejudice is proven.

The rule on duplicity of offense is an essential part of Philippine remedial law. It ensures due process by requiring clarity in the accusation, thus enabling the accused to prepare an adequate defense. Recognizing the exceptions—particularly complex crimes and continuing offenses—is crucial for both prosecutors (in drafting the correct charges) and defense counsel (in protecting the accused’s constitutional rights).