This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-01-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The CA correctly ruled that Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court,[14] can be applied by analogy in convicting the appellant of the offenses charged, which are included in the crimes proved. Under these provisions, an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter. At any rate, a minor variance between the information and the evidence does not alter the nature of the offense, nor does it determine or qualify the crime or penalty, so that even if a discrepancy exists, this cannot be pleaded as a ground for acquittal.[15] In other words, his right to be informed of the charges against him has not been violated because where an accused is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein.[16] | |||||
|
2001-10-19 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner moved to reconsider the aforementioned order, which motion the lower court denied via its assailed order dated 11 November 1993.[8] Aggrieved by the lower court's twin orders, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction.[9] | |||||