Zapanta v. People

IV.b — Complaint or Information: Sufficiency

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: People v. LucasPrevious case

Primary source ↗Next: Bacasmas v. SandiganbayanNext case→

Case DigestWeek 3 - Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses

Zapanta v. People

G.R. No. 170863 · March 20, 2013 · Second Division

IV.b — Complaint or Information: Sufficiency

Petitioner: Engr. AnthonyRespondent: Zapanta v. People of the Philippines

Gist

The Supreme Court denied the petition. Applying Sections 6 and 11 of Rule 110, it held that the date is not a material ingredient of qualified theft, that the information's approximation sufficed, and that "the information did not have to state the precise date when the offense was committed, as to be inclusive of the month of 'November 2001' since the date was not a material element of the offense." The Court added the plain observation that "the month of November is the month right after October." The conviction was affirmed with the penalty modified to reclusión perpetua.

Core Doctrine

Section 6, Rule 110 requires only the "approximate date of the commission of the offense," and Section 11 makes this explicit: "It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission." It follows that "when the date given in the complaint is not of the essence of the offense, it need not be proven as alleged; thus, the complaint will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense was committed at any date within the period of the statute of limitations and before the commencement of the action." The test of sufficiency is practical: whether the accused was "fully apprised of the charge" and "could reasonably deduce the nature of the criminal act with which he was charged from a reading of the contents of the information," gathering "whatever he needed to know about the charge to enable him to prepare his defense."

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

IV.b — Complaint or Information: Sufficiency Full text: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_170863_2013.html

⚠️ The rule this case is cited for

An information alleging the offence was committed "sometime in the month of October, 2001" is sufficient even though the proof showed November 2001 — because under Section 11, Rule 110 the precise date need not be stated unless it is a material ingredient of the offence. "Clearly, the month of November is the month right after October."

Facts

Engr. Anthony V. Zapanta was project manager on the demolition of a building — a post placing him in a relationship of trust as to the materials recovered from the works. That trust is what later qualifies the theft.
An Information for qualified theft was filed, charging the unlawful taking of wide-flange steel beams and fixing the time of commission as "sometime in the month of October, 2001."
At trial the prosecution's proof of the hauling extended into November 2001.
Zapanta attacked the variance as fatal — that he stood convicted of a taking on a date the Information never alleged.
The trial court convicted him of qualified theft.
On June 27, 2005, in CA-G.R. CR No. 28369, the Court of Appeals affirmed, denying reconsideration by resolution of November 24, 2005.
On March 20, 2013 the Supreme Court, through Justice Brion, denied the petition and affirmed, modifying the penalty.

Issue

Whether an Information alleging that qualified theft was committed "sometime in the month of October, 2001" is sufficient to sustain a conviction where the evidence shows the taking occurred in November 2001.

Secondary issue. Whether the elements of qualified theft, in particular grave abuse of confidence, were established.

Ancillary issue. The correctness of the imposable penalty.

Ruling

SUFFICIENT. The date not being a material ingredient, the Information's approximation stands: "the information did not have to state the precise date when the offense was committed, as to be inclusive of the month of 'November 2001' since the date was not a material element of the offense."

Secondary issue — qualified theft established, the crime being "committed with grave abuse of confidence" under Article 310 in relation to Article 308.

Ancillary issue — penalty modified to reclusión perpetua.

"WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the appeal. The June 27, 2005 decision and the November 24, 2005 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 28369 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Engr. Anthony V. Zapanta is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

The Court took the two provisions together. Section 6, Rule 110 requires only "the approximate date of the commission of the offense," and Section 11 provides: "It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission."
From which follows the rule on proof: "Conformably with these provisions, when the date given in the complaint is not of the essence of the offense, it need not be proven as alleged; thus, the complaint will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense was committed at any date within the period of the statute of limitations and before the commencement of the action."
Applied, the test is whether he could prepare a defence: "the petitioner had been fully apprised of the charge of qualified theft since the information stated the approximate date of the commission of the offense through the words 'sometime in the month of October, 2001.' The petitioner could reasonably deduce the nature of the criminal act with which he was charged from a reading of the contents of the information, as well as gather by such reading whatever he needed to know about the charge to enable him to prepare his defense."
And the Court closed the point with an observation that needs no elaboration: "Clearly, the month of November is the month right after October."

