Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

US v. LIM SAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 175602 2012-01-18	PEOPLE v. PO2 EDUARDO VALDEZ BERSAMIN, J.
To discharge its burden of informing him of the charge, the State must specify in the information the details of the crime and any circumstance that aggravates his liability for the crime. The requirement of sufficient factual averments is meant to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the charge against him in order to enable him to prepare his defense. It emanates from the presumption of innocence in his favor, pursuant to which he is always presumed to have no independent knowledge of the details of the crime he is being charged with. To have the facts stated in the body of the information determine the crime of which he stands charged and for which he must be tried thoroughly accords with common sense and with the requirements of plain justice, for, as the Court fittingly said in United States v. Lim San:[30]
	GR No. 176169 2008-11-14	ROSARIO NASI-VILLAR v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
In Gabriel v. Court of Appeals,[13] we held that the real nature of the crime charged is determined, not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the law alleged to have been violated these being conclusions of law but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information. What controls is not the designation but the description of the offense charged. From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, it is of no concern to the accused what the technical name of the crime of which he stands charged is. If the accused performed the acts alleged in the body of the information, in the manner stated, then he ought to be punished and punished adequately, whatever may be the name of the crime which those acts constitute.[14]
	GR NO. 157919 2007-01-30	CELIA Q. NOMBREFIA v. PEOPLE
What determines the real nature and cause of the accusation against an accused is the actual recital of facts stated in the information or complaint and not the caption or preamble of the information or complaint, nor the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law.[13] An incorrect caption is not a fatal mistake.[14]
	GR No. 148468 2003-01-28	ATTY. EDWARD SERAPIO v. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is not necessary to allege in the amended Information a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy because as Section 3 of R.A. 7080 specifically provides, the same is evidentiary and the general rule is that matters of evidence need not be alleged in the Information.[21]
	GR No. 148965 2002-02-26	JOSE “JINGGOY” E. ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN PUNO, J.
Considering the denial of the MOTION TO QUASH AND SUSPEND of accused Jose 'Jinggoy' Estrada, his VERY URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION, praying that he be: (1) dropped from the information for plunder for want of probable cause and (2) discharged from custody immediately which is based on the same grounds mentioned in this MOTION TO QUASH AND SUSPEND is hereby DENIED. Let his alternative prayer in said OMNIBUS MOTION that he be allowed to post bail be SET for hearing together with the petition for bail of accused Edward S. Serapio scheduled for July 10, 2001, at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon after the arraignment of all the accused."[7] The following day, July 10, 2001, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Resolution. Respondent court denied the motion and proceeded to arraign petitioner. Petitioner refused to make his plea prompting respondent court to enter a plea of "not guilty" for him.[8]