100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 23 - 25 out of 68 pages.
accused be held liable only for one act of rape?Answer: Yes, otherwise the accused’s right toinformation is violated. There can only be one convictionfor rape if the information charges only one offense,even if the evidence shows five separate acts of forciblesexual intercourse. — Indeed, the information, which wehave purposely quoted at the beginning of this opinion,charges only one felony of rape, hence, appellant cannotbe held liable for more than what he was charged with.There can only be one conviction for rape if theinformation charges only one offense, even if theevidence shows five separate acts of forcible sexualintercourse. Corollarily, the award for civil liability exdelicto should also be for and correspond to only onecriminal offense. People vs. Vitor.Isagani Sabiniano and Rodolfo Martinez werecharged with the crime of Malversation of PublicFunds through Falsification of Public Documentin an information filed with the lower courthowever, he was found guilty of Estafa thruFalsification of Public Document. Were theconvictions valid?Answer: As to Isagani, no.Evidence showed that hisparticipation was in line with his official duties and inobedience of a superior, thus, erroneous to convict him
for the crime in the information for such violated his rightto be informed of the charges against him. As to Rodolfo,yes.The courts below correctly convicted petitioner ofestafa thru falsification of public documents instead ofmalversation thru falsification of public documents, thecrime for which he was charged in the information.Estafa is included as a less serious offense than, andcognate to, malversation. Sabiniano vs. CA.Appellant Thelma Reyes and her husband werefound guilty of Illegal Recruitment defined andpenalized under Article 38, P.D. No. 442 akaLabor Code of the Philippines. Appellantcontends that the trial court erred in notconsidering the fact that there are only 2complainants in the information filed against theaccused hence they cannot be prosecutedunder Article 38 P.D. No. 442 which is illegalrecruitment committed on a large scale. Was theconviction valid? Answer: No.In this case the information againstappellant mentioned only the 2 complainants as havingbeen illegally recruited by appellant and her husband.The trial court, however, held appellant guilty of illegalrecruitment on a large scale because aside from 2complainants, appellant and her husband allegedlyrecruited 4 others. However, a conviction for large scaleillegal recruitment must be based on a finding in eachcase of illegal recruitment of three or more personswhether individually or as a group. In this case, only the2 complainants were stated in the information. To allowotherwise would violate the accused’s constitutional rightto information of the charges against her. People vs.