Doctrine

Approximate dates suffice where time is not an element.

An Information need state only the approximate date; where the date is not of the essence, it need not be proved as alleged, and the charge stands if the proof shows commission at any date within the prescriptive period and before the action began.
The measure is notice, not calendar accuracy — whether the accused, reading the Information, can deduce the nature of the act charged and prepare his defence.

Limits.

The margin here was one month, and the Court's reasoning depends on that adjacency. Contrast Rocaberte v. People (seven years) and People v. Reyes (five years), where the span "defied approximation" and destroyed the ability to answer — and People v. Pareja, which distinguishes the year-long allegation struck down in Ladrillo. The line is not a fixed number of days; it is the point at which the accused can no longer account for the period alleged.
And the exception stands where the statute makes time an element — infanticide, offences tied to prohibited days — in which case the date must be pleaded and proved.
Read with Kummer v. People, the companion authority for a variance in date that did not vitiate a conviction.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Classification: DIRECT. Engr. Anthony V. Zapanta, project manager on a building demolition, was charged with qualified theft of wide-flange steel beams. The information alleged the taking occurred "sometime in the month of October, 2001." The evidence at trial established hauling in November 2001 as well. Zapanta argued the variance was fatal — that he was convicted of a taking on a date the information did not allege.

Facts

Petitioner Engr. Anthony V. Zapanta acted as project manager for the demolition of a building, a position placing him in a relationship of trust with respect to the materials recovered from the works — the factual basis on which the grave abuse of confidence qualifying the theft was later found.
An information for qualified theft was filed, alleging the unlawful taking of wide-flange steel beams and fixing the time of commission as "sometime in the month of October, 2001."
At trial the prosecution's proof of the hauling extended into November 2001, giving rise to the variance the petitioner would attack.
The trial court convicted Zapanta of qualified theft.
On 27 June 2005, in CA-G.R. CR No. 28369, the Court of Appeals affirmed; it denied reconsideration by resolution of 24 November 2005.
On 20 March 2013 the Supreme Court, through Justice Brion, denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed with modification of the penalty.

Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (Engr. Anthony V. Zapanta).

That the information was insufficient and his conviction improper because the date alleged (October 2001) did not match the date established (November 2001), so that he was not properly apprised of the charge he had to meet. He further disputed that the elements of qualified theft, particularly grave abuse of confidence, were made out.

B. Respondent (People of the Philippines).

That the date is not a material ingredient of qualified theft, that Rule 110 requires only an approximate date, and that the elements of the offence were established.

C. Common Ground.

It was not disputed that the information alleged the taking "sometime in the month of October, 2001," nor that part of the proof concerned November 2001. Neither side contended that the date was an element of qualified theft.

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

Whether an information alleging that qualified theft was committed "sometime in the month of October, 2001" is sufficient to sustain a conviction where the evidence shows the taking occurred in November 2001.

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether the elements of qualified theft — in particular grave abuse of confidence — were established.

C. Ancillary/Incidental Issues.

The correctness of the imposable penalty.

Ruling

Main Issue — the information is SUFFICIENT. Under the captioned discussion "Sufficiency of the allegation of date of the commission of the crime," the Court set out Section 6, Rule 110 — an information is sufficient if it states, among others, "the approximate date of the commission of the offense" — and Section 11, Rule 110 — "It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission." It concluded: "Conformably with these provisions, when the date given in the complaint is not of the essence of the offense, it need not be proven as alleged; thus, the complaint will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense was committed at any date within the period of the statute of limitations and before the commencement of the action."

Applied: "the petitioner had been fully apprised of the charge of qualified theft since the information stated the approximate date of the commission of the offense through the words 'sometime in the month of October, 2001.' The petitioner could reasonably deduce the nature of the criminal act with which he was charged from a reading of the contents of the information, as well as gather by such reading whatever he needed to know about the charge to enable him to prepare his defense." And: "We stress that the information did not have to state the precise date when the offense was committed, as to be inclusive of the month of 'November 2001' since the date was not a material element of the offense. As such, the offense of qualified theft could be alleged to be committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission. Clearly, the month of November is the month right after October."

