This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
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] | |||||
|
2000-02-29 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Secondly, even though private complainant's subnormal mental capacity was not alleged in the Information, hence, conviction under par. (2), Art. 335, of the Revised Penal Code would normally be violative of accused-appellant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,[17] it cannot be denied however that he did not object to the presentation of Dr. Chona Belmonte who was precisely called by the prosecution as its first witness to testify on private complainant's subnormal mental capacity, that is, although the latter was already thirteen (13) years old at the time of the incident, her mental capacity was equivalent only to that of an eight (8)-year old child. While defense counsel did object to Dr. Belmonte's Psychiatric Evaluation Report[18] during the prosecution's formal offer of documentary evidence, he did so only on the ground that private complainant did not appear to him to be feeble-minded during cross-examination.[19] Thus, instead of objecting outright to the aforementioned prosecution evidence on the ground that private complainant's alleged subnormal mental capacity was not properly alleged in the Information, the defense in fact waived this procedural infirmity[20] by presenting evidence of its own to prove the contrary, that is, that private complainant was normal as shown by her Elementary School Permanent Record or DECS Form No. 137-A formally offered as Exh. "1" for the defense. In People v. Abiera[21] the Court passing upon the very same contention raised by herein accused-appellant ruled - | |||||