CRIMPRO TSN
Week 5 Part 1 (0:00-15:00 Angeles)
DESIGNATION OF THE OFFENSE
RULE 110
Section 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or
information shall state the designation of the offense given by
the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense,
and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there
is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the
section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
Under this provision, the following are required to be stated in a
complaint or information that is filed in court:
1. designation of the offense given by the statute – whatever
the name of a particular felony or special criminal law is
based on the statute (e.g. murder, homicide, carnapping,
etc.)
Under the same rule, if there is no designation of the
offense or the law which punishes the act does not have a
specific name for that particular offense, then the complaint
or information shall have the section or subsection of the
statute punishing it. (e.g. Sec. 3(a)(b)(g) of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act) This is common in special
criminal laws or criminal provisions under laws which are
not specifically criminal in nature but has penal provisions.
(e.g. Corporation Code, Securities Regulation Code,)
2. aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense – all
the elements of the criminal charge being alleged must be
specified in the complaint or information.
In analyzing or drafting a complaint or information, the
elements of the crime must be referred to as taught in
Criminal Law 2.
3. qualifying and aggravating circumstances of the crime
charged.
Effect of failure to designate the offense given by the statute or
failure to mention the provision violated
As a rule, the designation of the offense is not actually mandatory
although it is specifically provided for in Sec 8 of Rule 110. It is not
necessary for the protection of the substantial rights of the accused
nor the effective preparation of his defense. That the accused be
informed of the technical name of the crime of which he stands to be
charged is a requirement where the absent of which can be cured by
the allegations of the acts and/or omissions constituting the offense.
The failure to designate the offense given by the statute or to mention
the specific provision penalizing the act or an erroneous specification
of the law violated does not vitiate the information if the facts alleged
clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged. What controls
is not the title of the information or the designation of the offense, but
the actual facts recited in the information. In other words, it is the
recital of facts of the commission of the offense, not the
nomenclature, that determines the crime being charged in the
information. (Malto v. People)
LICYAYO v. PEOPLE
547 SCRA 598
In this case, the acts and circumstances described in the body of
the complaint or information charges the accused with the crime
of homicide. However, the information does not categorically state
that the designation of the offense is homicide penalized under
Art. 249 of the RPC. The accused went to argue that the failure to
specify the designation of the offense in the information violated
his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of
action against him to enable him to prepare for his defense
adequately. The SC reiterated the rule that what controls is not the
title of the information or the designation of the offense, but the
actual facts recited in the information. The recital of the acts or
omissions in the information contains all the elements of the crime
charged and thus, one will be adequately informed, if it is
sufficient in form and substance, of what the crime being charged
is.
The Court, in this case, said that the character of the crime is
determined neither by the caption or preamble of the information
nor by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have
been violated, they being conclusions of law, but by the recital of
the ultimate facts and circumstances in the information.
Another important rule in the allegation of or the recital of the acts or
omissions in the body of the information – the specific acts of the
accused do not have to be described in detail in the information as it
is enough that the offense be described with sufficient
particularity to make sure the accused fully understands what he is
being charged with. The particularity must be such that a person of
ordinary intelligence immediately knows what the charge is.
Moreover, reasonable certainty of the crime suffices (Guy v. People).
The prosecutor is not even required to be absolutely accurate in
designating the offense by its formal name in the law (Espino v.
People).
Now, what if the acts or omissions and the circumstances recited in
the information are vague or ambiguous or it leads to a conclusion of
two or more crimes being charged? The rule will be:
 If there is a designation of the offense or there is a section
or subsection specified on what law is violated, then in this
case, the designation of the offense or the specification of
the provision of law that is violated will control.
 If there is no designation of the offense or there is no
specification of a section or subsection of a law that is
violated and there is ambiguity in the recital of the acts or
omissions in the body of the information, the remedies of
the accused would be:
o To ask for a bill of particulars; or
o He may file a motion to quash the information for
failure to state or charge an offense.
The recital of the acts or omissions in the body of a complaint or an
information must actually charge an offense. In the discussion on
sufficiency of the complaint or information, the test to determine the
sufficiency is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms with
such particularity as to apprise the accuse with reasonable certainty of
the offense charged to enable him to suitably prepare for his defense.
If it is ambiguous and there is no designation of the offense or
specification of the section or subsection being violated, then what
will the accused do that he is not informed of the charge against him.
The allegation of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances
Aside from the recital of the acts and/or omissions on what particular
charge is being made, if there are qualifying or aggravating
circumstances then that must also be specified in the complaint or
information. Otherwise, the qualifying or aggravating circumstances
cannot be properly appreciated by the courts even if it is proven in
court.

To recall, qualifying circumstances changes the nature of the crime

and thus increases the degree of the penalty while aggravating
circumstances changes the period of the imposable penalty.

In the case of People v. Tabanggay (334 SCRA 575 not in the

syllabus), when the law specifies circumstances that will qualify an
offense and attaches to it a greater degree of penalty, such
circumstances must be both alleged and proven in order to justify the
imposition of the graver penalty.

The failure to allege the qualifying circumstance in the information

will not allow the imposition of the penalty prescribed for the
offense. The reason for this, if there is a failure to mention or specify
the qualifying and/or aggravating circumstances in the information
and then suddenly after the trial there is a higher penalty because a
qualifying or aggravating circumstance is proven, is that it is a
violation of the constitutional right to be informed of the cause and
nature of the accusation against the accused. Such constitutional right
is for the purpose of the accused having the opportunity to adequately
prepare for his defense. If it is not specified in the complaint or
information, then how will the accused prepare for that particular
allegation. Again, if it is not mentioned in the complaint or
information, even if it is proven in court, it will not be used later on to
increase the penalty or to qualify an offense such that the nature of
the crime will increase and thus the degree of penalty will
correspondingly increase. That will be a violation of due process and
the constitutional right of the accused.

How to allege qualifying and/or aggravating circumstances

In the case of People v. Rosas, a qualifying circumstance need not be

preceded by descriptive words such as “qualifying” or “qualified by”
to properly qualify an offense. It is not the use of the words
“qualifying” or “qualified by” that raises a crime to a higher category,
but the specific allegation of an attendant circumstance which adds
the essential element raising the crime to a higher category.

As regards aggravating circumstances, the mere statement of for

example “with intent to kill qualified by treachery or evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength”, any which one of the
aggravating circumstances in the RPC is not enough if the complaint
or information fails to adequately describe the circumstances of the
aggravating circumstances. For example, treachery, it is not enough
that it is mentioned that an act “is aggravated by treachery.” It must
be, in some way, described with sufficient particularity although the
threshold of the specificity is just that an ordinary person of ordinary
intelligence may immediately know what that particular allegation
purports to be.