Eugene Firaza vs.

People of the Philippines Facts: Eugene Firaza was appointed as a confidential agent of the NBI in Caraga Regional Office. He was issued with a firearm and a mission order to gather and report to the NBU such information as may be relevant to the investigations undertaken by it. Firaza also served as a manager for RF Communications in connection on which he dealt with Christopher Rivas (Provincial Auditor of Surigao del Sur), for the establishment of Public Calling Office in the Municipality of Lianga, Surigao del Sur. On August 11, 2000, while in Firaza and Rivas had their meeting at the latters restaurant, a heated argument commenced between them which opted Rivas to point his gun at Rivas. Firazo was accosted by P/Insp. Mullanida and PO2 Ronquillo by which they discovered that Firazas permit to carry firearm outside residence had expired more a month earlier or on July 5, 2000. A criminal complaint was filed against Firaza for Unauthorized Carrying of License Firearm Outside Residence. He was then convicted that offense. Firaza now argued that the complaint charged against him should be Illegal Possession of Firearms and not Carrying Firearms Outside of Residence as the phrase in the complaint reads with expired license or permit to carry outside residence being merely descriptive of the alleged unlicensed nature of the firearm. Issue: WON the complaint was sufficient. Held: Yes. The allegations in a complaint on information determine what the offense is charge. The allege acts or omissions complained of constituting the offense need not be in the terms of the statute determining the offense, but in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as the qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce its judgment. Firaza cannot seriously claim that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was violated. For the transcript of Stenographic notes of the proceedings before the trial court shows that he, through his counsel, was duly informed of the nature of the cause against him. The mission order issued to Firaza authorized him to carry firearms in connection with confidential cases assigned to him. Admittedly, Firaza was at Rivas restaurant in connection with a private business transaction. Additionally, the mission order did not authorize him to carry his duly issued firearm outside of his residence.