Practice question
A prosecutor invokes Ricarze to replace the identified checks with an unrelated transaction involving different acts and defenses after plea. Is Ricarze an automatic authorization?
- No; its no-change-in-basis and no-prejudice reasoning does not establish authority for that different substitution.
- Yes, because all property accusations are interchangeable.
- Yes, because a name correction can conceal any new conduct.
- Yes, because defenses never matter after arraignment.
- Yes, because a bank is involved.
Legal references
- Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sections 7-15; Rule 116, Section 9; Rule 117, Sections 3(f) and 9; Rule 120, Section 3, as relevant: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html
- Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160451, February 9, 2007, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_160451_2007.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.