If appropriate solutions are not used in a timely manner, the ambiguity in the complaint may not be questioned.

Dear PAO,
A criminal complaint was filed against my neighbor Assuming that the case goes to trial and that
Matias

Dear Matias,
Our Constitution requires that a person accused of a crime be informed of the nature and cause of the charge against him (Section 14 (2), Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution). The defendant’s right to be informed covers not only the essential elements of the crime but also any circumstances that qualify or aggravate it. This right is expressly strengthened under Article 1, Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (“the Rules”):

“Section 1. Rights of the accused at trial. — In all criminal proceedings the accused shall have the following rights:xxx
“(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. xxx”

If the complaint or Information of a person charged with a crime is imprecise or ambiguous, he or she must file a Special Circumstance Petition before being arraigned. As stated in Section 9 of Rule 116 of the Rules:
“Section 9. Particulars. — Before going to trial, the defendant may make a motion for particulars to enable him to properly defend himself and prepare for the hearing. The motion shall state the defects alleged in the complaint or information and the particulars requested.”

Alternatively, the person so accused may file a Petition to Quit prior to his or her hearing. It is specifically stated in Section 3(e) of Rule 117 of the Rules:
“Section 3. Grounds. — The defendant may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds: xxx

“(e) Does not substantially conform to the prescribed form;”

It is emphasized that the defendant who cannot benefit from any of the above-mentioned methods and participates in the trial loses the right to question such uncertainty on appeal. As a result, in the situation you mentioned, X can no longer question the court’s decision after his conviction if he did not file a Petition of Special Nature or Petition to Vacate before his trial and did not attend the hearing of his case; Indeed, even if the claim about the status of explicit intentionality is ambiguous. It is a basic rule that a person should not compromise on his own rights. Failure to timely invoke the rights guaranteed by our laws and even our Constitution may result in the waiver of these rights. As our Supreme Court explained through Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda:

“A variety of procedural remedies are available to a defendant who believes that the information is unclear or flawed. Rule 116, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court provides that the defendant may, prior to trial, move for a list of details to enable him to be appropriately informed. Similarly, Rule 117 , allows a defendant to bring an action to quash clearly inadequate or defective information, the objection must not only be justified but must also be timely implemented.
“According to the rules established by the court in People v. Solar, when an information fails to state conclusive facts regarding a qualifying or aggravating circumstance, the defendant must file a motion to quash or elaborate. Otherwise, the defendant waives his right to question the defective statement:

“Any Information alleging a qualifying or aggravating circumstance—a term for which the law uses a broad term to encompass a variety of situations in which it may exist, such as (1) treason; (2) abuse of superior power; (3) apparent willfulness; (4) cruelty— If applicable, it must state the ultimate facts of that situation. Otherwise, the Information may be subject to a request for rescission under Section 3(e) (i.e., ineligible) substantially in accordance with the prescribed form), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, or a motion to provide detailed information within the parameters established by those Rules.
“The defendant’s failure to avail himself of any of the said remedies shall constitute his waiver of his right to question the culpable statement of aggravating or qualifying circumstance contained in the Information and, as a result, the same may be assessed against him if proven at trial.xxx

“In cases where a judgment or decision rendered by the court is still under appeal, the case shall be decided by the appellate court according to whether the defendant has previously waived his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating circumstance or the current status of the information (i.e., pursuant to this Decision previously Section 3 (e) ), whether to seek rescission under Rule 117 or to make a motion for particulars (People of the Philippines v. Roberto Bernardo, GR 216056, December 2, 2020)

We hope we were able to answer your questions. Please note that this advice is based solely on the facts you describe and our appreciation of them. Our view may change when other facts are changed or detailed.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Prosecutor’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta can be sent to: (email protected)