Nombrefia vs. People

The right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is not violated by the failure of the information to specify the particular paragraph or subparagraph of the statute violated, provided the information contains the actual recital of facts constituting the offense.

Petitioner Celia Q. Nombrefia served as Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors of Precinct 4, Barangay 4 of Poblacion, Baler, Aurora, during the May 1992 synchronized elections. She was charged under Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, which penalizes various election offenses including the deliberate misreading or omission of votes by members of the board of election inspectors and the violation of the integrity of official ballots.

Petitioner Celia Q. Nombrefia was the Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors of Precinct 4, Barangay 4 of Poblacion, Baler, Aurora, during the May 1992 synchronized elections. On May 12, 1992, the second day of the elections, the counting of votes was underway. According to the prosecution, after petitioner had finished reading the first bundle of ballots and the poll clerk and election inspector were tallying the results, she took the next bundle of ballots and placed them on her lap. She arranged the ballots and began flipping through them, marking several ballots with a ballpen. A certain Ernesto Gonzales was watching her. Gonzales called the attention of one of the poll watchers, Philip Caliuag, and left the precinct to inform Nelia Laroza, an LDP watcher, what he had witnessed.

Laroza and her brother, along with Celia Abordo, went back to the precinct. They saw petitioner seated in front of the desk where the ballots were placed. She then put some of the ballots on her lap and again started leafing through them. When Laroza asked what she was doing, petitioner merely shifted her position and turned her back to Laroza. According to Laroza, she saw petitioner's right hand moving as if writing "X" marks. She was again confronted by Laroza, but she denied that she was writing anything on the ballots despite her holding a pen. When she stood up, a blue pen fell in front of her. According to Laroza, the "X" marks invalidated some votes for candidates Angara and Gudoy.

Petitioner had another version of the events. She narrated that Alexander Guerrero, a poll watcher for the Nacionalista Party, Ruel Bitong, Philip Caliuag, Jerry Pimentel, Andy Gonzales, and Jasmine Cabo were already present at the voting precinct as early as 7:00 a.m. that day. During the counting of votes, six watchers surrounded her. One watcher had a flashlight beamed at the ballots being read while Guerrero, who was behind her, beamed a flashlight at what she was reading. Guerrero was at her back for eight hours, throughout the counting of the ballots. Petitioner added that Guerrero testified there were no protests filed by any of the poll watchers, and there was no anomaly or untoward incident in the precinct. According to petitioner, she held each ballot with both hands and read the contents aloud. Whenever there was any question on the validity of a ballot, she consulted the watchers, and after reaching a consensus, a vote was either declared valid or invalid. She claimed she wrote down notes on the election instruction booklet to make sure she was following the correct procedure.

On December 11, 1992, an Information was filed charging petitioner with violation of Section 261 of B.P. Blg. 881 before the RTC of Baler, Aurora, Branch 66. The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses straightforward and credible, and concluded that petitioner was the author of the "X" marks on the ballots. The Court of Appeals affirmed this finding, noting that the markings on the G-series ballots were distinguishable by the manner in which they were similarly and hastily made, belying any assertion that they were authored by individual voters. The appellate court held there was no other plausible explanation for how the "X" marks were placed over the names of candidates Angara and Gudoy except by the acts of petitioner as testified to by the witnesses.

