100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 23 - 24 out of 68 pages.
Enrique Taguba and Mirafe Taguba were bothcharged with 8 counts of illegal recruitment andthree counts of estafa in separate informations.It is contended that the appellants cannot beconvicted of illegal recruitment on a large scalebecause only two of the complainants, JesusGarcia and Elena Santiago, categoricallytestified that their recruitment came afterFebruary 10, 1986. This was the date when P.D.2018, the law defining and penalizing illegalrecruitment in a large scale, took effect.Thus,P.D. 2018 cannot apply to the appellantsretroactively as it would be an ex post facto lawas to them as such would constitute a violationof the accused’s right to be informed. Was thecontention valid? Answer: Yes.An accused can only be penalized for theoffense specified in the information or necessarilyincluded in such offense. — Moreover, each of the eightinformations for illegal recruitment charged theappellants with illegally recruiting only one person. It is abasic right of the accused to be informed of the natureand cause of the accusation against him and, if he isfound guilty, to be penalized only for the offensespecified in the information or necessarily included insuch offense. Under the decree, illegal recruiting on alarge scale can take place only when it is committedagainst three or more persons, individually or as agroup. People vs. Taguba.Barte was charged with Murder but convicted bythe trial court of Murder With Use of UnlicensedFirearm, pursuant to P.D. 1866. It is contendedthat the trial court of convicting the accused ofMurder with Use of Unlicensed Firearm underP.D. 1866, considering that nowhere in theInformation is it alleged that he used anunlicensed firearm. The Information merelystates that “the abovenamed accused, armedwith a short firearm, with deliberate intent to kill.Consequently, the accused can only be declaredguilty of Murder. Did the trial court err? Answer: Yes.Court said that it cannot agree with the trialcourt that the accused should be convicted of Murderwith Use of Unlicensed Firearm under P.D. 1866. Even ifthe prosecution has established that accused-appellantwas not legally issued any firearm to qualify the crime toMurder with Use of Unlicensed Firearm, we cannotconvict him for this particular offense as that wouldviolate a fundamental constitutional precept, i.e., that theaccused shall have the right to be fully informed of thenature and cause of the accusation against him.Consequently, the accused can only be declared guiltyof Murder. People vs. Barte.Accused was indicted for the crime of rapebefore the Regional Trial Court of TagbilaranCity. The Court found him guilty beyondreasonable doubt of the commission of twoseparate offenses of RAPE defined andpenalized under the RPC. It is now contendedby both the defense and the prosecution that thecourt a quo erred in convicting appellant of twocounts of rape because the information chargeshim with only one act of rape. Should theaccused be held liable only for one act of rape?
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 68 pages?
Ulysses, Appellate court, Legal burden of proof, Trial court, Rights of the accused