ii. Designation of the Offense; Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances

A Judgment of CONVICTION Must Contain:

• The legal qualifications of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the accused and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances which attended its commission.
• Participation of the accused either as principal, accomplice or accessory.
• Penalty imposed on the accused.
• Civil liability or damages, if any, unless a separate civil action has been reserved or waived.

DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE

The Information or Complaint Must State or Designate the Following Whenever Possible:

• The designation of the offense given by the statute. (If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section/subsection of the statute punishing it)
• The statement of the acts or omissions constituting the offense, in ordinary, concise and particular words.
• The specific qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language (Sec. 8, Rule 110).

For qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be appreciated, it must be alleged in the complaint or information. (People v. Lapore, G.R. No. 191197, 2015)

A practical consequence of non-allegation of a detail that aggravates the liability is to prohibit the introduction or consideration against the accused of evidence that tends to establish that detail. (PP v. Valdez G.R. No. 175602, 2012)

In rape cases, relationship of the accused and the victim must be stated in the accusatory portion of the complaint. Every element of the offense must be properly alleged especially if the accused is being charged of a crime in its qualified form the qualifying circumstances must be stated with certainty to enable a person of common understanding to be appraised of the acts or omission that he is charged with. (People v Bali-balita G.R. No. 134266, 2000)

Rationale: The seriousness of a criminal prosecution requires a clear specification of the offense charged, consistently with the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Also, this is essential to avoid surprise on the part of the accused and to afford him the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly.

The real question is not, “Did he commit a crime given in the law some technical and specific name?” BUT, “Did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the information?” If he did, it is of no consequence to him, either as a matter of procedure or of substantive right, how the law denominates the crime.

“Try and attempt to rape” in the information is not sufficient. (PP v. Dimaano, G.R. No. 168168, 2005)

The Supreme Court held that “That the said accused by means of force and intimidation, to wit: by then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drag said AAA, his own daughter, 12 years of age, minor, inside a bedroom and undressed her and put himself on top of her and thereafter have carnal knowledge with said AAA against her will and without her consent” complies with the requirements of a sufficient information. (PP v. Ching, G.R. No. 177150, 2007)

In case of allegation of the aggravating circumstance of HABITUAL DELINQUENCY, it should NOT be generally averred.

The information must SPECIFY:

• The commission of the crimes;
• The date of last conviction or release;
• The other previous conviction or release of the accused and dates (PP v. Venus, G.R. No. 45141, 1936).

The qualifying and aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated even if proved, unless alleged in the information. (PP v. Perreras, G.R. No. 139622, 2001)

It is not the designation of the offense in the complaint or information that is controlling. (PP v. Samillano, G.R. No. L-31375, 1974)

The facts alleged therein, and not its title, determine the nature of the crime. (El Pueblo de Filipinas v. Magdowa, G.R. No. L-48457, 1941)

In rape cases, the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender is a special qualifying circumstance which should be both alleged (People v. Cantos, G.R. No. 129298, 1999) and proved (People v. Manggasin, G.R. Nos. 130599-600, 1999) with certainty in order to warrant the imposition of the (maximum) penalty.

The accused may be convicted of a crime more serious than that named in the title or preliminary part if such crime is covered by the facts alleged in the body of the information and its commission is established by evidence. (Buhat v. CA, G.R. No. 119601, 1996)

An accused could not be convicted under one act when he is charged with a violation of another if the change from one statute to the other involves:

• A change in the theory of the trial;
• Requires of the defendant a different defense; or
• Surprises the accused in any way. (U.S. v. Panlilio, G.R. No. L-9876, 1914)

Before the Accused Enters His Plea, the Prosecutor May:

Without leave of court amend an information in form or in substance:

• Upgrade the offense;
• Allege qualifying and aggravating circumstances; or
• Change the offense charged (Rule 110, Sec. 14).

With leave of court, motion by the prosecutor and notice to the offended party when amendment:

• Downgrades the offense charged; or
• Excludes from the information a co-accused (Rule 110, Sec. 14).

The court shall state the reasons in resolving the motion and copies thereof furnished all parties, especially the offended party.