• Sufficiency of Information: Petitioner argued that her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her was violated because the information failed to specify the particular paragraph and/or subparagraphs in Section 261 of B.P. Blg. 881 under which she was being charged.
• Reviewability of Factual Findings: Petitioner maintained that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals were subject to review by the Supreme Court in the petition for review under Rule 45.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Petitioner contended that the testimonies of Ernesto F. Gonzales and Nelia P. Laroza, the principal prosecution witnesses, were not credible.
• Insufficiency of Direct Evidence: Petitioner argued that there was insufficient direct evidence to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Insufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Petitioner argued that there was insufficient circumstantial evidence to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Sufficiency of Information: Whether the right of petitioner to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her was violated by the failure of the information to specify the particular paragraph and/or subparagraphs in Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code.
• Review of Factual Findings: Whether the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the testimonies of Ernesto F. Gonzales and Nelia P. Laroza, the principal prosecution witnesses, are credible.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether there is sufficient evidence, direct or circumstantial, to prove petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Sufficiency of Information: No. The right to be informed was not violated. What determines the real nature and cause of the accusation is the actual recital of facts stated in the information, not the caption, preamble, or specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated.
• Review of Factual Findings: No. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive when borne out by the record or based on substantial evidence, and petitioner failed to show any exceptional circumstance permitting review.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Yes, the testimonies were credible. The trial court's findings on witness credibility are accorded high respect, and no cogent facts were overlooked or misinterpreted that would affect the result.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found sufficient and convincing evidence of guilt, and the Supreme Court agreed, the factual findings being conclusive.

• Sufficiency of Information: The controlling rule is that the actual recital of facts in the information — not the caption, preamble, or specification of the statutory provision — determines the nature and cause of the accusation. Citing People vs. Sadiosa, the Court reiterated that there is no need to specify or refer to the particular section or subsection of the statute violated; no law requires that the specific provision penalizing the act charged be mentioned in the information. What identifies the charge is the actual recital of the facts. In this case, the information contained the actual recital of facts which sufficiently informed petitioner of the nature and cause of the accusation against her. An incorrect caption is not a fatal mistake.

• Review of Factual Findings: The general rule is that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are not reviewable by the Supreme Court in a petition for review under Rule 45; they are final and conclusive when borne out by the record or based on substantial evidence. Petitioner did not demonstrate any of the recognized exceptional circumstances permitting review, such as findings grounded on speculation, grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of facts, conflicting findings, or findings premised on the supposed absence of evidence contradicted by the record. Absent any such exception, the Court declined to disturb the appellate court's factual determinations.

• Credibility of Witnesses: The findings of fact of the trial court, including its calibration of testimonies and assessment of probative weight, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect by the appellate court, precisely because of the trial court's unique advantage in observing the demeanor, deportment, and conduct of witnesses at close range. Unless the trial court overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts of substance that might affect the result, the Supreme Court is not inclined to disturb its factual determinations. Here, the trial court found the testimonies straightforward and credible, and the witnesses had no reason to concoct stories to implicate petitioner. The Court agreed with the lower court's findings on the credibility of the principal prosecution witnesses.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed on the facts underlying the determination of guilt. The Court of Appeals found that petitioner was the author of the "X" marks, taking into account the testimonies of Ernesto Gonzales, Nelia Laroza, and Justita Angara. The markings on the G-series ballots were distinguishable by the manner in which they were similarly and hastily made, belying any assertion that they were authored by individual voters. There was no other plausible explanation for how the "X" marks were placed over the names of candidates Angara and Gudoy except by the acts of petitioner as testified to by the witnesses. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and cannot be tasked to go over the proofs and re-weigh the evidence; only questions of law may be raised under Rule 45. The Court agreed that there was sufficient and convincing evidence of petitioner's guilt.

• Sufficiency of Information — Actual Recital of Facts Doctrine — What determines the real nature and cause of the accusation against an accused is the actual recital of facts stated in the information or complaint, not the caption or preamble, nor the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, those being conclusions of law. There is no need to specify or refer to the particular section or subsection of the statute violated. No law requires that the specific provision penalizing the act charged be mentioned in the information. The accused must look to the facts alleged, not the technical name of the crime designated by the fiscal. Applied in this case: the information sufficiently informed petitioner of the charge despite not specifying the particular subparagraphs of Section 261, because it contained the actual recital of facts constituting the offense.

