The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such
form as is sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged,
and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. No
information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately
and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. Every
element of the offense must be stated in the information.
Facts:
In 1996, Maricar Dimaano charged her father, Edgardo Dimaano with two
(2) counts of rape and one (1) count of attempted rape.
The complaint for attempted rape stated as follows:
That on or about the 1st day of January 1996, in the Municipality of
Paraaque, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, try and attempt to rape one
Maricar Dimaano y Victoria, thus commencing the commission of the crime
of Rape, directly by overt acts, but nevertheless did not perform all the acts
of execution which would produce it, as a consequence by reason of cause
other than his spontaneous desistance that is due to the timely arrival of the
complainant's mother.
Issue:
Did the complaint or information for attempted rape sufficiently alleged the
specific acts or omissions constituting the offense?
Held:
No. For complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state the name of
the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the
offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and
the place wherein the offense was committed.
What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the
offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these
being mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of
the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or
omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to
enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended
to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. No
information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly
allege the elements of the crime charged. Every element of the offense must
be stated in the information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to
be included therein must be determined by reference to the definitions and
essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements
of a crime in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of the
accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense.
The presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of the
facts that constitute the offense.
Notably, the above-cited complaint upon which the appellant was arraigned
does not allege specific acts or omission constituting the elements of the
crime of rape. Neither does it constitute sufficient allegation of elements for
crimes other than rape, i.e., Acts of Lasciviousness. The allegation therein
that the appellant 'tr[ied] and attempt[ed] to rape the complainant does not
satisfy the test of sufficiency of a complaint or information, but is merely a
conclusion of law by the one who drafted the complaint. This insufficiency
therefore prevents this Court from rendering a judgment of conviction;
otherwise we would be violating the right of the appellant to be informed of
the nature of the accusation against him. (People vs. Dimaano, G.R. No.
168168, September 14, 2005)
Sasot vs. People GR No. 143193 (June 29,2005)
Posted on May 9, 2017
FACTS:
The National Bureau of Investigation conducted an investigation
pursuant to a complaint filed by the NBA Properties, Inc. against petitioners
for possible violation of Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code on unfair
competition. Based on the report from the NBI, they have conducted two
investigations due to the petitioners’ alleged participation in the manufacture,
printing, sale and distribution of counterfeit “NBA” garment products, which
led to the search and seizure of several items from petitioner’s fiscal, complainants capacity to sue and petitioners exculpatory defenses
establishment. against the crime of unfair competition.

Before arraignment, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash on the ground More importantly, the crime of Unfair Competition punishable under
that, the facts charged do not constitute an offense and that the court did not Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code is a public crime. It is essentially an
have jurisdiction over the offense charged or the person of the accused. act against the State and it is the latter which principally stands as the injured
Petitioners contend that since the complainant is a foreign corporation not party. The complainant’s capacity to sue in such case becomes immaterial.
doing business in the Philippines, and cannot be protected by Philippine
patent laws since it is not a registered patentee. Petitioners aver that they
have been using the business name ALLANDALE SPORTSLINE, INC.
since 1972, and their designs are original and do not appear to be similar to
complainants, and they do not use complainants logo or design.

In the Comment/Opposition filed by the trial prosecutor of Manila

RTC Branch 1, it stated that the State is entitled to prosecute the offense even
without the participation of the private offended party, as the crime charged
is a public crime, as provided for in the Revised Penal Code.

The trial court sustained the prosecution’s arguments and denied

petitioners’ motion to quash which lead to the filing of a special civil action
for Certiorari with the CA. According to the CA, the petition is not the
proper remedy in assailing the denial of the quashal motion, and that the
grounds raised therein should be raised during the trial of the case on the
merits.

Petitioners sought for the reconsideration of the Decision, but was

denied by the CA, hence this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not a foreign corporation not doing business in the

Philippines and not licensed to do business in the Philippines have the right
to sue for unfair competition.

HELD: The petition must be denied.

While petitioners raise in their motion to quash the grounds that the
facts charged do not constitute an offense and that the trial court has no
jurisdiction over the offense charged or the person of the accused, their
arguments focused on an alleged defect in the complaint filed before the