This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Indisputably, duplicity of offenses in a single information is a ground to quash the Information under Section 3(e), Rule 117[13] of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Rules prohibit the filing of a duplicitous information to avoid confusing the accused in preparing his defense.[14] | |||||
|
2007-04-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Court notes that respondents initiated two separate criminal actions, one for theft of electricity, Inv. Sheet No. 593 July/1988, and the other, for Violation of P.D. 401, as amended by B.P. Blg. 876, I.S. No. 92-4590. It must be stressed that theft of electricity is a felony defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code, while Violation of P.D. 401, as amended by B.P. Blg. 876, is an offense punished by a special law. What generally makes the former a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or negligence (culpa); what makes the latter a crime is the special law enacting it.[126] In addition, the elements of the two (2) offenses are different from one another. In theft, the elements are: (1) intent to gain; (2) unlawful taking; (3) personal property belonging to another; (4) and absence of violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things.[127] On the other hand, the crime of Violation of P.D. 401, as amended by B.P. Blg. 876, is mala prohibita. The criminal act is not inherently immoral but becomes punishable only because the law says it is forbidden. With these crimes, the sole issue is whether the law has been violated. Criminal intent is not necessary.[128] | |||||