Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. — A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.
When an offense is
committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the
complaint or information. (Rule 110,
Rules of Court)
When is a complaint or information deemed
sufficient?
A complaint or information is sufficient if it states:
1. the NAME of
the accused;
2. the DESIGNATION
of the offense given by the statute;
3. the ACTS OR
OMISSIONS complained of as constituting the offense;
4. the name of the OFFENDEDPARTY;
5. the approximate DATE
of the commission of the offense; and
6. the PLACE where
the offense was committed.
What is the purpose of the rule?
To safeguard the
constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him so that he can duly prepare his defense.
● Substantial
defect in the information cannot be cured by evidence that would jeopardize the
accused’s right to be informed of the true nature of the offense he is charged
with.
● Matter of
evidence need not be averred
● Allegation
prevail over designation. The title of information or designation of offense is
not controlling, It is the actual facts recited in the information that
determines the nature of the crime.
Cases:
● The fundamental
test in determining the sufficiency of the material averments of an information
is whether or not the facts alleged therein, which are hypothetically admitted,
would establish the essential elements of the crime defined by law.
The court has ruled
that evidence aliunde or matters extrinsic of the information are not to be
considered. Sec. 3(a) of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court authorizes the quashal
of an information when the facts therein do not amount to an offense. The fundamental test in reflecting on the
viability of a motion to quash under this particular ground is whether or not
the facts asserted, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential
elements of the crime defined in the law.
In this examination, matters aliunde are not considered. Anent the sufficiency of the information,
Sec. 6 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court requires, inter alia, that the
information must state the acts or omissions so complained of as constitutive
of the element of the offense. (Cabrerra
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162314-17, 10/25/2004)
● While it is
necessary to allege the essential elements of the crime in the information,
failure to do so is not an irremediable vice.
When the complaint or the resolution by the public prosecutor, which
contains the missing averments, is attached to the information, and forms part
of the records, the defect in the latter is effectively cured, and the accused
cannot successfully invoke the defense that his right to be informed is
violated.
The character of the
crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information nor from
the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated but by
the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or
information. (Olivarez vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 163866, 7/29/2005)
● The acts or
omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable
a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged
and enable the court to know the proper judgment. The information must allege
clearly and accurately the elements of the crime charged. What facts and
circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by
reference to the definition and elements of the specific crimes. The purpose of
the requirement of alleging all the elements of the crime in the information is
to inform an accused of the nature of the accusations against him so as to
enable him to suitably prepare for his defense. Another purpose is to enable
the accused, if found guilty, to plead his conviction in a subsequent
prosecution for the same offense. The use of derivatives or synonymous
allegations of the basic facts constituting the offense charged is sufficient.
It is not necessary
to allege in the amended information a pattern of overt criminal acts indicative
of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy because as Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 7080
specifically provides that the same is evidentiary and the general rule is that
matters of evidence need not be alleged in the information. (Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468,
01/28/2003; Laurel vs. Abrogar, 483 SCRA 243, March 27, 2006)
● Our rulings
have long settled the issue on how the acts or omissions constituting the
offense should be made in order to meet the standard of sufficiency. Thus, the
offense must be designated by its name given by statute or by
reference to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. The
information must also state the acts
or omissions constituting the
offense, and specify its qualifying
and aggravating circumstances. The
acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient
to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to
be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. No
information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and
clearly allege the elements of the crime charged (Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002).
CONSPIRACY
As a Crime
When conspiracy is
charged as a crime, the act of conspiring and all the elements of said crime
must be set forth in the complaint or information. For example, the
crime of conspiracy to commit treason is committed when, in time of war, two or
more persons come to an agreement to levy war against the Government or to
adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort, and decide to commit
it. The elements of this crime are:
(1) that the offender
owes allegiance to the Government of the Philippines;
(2) that there is a
war in which the Philippines is involved;
(3) that the offender
and other person or persons come to an agreement to: (a) levy war against
the government, or (b) adhere to the enemies, to give them aid and comfort;
and
(4) that the offender
and other person or persons decide to carry out the agreement.
These elements must
be alleged in the information.
As a mode in the
commission of the crime
It is enough to
allege conspiracy as a mode in the commission of an offense in either of the
following manner:
(1) by use of the
word conspire, or its derivatives or synonyms, such as confederate, connive,
collude, etc; or
(2) by allegations of
basic facts constituting the conspiracy in a manner that a person of common
understanding would know what is intended, and with such precision as would
enable the accused to competently enter a plea to a subsequent indictment based
on the same facts.
The
requirements on sufficiency of allegations are different when conspiracy is not
charged as a crime in itself but only as the mode of committing the crime as in
the case at bar. There
is less necessity of
reciting its particularities in the Information because conspiracy is not the gravamen of the
offense charged. The conspiracy is significant only
because it changes the criminal liability of all the accused in the conspiracy
and makes them answerable as co-principals regardless of the degree of their
participation in the crime. The liability of the conspirators is
collective and each participant will be equally responsible for the acts of
others (Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002).
0
Comments
