“Name of the Accused” — what it requires, why it matters, and how it plays out in practice

1) Where Section 7 sits in the criminal process

Rule 110 governs the prosecution of offenses and, in particular, the complaint or information (the charging instrument) that initiates and defines the criminal case. Within Rule 110, Section 7 focuses on a deceptively simple but highly practical concern: how the accused is named in the complaint or information.

The “name of the accused” is not a mere clerical detail. It connects to:

Identity (who is being charged),
Due process (fair notice and the right to defend),
Enforceability (service of warrants, commitments, and judgments), and
Integrity of records (criminal history, bail, detention, and execution of sentence).

2) The core rule: what Section 7 requires

Section 7 sets out three main directives:

State the accused’s name and surname The complaint or information should state the accused’s name and surname.
If the accused is or has been known by another name, include it If the accused is known by an appellation, nickname, or alias, that identifying name may be stated as well (commonly written as “a.k.a.” or “alias”).
If the true name cannot be ascertained, use a fictitious name and describe If the accused’s name cannot be ascertained, the pleading may designate the accused under a fictitious name (e.g., “John Doe”) with a statement that the true name is unknown, and the accused should be described as clearly as possible to fix identity.
If the true name later becomes known, it should be inserted in the record Once the accused’s true name is disclosed by the accused or otherwise appears to the court, the true name should be inserted in the complaint or information and in the case record—typically through an amendment/correction process consistent with Rule 110’s amendment provisions and the court’s control over its records.

In short: the law’s priority is not perfection in spelling or format; it is reasonable certainty of identity and continuity of proceedings even when a name turns out to be incomplete, misspelled, or initially unknown.

3) Why the “name of the accused” matters (practical and constitutional reasons)

A. Identity and jurisdiction over the person

Courts acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused through arrest, voluntary surrender, or appearance. Section 7 supports this by ensuring the accused is identifiable from the charging instrument and the case record.

B. Due process and the right to defend

The Constitution guarantees the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. That guarantee is mainly served by the designation of the offense and the acts/omissions alleged, but correct identification of the accused prevents:

charging the wrong person,
confusion in arraignment,
mismatch between warrant and detainee, and
enforcement errors later (bail, judgment, commitment).

C. Avoiding evasion through multiple names

Many accused persons are known by nicknames or aliases in their communities. Allowing an alias/nickname to appear in the information reduces the chance that a person avoids liability by claiming the name on the charge is not the person’s “real” name.

D. Enforcement and record integrity

Judgments, commitment orders, warrants, and releases rely on accurate identity data. Section 7 helps ensure the record can be corrected when the true name emerges, without derailing the case.

4) How to comply: what should appear in the complaint or information

A. Best practice: full identifying name

Complete name (including middle name when known) is commonly used in practice to avoid confusion, especially where names are common.
Suffixes (“Jr.”, “III”) should be included if applicable.
For foreign nationals, use the name as reflected in passports/immigration documents when available.

B. Inclusion of appellation, nickname, or alias

Section 7 allows inclusion of “any appellation or nickname by which the accused has been or is known.” Typical formats:

Juan Dela Cruz a.k.a. “Bok”
Maria Santos y Reyes a.k.a. “Mai”
Pedro Ramos alias “Totoy”

Purpose: not to stigmatize, but to identify.

Important practical note: The presence of an alias in a pleading is primarily for identification within a criminal case record. Separately, Philippine law regulates the use of aliases in civil life and official dealings, but criminal pleadings commonly reflect how a suspect is actually known to witnesses and law enforcement, especially when that is how the person was identified during investigation.

C. When the name is unknown: fictitious name + descriptive identifiers

If the true name cannot be ascertained despite reasonable efforts, Section 7 allows charging under a fictitious name, paired with a description that anchors identity, such as:

physical description (height, build, distinguishing marks),
tattoos, scars, or other unique identifiers,
approximate age,
address or habitual location,
occupation/role in a group,
relationship to known persons,
the specific participation in the incident, and
other circumstances that narrow identity to a real person.

Example (illustrative): “John Doe, male, approximately 25–30 years old, medium build, with a dragon tattoo on the left forearm, residing/usually seen at [area], who on [date]…” The more detailed the description, the less likely the case collapses into uncertainty about who is being prosecuted.

5) Misnomer, misspellings, and “wrong name” problems

Section 7 should be understood alongside a key procedural distinction:

A. Misnomer (wrong name) vs. mistaken identity (wrong person)

Misnomer: the right person is before the court, but the name in the information is inaccurate or incomplete (misspelling, swapped middle name, typographical error, missing suffix, etc.).
- Generally curable by correction/amendment, often treated as a formal defect.
Mistaken identity: the wrong person is charged/arrested/prosecuted (the accused asserts “that’s not me,” not “my name is spelled wrong”).
- This is not fixed by amending a name; it goes to factual guilt/innocence, probable cause, and may implicate remedies like dismissal, bail, quashal (depending on the defect), or acquittal.

Section 7 is mainly about misnomer and initially unknown identity details, not about excusing prosecutions against the wrong individual.

B. Does a wrong name invalidate the case?

As a rule in criminal procedure, an imperfect name does not automatically invalidate a complaint/information if:

the accused is otherwise identified with reasonable certainty, and
the accused is actually the person intended to be charged and brought before the court.