Secondary Issue — qualified theft established, the Court finding the crime "committed with grave abuse of confidence" on the elements of Article 310 in relation to Article 308.

Ancillary Issue — penalty modified to reclusión perpetua.

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

"WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the appeal. The June 27, 2005 decision and the November 24, 2005 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 28369 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Engr. Anthony V. Zapanta is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

Rule 110 asks only for an approximation. Section 6 lists among the requisites "the approximate date of the commission of the offense" — the Court italicises the word — and Section 11 confirms that precision is required only "when it is a material ingredient of the offense."
Where the date is not of the essence, it need not be proved as alleged. "[T]he complaint will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense was committed at any date within the period of the statute of limitations and before the commencement of the action."
The functional test of sufficiency is whether the accused could prepare a defense. The petitioner "could reasonably deduce the nature of the criminal act with which he was charged from a reading of the contents of the information."
Proximity matters to the "as near as possible" standard. "Clearly, the month of November is the month right after October."

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

The date of commission need not be precisely alleged unless it is a material ingredient of the offence; an approximation "as near as possible to the actual date" suffices, and a variance between the date alleged and the date proved is not fatal.

Sufficiency is measured by notice, not by exactitude: the question is whether the information apprised the accused of the charge well enough to prepare his defense.

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

The exception is real. Where the date is a material ingredient — as in offences defined by a period, or where prescription or an alibi turns on it — the precise date must be alleged. Nothing in Zapanta dispenses with that.
A one-month gap is not the outer limit, but the Court relied on the closeness. Do not cite this as authority that any variance whatever is immaterial; the reasoning expressly notes that November immediately follows October.
Read with the companion date cases. Kummer vs. People and People vs. Delfin apply the same Section 11 rule — Delfin tolerating a two-month variance between an Information alleging November 2000 and proof of September 2000 — and People vs. Lucas applies it to a variance of a full year. Together they mark the range the Court has accepted.
Contrast People vs. Quitlong: an imprecise date is curable, but an unpleaded conspiracy is not. The distinction is between a non-essential recital and a circumstance that expands liability to the acts of others.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Consistent with the DIRECT classification, the Decision devotes a captioned section to "Sufficiency of the allegation of date of the commission of the crime" and resolves it under Sections 6 and 11 of Rule 110. It is the cleanest modern statement of the date rule in the IV.b cluster.

Separate Opinions

None reported.

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Implementing Rules

Section 11, Rule 110, Rules of Court

Date of commission of the offense

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 110 (Prosecution of Offenses)

It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission. (11a)

LawPhil posts the text as amended effective 1 December 2000. Later amendments — notably to the bail and preliminary-investigation rules — are not reflected here, so check the date of the decision against the date of the amendment.

Why it is cited here

The rule applied to qualified theft, with the Court's characteristically plain reasoning.

"It is not necessary to state … the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense."

Date is not a material ingredient of qualified theft — the offense is complete on the taking, whenever it happened. So the information's approximation sufficed: "the information did not have to state the precise date when the offense was committed, as to be inclusive of the month of 'November 2001' since the date was not a material element of the offense."

The Court then disposed of the objection with the flattest possible observation: "the month of November is the month right after October." An accused told the taking occurred around October is not ambushed by proof that it ran into November.

That bluntness is the point. Sufficiency asks whether the accused was fairly apprised, and an adjacent month is not a different accusation.

Implementing Rules

Section 6, Rule 110, Rules of Court

Sufficiency of complaint or information

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 110 (Prosecution of Offenses)

A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.

When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information. (6a)

Why it is cited here

The requisite in issue, and why the description carried the charge.

Sufficiency requires the "acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense" and the "approximate date."

Because date was not an element, the weight fell on the acts or omissions limb — and there the information was specific enough to identify exactly what conduct was charged.

This is the recurring structure of sufficiency disputes: a defect in one requisite is tested against whether the information as a whole still conveys the charge. The requisites are not independent hurdles to be failed one at a time.

Note the Court's reading method, the same as in De Lima v. Guerrero: the information is read as a whole, not picked apart clause by clause.

