The Variance Doctrine allows for the conviction of an accused for an offense that is different from, but necessarily included in, the offense charged in the information or complaint, provided that the offense proven is established by the evidence presented during the trial. This principle is a safeguard against acquittals based on a mere discrepancy between the allegation and the proof, ensuring that criminal culpability is determined by the actual acts committed and proven.
The doctrine is primarily anchored on Section 4, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states:
Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. — When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.
Essentially, this means that if an accused is charged with a more serious offense, but the evidence presented only proves a lesser offense that is an essential part or a component of the graver charge, the court can convict the accused of the lesser offense. Conversely, if the accused is charged with a lesser offense, but the evidence shows that a graver offense (which necessarily includes the lesser offense charged) was committed, the accused can also be convicted of the graver offense proved.
Key Elements and Considerations:
- Offense Charged vs. Offense Proved: The doctrine comes into play when the crime established by the prosecution's evidence differs from the specific crime formally alleged in the information.
- Necessary Inclusion: The critical factor is that one offense must be necessarily included in the other. An offense is considered necessarily included in another when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former constitute the latter. Also, an offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when the essential ingredients of the offense proved constitute or form part of those constituting the offense charged.
- Protection of the Accused's Rights: While the Variance Doctrine allows for flexibility in convictions, it must not prejudice the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. The accused must have been able to adequately prepare their defense based on the allegations in the information, which should inherently cover the elements of the offense for which they are ultimately convicted.
- No Conviction for an Entirely Different Offense: The doctrine does not authorize conviction for an offense that is entirely different, separate, and distinct from the offense charged, and which is not necessarily included in the charge.
- Prescription of Offense: A significant limitation recently emphasized by the Supreme Court (as seen in OCA Circular No. 52-2024, citing Corpus Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 255740) is that an accused cannot be convicted of a lesser offense if that lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the information for the graver offense was filed. This prevents the circumvention of prescription laws by filing a charge for a more serious, non-prescribed offense with the intent of securing a conviction for a lesser, already prescribed crime.
Purpose of the Doctrine:
The Variance Doctrine serves several important purposes:
- Avoidance of Multiplicity of Suits: It prevents the need for a new trial or a new information to be filed when the evidence supports a conviction for a related, included offense.
- Ensuring Justice: It allows the court to convict an accused based on what has been proven, rather than letting a guilty person go free due to a technical variance between the charge and the proof, as long as the accused's right to be informed is not violated.
- Practicality and Efficiency: It contributes to the efficient administration of criminal justice.
In summary, the Variance Doctrine is a crucial rule in Philippine criminal procedure that balances the State's interest in prosecuting offenders with the accused's right to a fair trial. It allows for convictions of offenses proven at trial that are necessarily included in the offense charged, subject to important limitations like the rule on prescription and the fundamental right of the accused to be properly informed of the charges against them.