This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-03-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| not really charge an offense[56] or when an essential element of the crime has not been sufficiently alleged.[57] In the instant case, while the prosecution was able to allege the identity of the buyer and the seller, it failed to particularly allege or identify in the Information the subject matter of the sale or the corpus delicti. We must remember that one of the essential elements to convict a person of sale of prohibited drugs is to identify with certainty the corpus delicti. Here, the prosecution took the liberty to lump together two sets of corpora delicti when it should have separated the two in two different informations. To allow the prosecution to do this is to deprive the accused-appellants of their right to be informed, not only of the nature of the offense being charged, but of the essential element of the offense charged; and in this case, the very corpus delicti of the crime. | |||||
|
2009-01-30 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The foregoing considered, the Informations corresponding to Criminal Case Nos. 05-61407 to 05-61411 were fatally defective. The common infirmity in the Informations constituted a jurisdictional defect that could not be cured.[18] There was no point in proceeding under a defective Information that could never be the basis of a valid conviction.[19] | |||||