Short answer. Yes. Rule 110 commands that the complaint or information state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. The charge must carry these circumstances on its face, not spring them at trial.
What the law says
The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances.
Rule 110, Section 8 — Designation of the offense. Read the full provision →
Three things every information must contain
The rule reads as a checklist: the complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. The designation names the crime as the statute names it; the averments describe what the accused actually did or failed to do; and the circumstances that qualify or aggravate must be specified — spelled out, not implied. The rule even covers the case of a statute with no offence name: reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
Why the circumstances matter so much
Qualifying and aggravating circumstances are not decoration — they are the difference between offences and between penalties. A qualifying circumstance transforms the crime itself into a graver one; an aggravating circumstance pushes the penalty upward within its range. Because the accused's constitutional footing is the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, a circumstance that will be used against him at that level must appear in the charge he answers. The requirement that the information specify them makes the prosecution commit in writing, before plea, to the full shape of the case the accused must meet.
What specification protects the accused from
The rule's target is ambush. Without it, an accused could plead to what looks like the basic offence, build a defence to that, and then face evidence at trial of treacherous means or other circumstances he was never told would be in issue. Requiring the circumstances on the face of the information lets the defence see, from day one, whether the fight is about the act, the circumstance, or both — and lets counsel test the charge itself: an information that alleges a qualifying circumstance in bare conclusory words, without the supporting acts, is open to challenge before the plea is entered.
Reading your own information
If you or a relative has been charged, read the information line by line with counsel and ask three questions of it. What offence does it designate, and does the designation match the acts described? What exactly are the acts or omissions averred — dates, places, means? And which qualifying or aggravating circumstances are specified, in what words? The answers determine the potential penalty range, the defences worth building, and whether the information itself is vulnerable. The linked commentaries explain how particular circumstances — treachery, evident premeditation and the rest — operate once properly alleged.