Practice question
The information alleges Offense A, requiring elements X and Y. The prosecution proves X and Z instead. Assume Y is not proved, Z is a distinct essential element, and neither offense includes the other under the allegations. The judge proposes convicting of Offense B solely because both concern the same transaction. Is Rule 120, Section 4 sufficient authority?
- Yes; a shared transaction always creates inclusion
- No; shared facts alone do not establish the required included-offense relationship
- Yes; any new element proved at trial is automatically charged
- Yes; variance authorizes conviction of any offense
- No; because all variance is prohibited
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html — Rules 120 §§4–6, 121 §§1–6, 122 §§1–3,6,11, and 126 §§1,3–5; read appellate periods with Rodriguez and current appellate routes.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/may2025/gr_239523_2025.html — Satuito v. People, G.R. Nos. 239523-33 et al., May 19, 2025, MAIN decision, Part IV (variance and included offenses).
- https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html — 1987 Constitution, Article III §§12 and 14 (custodial safeguards and right to be informed of the accusation).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.