Special Law

Article 310, Revised Penal Code

Qualified theft

Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815)

The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher in degree than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is large cattle or consists of coconuts, or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery.

Why it is cited here

The offense charged, and confirmation that time is nowhere in its definition.

"The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees … if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery."

Read the qualifying circumstances: each is about who took, how, or what — none is about when. Qualified theft is simple theft plus a qualifying circumstance, and the elements come from Article 308.

That is the textual basis for holding date immaterial. The test is not intuition about what matters to the defence; it is whether the statutory definition contains time.

Practical method: read the defining article and ask whether the date appears in it. If it does not, Section 11's general rule applies and approximation is enough.

Related notes:

Kummer v. People — the same Section 11 rule on the date of commission.
People v. Delfin — variance between the date alleged and the date proved.
People v. Lucas — a one-year variance held not fatal.
People v. Quitlong — the contrast: a circumstance that must be alleged.

Source: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_170863_2013.html

Cited laws & provisions

Section 11, Rule 110, Rules of Court

Implementing Rules

Date of commission of the offense

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 110 (Prosecution of Offenses)

Why it is cited here

The rule applied to qualified theft, with the Court's characteristically plain reasoning.

"It is not necessary to state … the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense."

That bluntness is the point. Sufficiency asks whether the accused was fairly apprised, and an adjacent month is not a different accusation.

Full entry below ↓

Section 6, Rule 110, Rules of Court

Implementing Rules

Sufficiency of complaint or information

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 110 (Prosecution of Offenses)

When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information. (6a)

Why it is cited here

The requisite in issue, and why the description carried the charge.

Sufficiency requires the "acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense" and the "approximate date."

Because date was not an element, the weight fell on the acts or omissions limb — and there the information was specific enough to identify exactly what conduct was charged.

Note the Court's reading method, the same as in De Lima v. Guerrero: the information is read as a whole, not picked apart clause by clause.

Full entry below ↓

Article 310, Revised Penal Code

Special Law

Qualified theft

Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815)

Why it is cited here

The offense charged, and confirmation that time is nowhere in its definition.

That is the textual basis for holding date immaterial. The test is not intuition about what matters to the defence; it is whether the statutory definition contains time.

Practical method: read the defining article and ask whether the date appears in it. If it does not, Section 11's general rule applies and approximation is enough.

Full entry below ↓

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

IV.b — Complaint or Information: Sufficiency Full text: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_170863_2013.html

⚠️ The rule this case is cited for

Facts

Engr. Anthony V. Zapanta was project manager on the demolition of a building — a post placing him in a relationship of trust as to the materials recovered from the works. That trust is what later qualifies the theft.
An Information for qualified theft was filed, charging the unlawful taking of wide-flange steel beams and fixing the time of commission as "sometime in the month of October, 2001."
At trial the prosecution's proof of the hauling extended into November 2001.
Zapanta attacked the variance as fatal — that he stood convicted of a taking on a date the Information never alleged.
The trial court convicted him of qualified theft.
On June 27, 2005, in CA-G.R. CR No. 28369, the Court of Appeals affirmed, denying reconsideration by resolution of November 24, 2005.
On March 20, 2013 the Supreme Court, through Justice Brion, denied the petition and affirmed, modifying the penalty.

Issue

Secondary issue. Whether the elements of qualified theft, in particular grave abuse of confidence, were established.

Ancillary issue. The correctness of the imposable penalty.

Ruling

Secondary issue — qualified theft established, the crime being "committed with grave abuse of confidence" under Article 310 in relation to Article 308.

Ancillary issue — penalty modified to reclusión perpetua.

"WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the appeal. The June 27, 2005 decision and the November 24, 2005 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 28369 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Engr. Anthony V. Zapanta is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

The Court took the two provisions together. Section 6, Rule 110 requires only "the approximate date of the commission of the offense," and Section 11 provides: "It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission."
From which follows the rule on proof: "Conformably with these provisions, when the date given in the complaint is not of the essence of the offense, it need not be proven as alleged; thus, the complaint will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense was committed at any date within the period of the statute of limitations and before the commencement of the action."
Applied, the test is whether he could prepare a defence: "the petitioner had been fully apprised of the charge of qualified theft since the information stated the approximate date of the commission of the offense through the words 'sometime in the month of October, 2001.' The petitioner could reasonably deduce the nature of the criminal act with which he was charged from a reading of the contents of the information, as well as gather by such reading whatever he needed to know about the charge to enable him to prepare his defense."
And the Court closed the point with an observation that needs no elaboration: "Clearly, the month of November is the month right after October."

