Enrique Taguba and Mirafe Taguba were both charged with 8 counts of illegal

Enrique taguba and mirafe taguba were both charged

This preview shows page 23 - 24 out of 68 pages.

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?
Image of page 23
Image of page 24

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 68 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • Ulysses, Appellate court, Legal burden of proof, Trial court, Rights of the accused

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture