Non-inclusion of other conspirators in
the indictment, by itself, is not violative
of the right to be fully informed of the
nature and cause of accusation against
the accused
A mandatory component of due process in criminal prosecutions is a sufficient information. As their cherished liberty is at stake, the accused should not be left in the dark about the accusations against them.[26]
Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that the accused be
"informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against [them]." Its primary purpose is to provide the accused with fair notice of the accusations made against them to enable them to make an intelligent plea and prepare a proper defense.
Petitioners claim that the Informations filed against them were insufficient as they alleged conspiracy in the non-remittance of GSIS contributions, but some conspirators were not impleaded nor their participation in the alleged conspiracy stated.
Specifically, petitioners argue that their failure to remit GSIS contributions was due to the failure of the municipal accountant and budget officer to first issue remittance vouchers and certificates of availability of funds; hence, their participation in the alleged conspiracy is indispensable and must be clearly stated in the Information.
Since the Informations did not contain such significant allegations, petitioners posit that their constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusations against them was violated.[27]
Petitioners are mistaken.
The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is not violated if the complaint or information sufficiently alleges the facts and circumstances constituting the offense.[28]
Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides the necessary allegations to a criminal information, namely:
(1) the accused's name;
(2) the stature's designation of the offense;
(3) the acts or omissions complained of that constitute the offense;
(4) the offended party's name;
(5) the approximate date of the offense's commission; and
(6) the place where the offense was committed.[29]
Relatedly, Section 9 of the same Rule merely requires that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense be stated in an ordinary and a concise language to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged and for the court pronounce judgment.
The two Informations against petitioners clearly and sufficiently stated that they were being charged for their failure to perform their duties as mayor and treasurer to ensure full and timely remittance of the municipality's GSIS contributions.
The indictment of the purported conspirators, as well as a statement of their part in the alleged conspiracy, is not necessary to sustain the sufficiency of the Informations. It has long been settled that,
"[a] conspiracy indictment need not x x x aver all the components of conspiracy or allege all the details thereof, like the part that each of the parties therein have performed, the evidence proving the common design or the facts connecting all the accused with one another in the web of conspiracy."[30]
So long as the criminal information clearly alleges the acts constituting the offense specifically imputed against the accused for them to properly prepare their defense, the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusations is not transgressed.[31]
In Tan, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, [32] the Court was emphatic in ruling that
"an information alleging conspiracy can stand even if only one person is charged except that the court cannot pass verdict on the co-conspirators who were not charged in the information."[33]
Besides, the discretion on who to prosecute depends on the prosecution's sound assessment whether the evidence before it can justify a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense. Notably, prosecuting officers enjoy the presumption that they regularly performed their duties, and this can only be overcome by proof to the contrary,[34] which is not present in this case.
Therefore, non-inclusion of the municipal accountant and budget officer in the indictment is not violative of petitioners' right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against them.
FOOTNOTES / REFERENCES
read here:
part 1 https://pastepeso.com/xg5kfz
SUGGESTED READINGS
FOLLOW US!
📎 Bio
🛒 Shop
⚖️ Blog
🤝 Business
Comments