Answer Yes otherwise the accuseds right to information is violated There can

Answer yes otherwise the accuseds right to

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 to information is violated. There can only be one conviction for rape if the information charges only one offense, even if the evidence shows five separate acts of forcible sexual intercourse. — Indeed, the information, which we have purposely quoted at the beginning of this opinion, charges only one felony of rape, hence, appellant cannot be held liable for more than what he was charged with. There can only be one conviction for rape if the information charges only one offense, even if the evidence shows five separate acts of forcible sexual intercourse. Corollarily, the award for civil liability ex delicto should also be for and correspond to only one criminal offense. People vs. Vitor. Isagani Sabiniano and Rodolfo Martinez were charged with the crime of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Document in an information filed with the lower court however, he was found guilty of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document. Were the convictions valid? Answer: As to Isagani, no. Evidence showed that his participation was in line with his official duties and in obedience of a superior, thus, erroneous to convict him
Image of page 23
for the crime in the information for such violated his right to be informed of the charges against him. As to Rodolfo, yes. The courts below correctly convicted petitioner of estafa thru falsification of public documents instead of malversation thru falsification of public documents, the crime for which he was charged in the information. Estafa is included as a less serious offense than, and cognate to, malversation. Sabiniano vs. CA. Appellant Thelma Reyes and her husband were found guilty of Illegal Recruitment defined and penalized under Article 38, P.D. No. 442 aka Labor Code of the Philippines. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in not considering the fact that there are only 2 complainants in the information filed against the accused hence they cannot be prosecuted under Article 38 P.D. No. 442 which is illegal recruitment committed on a large scale. Was the conviction valid? Answer: No. In this case the information against appellant mentioned only the 2 complainants as having been illegally recruited by appellant and her husband. The trial court, however, held appellant guilty of illegal recruitment on a large scale because aside from 2 complainants, appellant and her husband allegedly recruited 4 others. However, a conviction for large scale illegal recruitment must be based on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of three or more persons whether individually or as a group. In this case, only the 2 complainants were stated in the information. To allow otherwise would violate the accused’s constitutional right to information of the charges against her. People vs.
Image of page 24
Image of page 25

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture