This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-09-09 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| This Court, in Lazarte v. Sandiganbayan[22] explained the two important purposes underlying the rule. First, it enables the accused to suitably prepare his defense.[23] Second, it allows the accused, if found guilty, to plead his conviction in a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.[24] Thus, this Court held that the true test in ascertaining the validity and sufficiency of an Information is "whether the crime is described in intelligible terms with such particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense charged."[25] | |||||
|
2013-07-17 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| A conspiracy is proved by evidence of actual cooperation; of acts indicative of an agreement, a common purpose or design, a concerted action or concurrence of sentiments to commit the felony and actually pursue it.[55]For the accused to be held as conspirators, it is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out." Therefore, if it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, then a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved.[56] | |||||
|
2012-07-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The test of the information's sufficiency is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms and with such particularity with reasonable certainty so that the accused is duly informed of the offense charged. In particular, whether an information validly charges an offense depends on whether the material facts alleged in the complaint or information shall establish the essential elements of the offense charged as defined in the law. The raison d'etre of the requirement in the Rules is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense.[34] | |||||
|
2011-01-26 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Lazarte, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,[17] a case involving the same information, the Court held that the 5 March 2001 information is valid. The Court held that: The Court finds that the Information in this case alleges the essential elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The Information specifically alleges that petitioner, Espinosa and Lobrido are public officers being then the Department Manager, Project Management Officer A and Supervising Engineer of the NHA respectively; in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to the office and while in the performance of their official functions connived, confederated and mutually helped each other and with accused Arceo C. Cruz, with deliberate intent through manifest partiality and evident bad faith gave unwarranted benefits to the latter, A.C. Cruz Construction and to themselves, to the damage and prejudice of the government. The felonious act consisted of causing to be paid to A.C. Cruz Construction public funds in the amount of P232,628.35 supposedly for excavation and road filling works on the Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project in Bacolod City despite the fact that no such works were undertaken by said construction company as revealed by the Special Audit conducted by COA.[18] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2009-12-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We find no merit in accused-appellants' insistence that conspiracy should have been alleged in the separate Informations indicting them. We agree with the appellate court, which succinctly stated that conspiracy was not alleged "precisely because they were charged with different offenses for the distinct acts that each of them committed. One's possession of an illegal drug does not need to be conspired by another who, on his part, also possessed an illegal drug."[30] The three separate indictments against Ara, Musa, and Talib do not need to allege conspiracy, for the act of conspiring and all the elements of the crime must be set forth in the complaint or information only when conspiracy is charged as a crime.[31] | |||||
|
2009-10-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The facts and circumstances necessary to be included in the Information are determined by reference to the definition and elements of the specific crimes. The Information must allege clearly and accurately the elements of the crime charged.[16] | |||||