This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-10-15 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The important end to be accomplished is to describe the act with sufficient certainty in order that the accused may be appraised of the nature of the charge against him[20] and to avoid any possible surprise that may lead to injustice.[21] Otherwise, the accused would be left in the unenviable state of speculating why he is made the object of a prosecution.[22] | |||||
|
2003-10-15 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| However, the Sandiganbayan erred in characterizing the variance in this case as a matter of form so that the failure of the accused to file a motion to quash constitutes a waiver of this variance. As aforestated, the present case concerns a variance as to the manner the crime was committed. The manner of commission is a matter of substance.[29] Hence, petitioners' right to question their conviction based on facts not alleged in the information cannot be waived. | |||||