Courts generally prioritize substance over form—but persistent confusion about identity can create real due process problems and may be attacked as a defect in the charging instrument or as a practical impossibility in enforcement.

6) What happens when the true name is discovered later

Section 7 anticipates real-world situations where:

a suspect uses a street name,
identity documents are unavailable at arrest,
a suspect lies about identity,
the investigating officer cannot verify identity at filing, or
witnesses know only a nickname.

When the true name later appears, it should be inserted into the complaint or information and the record. Practically, this is done by:

a motion by the prosecution (or sometimes by the accused) to correct the name,
an order by the court directing that the true name be reflected in the case title and records, and
where necessary, an amendment of the information (often treated as a formal amendment).

This approach balances:

accuracy of the record, and
continuity (the case should not restart from zero simply because the accused’s name was initially unknown or inaccurate).

7) Relationship to amendments under Rule 110 (and why “name corrections” are usually formal)

Rule 110 also contains rules on amendment and substitution of the complaint or information. Corrections to the accused’s name typically fall under formal amendments because they do not change:

the nature of the offense, nor
the essential facts constituting the crime,

so long as they do not prejudice the accused’s rights.

Key practical points:

Before plea (before arraignment/plea entry): amendments are generally easier and more freely allowed.
After plea: amendments are more sensitive; courts generally allow formal amendments that do not prejudice the accused.

A name correction is commonly viewed as formal when it merely aligns the record with the person already facing prosecution.

8) Interaction with arraignment and the accused’s declaration of name

At arraignment, the accused appears personally and is asked to plead. In practice, identity issues often surface here:

the accused states a different name,
the accused discloses a true name,
the accused confirms an alias, or
the accused challenges being the person named.

Section 7’s mechanism—insert the true name once known—works hand-in-hand with arraignment practice, because arraignment is where the court most reliably learns the accused’s asserted identity.

9) Common scenarios and how Section 7 applies

Scenario 1: Nickname-only identification at investigation

Witnesses identify the perpetrator as “Totoy.” Police arrest a suspect commonly known as Totoy, but documents are unclear.

Proper use of Section 7: Charge as “(Name if known) a.k.a. Totoy” or, if legal name truly cannot be ascertained at filing, use a fictitious name with a descriptive identifier and “true name unknown,” then correct once verified.

Scenario 2: Misspelled surname or wrong middle name

The accused is arrested and arraigned; the information says “Reyes,” but the surname is “Rayes.”

Effect: Usually a curable misnomer. The proceedings typically continue; records should be corrected.

Scenario 3: Accused uses multiple identities

The accused has been known by different names across barangays or has multiple IDs.

Section 7 approach: Include the name and surname and the identifying alias(es) by which the accused has been known, and later insert the verified true name as the court determines.

Scenario 4: “John Doe” filing with minimal description

A case is filed against “John Doe” with no meaningful descriptive details.

Risk: Weak identification can create enforceability and fairness problems. A fictitious name without a real identifying description may invite challenges and complicate warrants, arrests, and the integrity of prosecution—especially where identity is genuinely unknown.

Scenario 5: Two different persons with identical names

Two “Juan Dela Cruz” live in the same locality.

Practical response consistent with Section 7: Use additional identifiers (middle name, suffix, address, alias, occupation, descriptive data) to avoid charging the wrong person and to ensure warrants and commitments are enforceable.

10) Defense-side implications: when and how to raise name/identity issues

A. Correct name vs. denial of identity

If the issue is only a wrong or incomplete name, the defense can move to correct it and ensure the record reflects the true name (helpful for bail, clearances, future record checks).
If the issue is that the accused is not the person involved, that is a defense on the merits (alibi, denial, mistaken identity, lack of probable cause issues), not merely a Section 7 correction.

B. Timing and waiver concepts

In criminal procedure, many objections to defects in the information must be raised at the proper time, often before plea. If the accused proceeds without timely objection to a purely formal defect, it can be treated as waived. Name issues that do not prejudice the ability to defend are commonly treated as formal.

11) Prosecutor and court practice pointers (Philippine setting)

For prosecutors

Use the most verifiable legal name available at filing (IDs, NBI/PNP records, birth certificate if available).
Add aliases/nicknames when witnesses and investigation records consistently identify the accused by them.
Avoid purely generic “John Doe” filings without meaningful descriptive detail; if unavoidable, include strong descriptors.
If the accused later discloses a true name, promptly move to insert/correct the name in the record to prevent downstream enforcement problems.

For courts

Ensure the case record reflects the accused’s identity as clarified in proceedings.
Treat purely nominal corrections as formal when they do not prejudice substantial rights.
Maintain continuity of proceedings while ensuring accurate records for warrants, bail, detention, and judgment execution.

12) Key takeaways

Section 7 is an identity-and-record rule: it ensures the charging instrument identifies the accused with reasonable certainty.
Aliases/nicknames are expressly contemplated: they are legitimate tools for identification in a criminal case.
Unknown names can be handled: fictitious names are allowed when the true name cannot be ascertained, but should be paired with meaningful descriptions.
Later discovery of the true name is expected: the rule’s design is to allow correction and insertion without derailing the case.
Most name problems are formal, not fatal: the system prefers correcting the record over dismissing cases on technical naming issues—so long as the accused’s rights are not prejudiced and identity is reasonably certain.