This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-08-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Justice Antonio T. Carpio, in his dissent, avers that the allegations in the information are not vague because the Information needs only allege the ultimate facts constituting the offense for which the accused stands charged, not the finer details of why and how the illegal acts alleged were committed. In support of his position, Justice Carpio cited the cases of Miguel v. Sandiganbayan,[73] Go v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,[74] and People v. Romualdez,[75] among others, to support the superfluity of the details requested by Enrile. | |||||
|
2015-08-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| 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. x x x.[17] [Emphasis supplied.] | |||||
|
2015-08-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The objective, in short, is to describe the act with sufficient certainty to fully appraise the accused of the nature of the charge against him and to avoid possible surprises that may lead to injustice. Otherwise, the accused would be left speculating on why he has been charged at all.[18] | |||||