• This case involves a security guard supervisor, Efren Baguinon, who was convicted for violating the election gun ban. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted him. While the Court affirmed the COMELEC's power to set the election period, it found the Information (the formal charge) to be fatally defective. The Information failed to allege that Baguinon carried the firearm in a "public place"—an essential element of the crime. This omission violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusation, rendering the conviction void regardless of the evidence presented during trial.

• The Accused: Efren Baguinon, Sr., a security supervisor for AFM Protective Agency.
• The Incident: On December 31, 2003, during the election period for the May 2004 elections, Baguinon had a traffic altercation with a tricycle driver. During the ensuing scuffle, Baguinon's Caliber .38 service revolver was discharged four times.
• The Charge: He was charged with violating the election gun ban under Section 32 of R.A. 7166, as his security agency's application for exemption was still pending and had not yet been approved by the COMELEC at the time of the incident.

• RTC Ruling: The RTC convicted Baguinon, ruling that a pending application is not equivalent to the required prior written authority from the COMELEC. It also found he was not in the actual performance of his duties.
• Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling: The CA affirmed the conviction, rejecting Baguinon's argument that he should have been charged under a different provision of the Omnibus Election Code and upholding the validity of the COMELEC-defined election period.

• Does the COMELEC have the authority to set an election period longer than the default 90-day period specified in the law?
• Was the Information fatally defective for failing to allege the essential element that the firearm was carried in a "public place"?

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and ACQUITTED Efren Baguinon, Sr.

• COMELEC's Power Affirmed: The Court reiterated that the COMELEC has the constitutional and statutory power to fix an election period different from the default period to ensure free, fair, and credible elections. Thus, the gun ban was validly in effect on the date of the incident.
• Fatally Defective Information: The Court acquitted Baguinon because the Information was fatally flawed. The crime of violating the election gun ban under Section 32 of R.A. 7166 requires that the firearm be carried in a "public place." The Information against Baguinon only stated the barangay and that it was "outside [his] place of business," which does not sufficiently allege the essential element of being in a "public place."
• Violation of Constitutional Right: Because an essential element of the crime was not alleged, convicting him would violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Even if the evidence during trial proved he was on a highway (a public place), he cannot be convicted for an element not charged in the Information.

• Power of COMELEC: The COMELEC has the constitutional and statutory authority to fix an election period that is different from, and may be longer than, the default 90-day pre-election period.
• Sufficiency of Information: An Information must allege every essential element of the offense charged to be valid. The failure to do so is a fatal defect that cannot be cured by evidence presented during trial.
• Right to be Informed: To convict an accused of an offense not charged in the information is a violation of their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.
• Essential Element of Place: In a prosecution for violation of the election gun ban under Sec. 32 of R.A. 7166, the allegation that the firearm was carried in a "public place" is an essential element of the crime.