This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-02-18 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| At any time before entering a plea, an accused may assail the information filed with the court based on the grounds enumerated in Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, one of which is the claim that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. In assessing whether an information must be quashed on that ground, the basic test[30] is to determine if the facts averred would establish the presence of the essential elements of the crime as defined in the law. The information is examined without consideration of the truth or veracity of the claims therein, as these are more properly proven or controverted during the trial. In the appraisal of the information, matters aliunde are not taken into account. | |||||
|
2009-06-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Thus, this Court ruled in Torres v. Garchitorena[15] that:Even if we ignored petitioners' procedural lapse and resolved their petition on the merits, we hold that Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying their omnibus motion for the suspension of the proceedings pending final judgment in Civil Case No. 7160. Section 6, Rule lll of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, reads: | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| (i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.[21] Save where the Rules expressly permit the investigation of facts alleged in a motion to quash, the general rule is that in the hearing of such motion only such facts as are alleged in the information, and those admitted by the prosecutor, should be taken into account in the resolution thereof. Matters of defense can not be produced during the hearing of such motions, except where the rules expressly permit, such as extinction of criminal liability, prescription and former jeopardy.[22] Otherwise put, facts which constitute the defense of the accused against the charge under the information must be proved by them during trial. Such facts or circumstances do not constitute proper grounds for a motion to quash the information on the ground that the material averments do not constitute the offense.[23] | |||||
|
2003-12-08 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The issue on how the acts or omissions constituting the offense should be made in order to meet the standard of sufficiency has long been settled.[10] It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the information.[11] No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged.[12] Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court requires, inter alia, that the information must state the acts or omissions so complained of as constitutive of the offense.[13] Recently,[14] this Court emphasized that the test in determining whether the information validly charges an offense is whether the material facts alleged in the complaint or information will establish the essential elements of the offense charged as defined in the law. In this examination, matters aliunde are not considered.[15] The law essentially requires this to enable the accused suitably to prepare his defense, as he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.[16] | |||||