In Baguinon, Sr. v. People (G.R. No. 255983, 27 January 2025), the information against accused Baguinon states that he committed the offense of carrying a firearm during the election period but before the campaign period, which precludes the application of Section 261 (s) of the Omnibus Election Code. 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 an 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 RA 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. This factual circumstance passed uncontested by the defense.
Viewing the allegations therein together with the elements of Section 32 of RA 7166 and Section 261 (s) of the Omnibus Election Code, it is indubitable that the prosecution effectively cherry-picked elements from these two separate offenses and pleaded them together in the Information against Baguinon. The prosecution then completely ignored this mistake and established a violation of the former offense during trial.
In order to sustain a conviction for violation of Section 32, RA 7166, the public character of the place where the offense was committed must be sufficiently alleged, either by expressly stating that the act was committed in a public place, or by alleging the spatial or locational circumstances of the act with enough precision. 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 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 be acquitted, because his right to be heard and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was violated.