Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 200942 2015-06-16	PEOPLE v. JORIE WAHIMAN Y RAYOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
On February 16, 2009, the RTC rendered its Decision[2] finding appellant guilty as charged, viz.:
	GR No. 201620 2013-03-06	RAMONCITA O. SENADOR v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
At the outset, it must be emphasized that variance between the allegations of the information and the evidence offered by the prosecution does not of itself entitle the accused to an acquittal,[14] more so if the variance relates to the designation of the offended party, a mere formal defect, which does not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused.[15]
	GR No. 182677 2010-08-03	JOSE ANTONIO C. LEVISTE v. ELMO M. ALAMEDA CARPIO MORALES, J.
The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment is whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other. An amendment to an information which does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to be one of form and not of substance.[55] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)