Here is another case where a technicality saves an accused. Even while the crime may have been committed, the accused went scot-free because of a fatal procedural mistake. 

A security guard was caught possessing a firearm during the election ban. He was tried and convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding. And yet the Supreme Court had a different view.

It focused on the infirmity of the information. The information is the charge made against the accused.

The Highest Court thus said that “the factual allegations in an information determine the nature and character of the offense charged. The information against Baguinon states that he committed the offense during the election period but before the campaign period, which precludes the application of Section 261(s) of the OEC.”

However, the Information also specifies Baguinon’s employment as a security guard, which is an essential element of the offense in Section 261(s). The Information also states the spatial aspect of the violation as carrying firearms outside of their place of business within the area of their responsibility, or in the actual performance in the specific area of assignment at Batac and Currimao, Ilocos Norte, without written authority from the Commission on Elections, by bringing one Caliber .38 Armscor Revolver with Serial No. 58188 at Barangay 9 San Pedro, in the municipality of Paoay, Ilocos Norte, which is outside AFM Industrial and Watchman Protective Agency with address at Barangay #13, General Segundo Avenue, Laoag City, which is clearly indicative of an intent to charge Baguinon under Section 261(s).     

However, the Information designated the offense as a violation of Section 32 of Republic Act 7166, and it was proven during trial that Baguinon carried the firearm in a public place, i.e., along a highway in Paoay, Ilocos Norte. Viewing the allegations therein together with the elements of Section 32 of Republic Act 7166 and Section 261(s) of the OEC, it becomes clear that the prosecution effectively cherry-picked elements from these two separate offenses and pleaded them together in the Information against Baguinon.

Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution gives accused persons the right to be heard and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. Among the procedural implementations of these rights is the principle that a person may only be convicted of an offense which is properly alleged in an information. Every element constituting the offense must be alleged in the Information before an accused can be convicted of the crime charged.

The rule is that a variance between the allegation in the information and proof adduced during trial shall be fatal to the criminal case if it is material and prejudicial to the accused, so much so that it affects his substantial rights.

Rule 110, Section 6 of the Rules of Court further provides that the complaint or information is sufficient if it can be understood from the allegations that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where it was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense charged or is necessary for its identification.

If an offense has a spatial or locational element, it must be sufficiently alleged in the Information.

The pertinent allegation in the Information against Baguinon simply states that he brought the firearm to a certain area, which is outside the business coverage area of his employer. “Barangay 9, San Pedro, Paoay, Ilocos Norte” is simply the name of a barangay or a particular locality in the town of Paoay. It does not sufficiently indicate that Baguinon carried the firearm in a public place.

This circumstance was only borne out during the trial, when the evidence revealed that the incident took place along a national highway, a fact which the prosecution could have easily alleged in the Information.

“The missing allegation of an essential element of the offense renders the Information fatally defective. Baguinon must perforce be acquitted.”

The facts and quoted redacted portion of the decision are from S.C. G.R. No. 255983 (27 January 2025).