Case No.

205
Rule 120 - Judgement
Malabanan vs. Sandiganbayan 

FACTS: There were three consolidated petitions in connection with the charge against petitioners
of the crime of falsification of public documents before the SB. The petition in GR. No. 198598
forwards that SB committed a reversible error in convicting one of the petitioners, Alid of the crime
of falsification of a private document under Article 172, par. 2, RPC.

ISSUE: Whether SB erred in convicting Alid of the crime of falsification of a private document under
Article 172, par. 2, RPC.

RULING: YES.  Conviction for falsification of a private document under paragraph 2 of Article 172
violates the right of Alid to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him given
that his Information charged him only with falsification of documents committed by a public
officer under Article 171. 

Under Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the accused can only be convicted of
an offense when it is both charged and proved. If it is not charged, although proved, or if it is
proved, although not charged, the accused cannot be convicted thereof. Variance between the
allegation contained in the Information and the conviction resulting from trial cannot justify a
conviction for either the offense charged or the offense proved unless either is included in the
other.

Here, it cannot be overlooked that there is a variance between the felony as charged in the
Information and as found in the judgment of conviction. Applying the rules, the conviction of Alid
for falsification of a private document under paragraph 2, Article 172 is valid only if the elements of
that felony constituted the elements of his indictment for falsification by a public officer under Article
171. The two felonies are different. Falsification under paragraph 2 of Article 172 goes beyond the
elements of falsification enumerated under Article 171. The former requires additional
independent evidence of damage or intention to cause the same to a third person. In Article 171,
damage is not an element of the crime.

Case No. 206

People v. Caoili, 8 August 2017,
Rule 120 – Judgment

FACTS: Caoili was charged for the crime of Rape by Sexual Intercourse. The victim was a 15yo minor
and the daughter of the herein accused. The victim testified that her father sexually molested her at
their house, inserted the fourth finger of his left hand into her vagina. He also beat and hit her with
a piece of wood, and boxed her on the stomach. RTC found Caoili guilty of the crime of Rape by
Sexual Assault. Caoili filed his appeal before the CA.

ISSUE: Whether the RTC’s judgment was proper.

RULING: NO. An accused charged in the Information with rape by sexual intercourse cannot be
found guilty of rape by sexual assault, even though the latter crime was proven during trial. This is
due to the substantial distinctions between these two modes of rape. In view of the material
differences between the two modes of rape, the first mode is not necessarily included in the second,
and vice-versa. The Variance Doctrine is NOT applied. The variance doctrine, which allows the
conviction of an accused for a crime proved which is different from but necessarily included in the
crime charged, is embodied in Section 4, in relation to Section 5 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court.

However, the Variance Doctrine can be applied for the lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA
7610. Caoili can be held guilty of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness performed on a child
which was the offense proved, because it is included in rape, the offense charged.

The due recognition of the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation through the criminal complaint or information is decisive of whether his
prosecution for a crime stands or not. Nonetheless, the right is not transgressed if the information
sufficiently alleges facts and omissions constituting an offense that includes the offense established
to have been committed by the accused, which, in this case, is lascivious conduct under RA 7610.

Case No. 207

People v. Manansala, 3 April 2013
Rule 120 – Judgment

FACTS: Accused was charged with selling, delivering, giving away and distributing more or less 750
grams of dried marijuana leaves after a test-buy operation. The lower court convicted the accused
for illegal possession of marijuana. The alleged act of allegedly knowingly selling or pushing
prohibited drugs by the accused was however, not sufficiently proven because the poseur-buyer
was not presented as witness. Accused argues that he was not afforded the right to informed of the
cause and nature of the accusation against him.

ISSUE: Whether the accused can be held guilty of illegal possession of marijuana. 

RULING: YES. The illegal possession of marijuana was "a crime that is necessarily included in the
crime of drug pushing or dealing, for which the accused have been charged with." The right of
Manansala to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was not violated. 

The crime of illegal sale of marijuana defined and punished under Section 4 of Republic Act No.
6425, as amended, implied the prior possession of the marijuana. As such, the crime of illegal
sale included or absorbed the crime of illegal possession.

According to Section 5, Rule 120, Rules of Court (1985), the rule then applicable, an offense
charged necessarily includes that which is proved, when some of the essential elements or
ingredients of the former, as this is alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the
latter.

Case No. 208

Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan
Rule 120 – Judgment

Facts: Jaylo was an officer of the Philippine National Police Western Police District placed on
special detail with the NBI. Jaylo was charged with conspiracy in the murder of De Guzman et al
(drug dealers - heroin in a buy-bust operation) together with other NBI and police officers.
Sandiganbayan found Jaylo guilty of homicide. However, during the promulgation of the
Sandiganbayan’s judgment on 17 April 2007, none of the accused appeared despite notice. The
court promulgated the Decision in absentia, and the judgment was entered in the criminal docket.
The court ruled that the 15-day period from the promulgation of the judgment had long lapsed
without any of the accused giving any justifiable cause for their absence during the promulgation.
Under Section 6 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, Jaylo et al have lost the remedies available under
the Rules against the Sandiganbayan’s judgment of conviction, including the filing of a motion for
reconsideration. On the other hand, petitioners claim that their right to file a motion for
reconsideration or an appeal has a statutory origin, as provided under Section 7 of P.D. 1606,

Issue: What are the effects of the non appearance of the accused, without justifiable cause, in the
promulgation of the judgment of conviction. W/N Jaylo can filed an MR. – NO.

Ruling: Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court provides that an accused who failed to appear at
the promulgation of the judgment of conviction shall lose the remedies available against the said
judgment. If the judgment is for conviction and the failure to appear was without justifiable cause,
the accused shall lose the remedies available in the Rules of Court against the judgment. Thus, it is
incumbent upon the accused to appear on the scheduled date of promulgation, because it
determines the availability of their possible remedies against the judgment of conviction. When the
accused fail to present themselves at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction, they lose the
remedies of filing a motion for a new trial or reconsideration (Rule 121) and an appeal from the
judgment of conviction (Rule 122).
The reason is simple. When the accused on bail fail to present themselves at the
promulgation of a judgment of conviction, they are considered to have lost their standing in
court. Without any standing in court, the accused cannot invoke its jurisdiction to seek relief.
In this case, petitioners have just shown their lack of faith in the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
by not appearing before it for the promulgation of the judgment on their cases. Surely they cannot
later on expect to be allowed to invoke the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction to grant them relief from
its judgment of conviction.
It is well to note that Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court also provides the remedy by which
the accused who were absent during the promulgation may reverse the forfeiture of the remedies
available to them against the judgment of conviction. In order to regain their standing in court, the
accused must do as follows: 1) surrender and 2) file a motion for leave of court to avail of the
remedies, stating the reasons for their absence, within 15 days from the date of the promulgation of
judgment.
Petitioners did not surrender within 15 days from the promulgation of the judgment of
conviction.1â wphi1 Neither did they ask for leave of court to avail themselves of the remedies, and
state the reasons for their absence. Even if we were to assume that the failure of Jaylo to appear at
the promulgation was due to failure to receive notice thereof, it is not a justifiable reason. He should
have filed a notice of change ofaddress before the Sandiganbayan.