This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-09 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| As a final point, the Court observes that Maureen's death is a case of aberratio ictus, given that the fatal blow therefor was only delivered by mistake as it was actually Vicente who was Umawid's intended target. In this regard, Umawid's single deed actually resulted in the: (a) Attempted Murder of Vicente; and (b) Consummated Murder of Maureen. This may be classified as species of complex crime defined under Article 48[29] of the RPC, particularly, a delito compuesto, or a compound crime where a single act produces two (2) or more grave or less grave felonies.[30]Based on the foregoing, Umawid should have been punished for committing the complex crime of Murder and Attempted Murder, pursuant to Article 48 in relation to Article 4(1)[31] of the RPC. However, considering that the information in Criminal Case No. 23-0471 only charged him with the Murder of Maureen, Umawid cannot be convicted of a complex crime because to do so would be violative of his right to due process.[32]As held in the case of Burgos v. Sandiganbayan:[33] | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We find ourselves unable to agree with this ratiocination of the trial court because it violates the constitutional right[29] of petitioner to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. As early as the 1904 case of U.S. v. Karelsen,[30] the rationale of this fundamental right of the accused was already explained in this wise: The object of this written accusation was First. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense; and second, to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause; and third, to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had. (United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542.) In order that this requirement may be satisfied, facts must be stated, not conclusions of law. Every crime is made up of certain acts and intent; these must be set forth in the complaint with reasonable particularity of time, place, names (plaintiff and defendant), and circumstances. In short, the complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstances necessary to constitute the crime charged.[31] (Emphasis supplied) It is fundamental that every element constituting the offense must be alleged in the information. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in the information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense because he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.[32] The allegations of facts constituting the offense charged are substantial matters and an accused's right to question his conviction based on facts not alleged in the information cannot be waived.[33] No matter how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted of any offense unless it is charged in the information on which he is tried or is necessarily included therein.[34] To convict him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating his defense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded.[35] The rule is that a variance between the allegation in the information and proof adduced during trial shall be fatal to the criminal case if it is material and prejudicial to the accused so much so that it affects his substantial rights.[36] | |||||