Enrique taguba and mirafe taguba were both charged

 Enrique Taguba and Mirafe Taguba were both
charged with 8 counts of illegal recruitment and
three counts of estafa in separate informations.
It is contended that the appellants cannot be
convicted of illegal recruitment on a large scale
because only two of the complainants, Jesus
Garcia and Elena Santiago, categorically
testified that their recruitment came after
February 10, 1986. This was the date when P.D.
2018, the law defining and penalizing illegal
recruitment in a large scale, took effect. Thus,
P.D. 2018 cannot apply to the appellants
retroactively as it would be an ex post facto law
as to them as such would constitute a violation
of the accused’s right to be informed. Was the
contention valid?
Answer: Yes. An accused can only be penalized for the
offense specified in the information or necessarily
included in such offense. — Moreover, each of the eight
informations for illegal recruitment charged the
appellants with illegally recruiting only one person. It is a
basic right of the accused to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him and, if he is
found guilty, to be penalized only for the offense
specified in the information or necessarily included in
such offense. Under the decree, illegal recruiting on a
large scale can take place only when it is committed
against three or more persons, individually or as a
group. People vs. Taguba.
 Barte was charged with Murder but convicted by
the trial court of Murder With Use of Unlicensed
Firearm, pursuant to P.D. 1866. It is contended
that the trial court of convicting the accused of
Murder with Use of Unlicensed Firearm under
P.D. 1866, considering that nowhere in the
Information is it alleged that he used an
unlicensed firearm. The Information merely
states that “the abovenamed accused, armed
with a short firearm, with deliberate intent to kill.
Consequently, the accused can only be declared
guilty of Murder. Did the trial court err?
Answer: Yes. Court said that it cannot agree with the trial
court that the accused should be convicted of Murder
with Use of Unlicensed Firearm under P.D. 1866. Even if
the prosecution has established that accused-appellant
was not legally issued any firearm to qualify the crime to
Murder with Use of Unlicensed Firearm, we cannot
convict him for this particular offense as that would
violate a fundamental constitutional precept, i.e., that the
accused shall have the right to be fully informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him.
Consequently, the accused can only be declared guilty
of Murder. People vs. Barte.
 Accused was indicted for the crime of rape
before the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran
City. The Court found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the commission of two
separate offenses of RAPE defined and
penalized under the RPC. It is now contended
by both the defense and the prosecution that the
court a quo erred in convicting appellant of two
counts of rape because the information charges
him with only one act of rape. Should the
accused be held liable only for one act of rape?