PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PO2 EDUARDO VALDEZ G.R. No. 175602, January 18, 2012

Fact:
On March 1, 2000, at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening, the accused who alighted from a motorcycle in front of the jai alai fronton asked the jai alai teller to come out when the latter was then attending to customers who were buying jai alai tickets. Moises approached accused and tried to reason with them. accused were armed with guns. He went out and advised accused not to force Jonathan to go out of the fronton. The accused-appellants threaten Moises with the words “Gusto mo unahin na kita?” Moises replied “huwag.” Successive shots were thereafter heard. Moises fell and was continuously fired upon even after he was sprawled on the ground. Ferdinand immediately approached the scene to help his brother Moises. Ferdinand, however was shot on the left temporal portion of his head and fell. Somebody told Joselito to run away, but he was hit at the back while running. Joselito fell on a burger machine. After shooting the Sayson brothers, accused escaped from the scene of the crime. The RTC convicted the two accused of three counts of murder and sentenced them to suffer reclusion perpetua for each count of murder. On appeal, the CA affirmed the convictions. Accused PO2 Valdez contends that the State did not establish the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Issue:
Whether the complaint or information filed against the accused is sufficient to change them with Murder.

Held:
No, For complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state 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 time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. 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. Every element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense. The presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: