The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted a security guard accused of violating the election gun ban due to a defect in the Information (the formal charge sheet) filed against him.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division overturned the conviction of Efren Sadiarin Baguinon, Sr. (Baguinon), previously found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) for carrying a firearm during the election period without proper authorization.
Baguinon, a security guard for AFM Protective Agency, was driving home on his motorcycle when he collided with a tricycle driven by Nestor Badiong (Badiong). A heated argument followed, during which Baguinon drew his service firearm, aimed it at Badiong, and fired four shots. None of the shots hit Badiong.
While the Municipal Circuit Trial Court acquitted Baguinon of attempted homicide, the RTC and the CA found him guilty of violating the election gun ban under Section 32 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7166, in relation to Commission on Elections Resolution No. 6446.
However, the SC ruled that Baguinon’s conviction could not stand because the Information failed to clearly state all the essential elements of the crime, as required in criminal cases. It emphasized that the right to be fully informed of the charges is a fundamental part of due process, allowing the accused to prepare a proper defense.
The SC explained that there are two separate election-related firearm offenses.
The first offense prohibits anyone from carrying firearms in any public place during the election period, as outlined under Section 32 of RA 7166. The second punishes members of security or police organizations for the unauthorized carrying of firearms outside their official place of work during the campaign period, the day before the election, the election day, and 30 days after the election, as provided under Section 261(s) of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). In both cases, the prosecution must clearly specify the place where the alleged crime occurred, as this is an essential element that must be included in the Information.
In this case, the Information against Baguinon only described him as a security guard who carried a firearm outside his place of work but failed to specify that he did so in a public place – a critical element required under Section 32 of RA 7166. Instead, it merely mentioned the barangay and town without clearly indicating a public setting.
The SC found that the prosecution mistakenly combined elements from the two separate offenses, mixing parts of Section 261(s) of the OEC with Section 32 of RA 7166.
“Viewing the allegations therein together with the elements of Section 32 of [RA] 7166 and Section 261(s) of the OEC, it becomes clear 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.”
Since the Information failed to include the essential element that the offense was committed in a public place, Baguinon was not properly informed of the accusation against him, justifying his acquittal. (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)
Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.
