Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.
It is not the designation of the offense in the information that is controlling but the allegations therein which directly apprise the accused of the nature and cause of accusation against him. In the interpretation of an information, what controls is the description of the offense charged and not merely its designation.
Taken from People vs Banihit (August 25, 2000) and People vs Reanzares (June 29, 2000)
EXAMPLES
X was charged with homicide. Can he be possibly be convicted of murder?
Yes. If the recitals in the complaint or information of the acts and omissions constituting the offense actually allege murder, X can be convicted of murder. This is because it is the recital of facts and not the designation of the offense that is controlling.
X was charged with estafa, but the recital of facts actually alleges theft. Can X be convicted of theft?
Yes, because it is the recital, not the designation of the offense that is controlling.
X was charged with estafa, and the recital of facts allege estafa. Can X be convicted of theft?
No. The two crimes have elements that are different from each other. To convict X of theft under an information that alleges estafa would violate his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
X was charged with rape committed through force and intimidation. Can he be convicted of rape where the woman is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious?
No. Where the law distinguishes between two cases of violation of its provision, the complaint or information must specify under which of the two cases the defendant is being charged.