• Finality of Court of Appeals Factual Findings — The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive on the Supreme Court if borne out by the record or based on substantial evidence, and are not reviewable in a petition for review under Rule 45. Review is permitted only upon showing of exceptional circumstances, including: (1) findings grounded entirely on speculation, surmise, or conjecture; (2) inference that is manifestly absurd, mistaken, or impossible; (3) grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) judgment premised on misapprehension of facts; (5) conflicting findings of fact; (6) findings going beyond the issues and contrary to admissions of both parties; (7) findings of the Court of Appeals at variance with those of the trial court; (8) findings without citation of specific evidence; (9) facts in the petition not disputed by respondents; (10) findings premised on supposed absence of evidence but contradicted by the record; and (11) material facts and circumstances overlooked by the trial court which, if considered, would introduce reasonable doubt entitling the accused to acquittal. Applied: petitioner failed to show any of these exceptions.

• Trial Court's Exclusive Advantage in Assessing Witness Credibility — The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, its calibration of testimonies, and its assessment of probative weight are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect by appellate courts, because of the trial court's unique advantage in observing and monitoring the demeanor, deportment, and conduct of witnesses as they testify. Unless the trial court overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts of substance that might affect the result, its factual determinations should not be disturbed.

• "What determines the real nature and cause of the accusation against an accused is the actual recital of facts stated in the information or complaint and not the caption or preamble of the information or complaint, nor the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law." — This passage articulates the controlling rule on the sufficiency of informations, establishing that the factual recital — not the statutory citation — defines the charge and protects the accused's right to be informed.

• "there is no need to specify or refer to the particular section or subsection of the statute that was violated by the accused. No law requires that in order that an accused may be convicted, the specific provision penalizing the act charged should be mentioned in the information." — Quoted from People vs. Sadiosa, this formulation is the canonical statement of the doctrine that the absence of a specific statutory citation in the information does not impair its sufficiency.

• "the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are not reviewable by this Court in a petition for review; they are final and conclusive on us if they are borne out by the record or are based on substantial evidence." — This passage states the general rule on the finality of the Court of Appeals' factual findings in Rule 45 proceedings, a cornerstone principle of Philippine appellate procedure.

• People vs. Sadiosa, G.R. No. 107084, May 15, 1998, 290 SCRA 92 — Followed. The Court quoted this case extensively for the proposition that the information is sufficient where it states the designation of the offense and the acts or omissions complained of, without need to specify the particular section or subsection of the statute violated.
• Matilde, Jr. vs. Jabson, No. L-38392, December 29, 1975, 68 SCRA 456 — Cited for the rule that the actual recital of facts in the information determines the nature and cause of the accusation, not the caption or specification of the law violated.
• United States vs. Lim San, No. 5335, November 8, 1910, 17 Phil. 273 — Cited for the proposition that an incorrect caption in the information is not a fatal mistake.
• Andalis vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133813, August 11, 2004, 436 SCRA 77 — Cited (among a string of cases) for the rule that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive when borne out by the record or based on substantial evidence.
• People vs. Abolidor, G.R. No. 147231, February 18, 2004, 423 SCRA 260 — Cited for the doctrine that the trial court's findings on witness credibility are accorded high respect unless it overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts of substance.
• JMM Promotions and Management, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139401, October 2, 2002, 390 SCRA 223 — Cited for the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45.

• Section 261(z)(8), Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — Penalizes any member of the board of election inspectors charged with the duty of reading the ballot during the counting of votes who deliberately omits to read the vote duly written on the ballot, misreads the vote actually written thereon, or reads the name of a candidate where no name is written on the ballot. Petitioner was convicted under this provision for marking ballots with "X" marks to invalidate votes for certain candidates.
• Section 261(z)(21), Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — Penalizes any person who, through any act, means, or device, violates the integrity of any official ballot or election returns before or after they are used in the election. Petitioner was convicted under this provision for placing "X" marks on the ballots during the counting of votes.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, which are generally confined to questions of law. The Court applied this rule to decline review of the Court of Appeals' factual findings.

Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga, and Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. concurred in the decision. No separate concurring opinions were written.