Doctrine

Approximate dates suffice where time is not an element.

An Information need state only the approximate date; where the date is not of the essence, it need not be proved as alleged, and the charge stands if the proof shows commission at any date within the prescriptive period and before the action began.
The measure is notice, not calendar accuracy — whether the accused, reading the Information, can deduce the nature of the act charged and prepare his defence.

Limits.

The margin here was one month, and the Court's reasoning depends on that adjacency. Contrast Rocaberte v. People (seven years) and People v. Reyes (five years), where the span "defied approximation" and destroyed the ability to answer — and People v. Pareja, which distinguishes the year-long allegation struck down in Ladrillo. The line is not a fixed number of days; it is the point at which the accused can no longer account for the period alleged.
And the exception stands where the statute makes time an element — infanticide, offences tied to prohibited days — in which case the date must be pleaded and proved.
Read with Kummer v. People, the companion authority for a variance in date that did not vitiate a conviction.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Facts

Petitioner Engr. Anthony V. Zapanta acted as project manager for the demolition of a building, a position placing him in a relationship of trust with respect to the materials recovered from the works — the factual basis on which the grave abuse of confidence qualifying the theft was later found.
An information for qualified theft was filed, alleging the unlawful taking of wide-flange steel beams and fixing the time of commission as "sometime in the month of October, 2001."
At trial the prosecution's proof of the hauling extended into November 2001, giving rise to the variance the petitioner would attack.
The trial court convicted Zapanta of qualified theft.
On 27 June 2005, in CA-G.R. CR No. 28369, the Court of Appeals affirmed; it denied reconsideration by resolution of 24 November 2005.
On 20 March 2013 the Supreme Court, through Justice Brion, denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed with modification of the penalty.

Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (Engr. Anthony V. Zapanta).

B. Respondent (People of the Philippines).

That the date is not a material ingredient of qualified theft, that Rule 110 requires only an approximate date, and that the elements of the offence were established.

C. Common Ground.

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether the elements of qualified theft — in particular grave abuse of confidence — were established.

C. Ancillary/Incidental Issues.

The correctness of the imposable penalty.

Ruling

Secondary Issue — qualified theft established, the Court finding the crime "committed with grave abuse of confidence" on the elements of Article 310 in relation to Article 308.

Ancillary Issue — penalty modified to reclusión perpetua.

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

"WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the appeal. The June 27, 2005 decision and the November 24, 2005 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 28369 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Engr. Anthony V. Zapanta is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

Rule 110 asks only for an approximation. Section 6 lists among the requisites "the approximate date of the commission of the offense" — the Court italicises the word — and Section 11 confirms that precision is required only "when it is a material ingredient of the offense."
Where the date is not of the essence, it need not be proved as alleged. "[T]he complaint will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense was committed at any date within the period of the statute of limitations and before the commencement of the action."
The functional test of sufficiency is whether the accused could prepare a defense. The petitioner "could reasonably deduce the nature of the criminal act with which he was charged from a reading of the contents of the information."
Proximity matters to the "as near as possible" standard. "Clearly, the month of November is the month right after October."

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

Sufficiency is measured by notice, not by exactitude: the question is whether the information apprised the accused of the charge well enough to prepare his defense.

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

The exception is real. Where the date is a material ingredient — as in offences defined by a period, or where prescription or an alibi turns on it — the precise date must be alleged. Nothing in Zapanta dispenses with that.
A one-month gap is not the outer limit, but the Court relied on the closeness. Do not cite this as authority that any variance whatever is immaterial; the reasoning expressly notes that November immediately follows October.
Read with the companion date cases. Kummer vs. People and People vs. Delfin apply the same Section 11 rule — Delfin tolerating a two-month variance between an Information alleging November 2000 and proof of September 2000 — and People vs. Lucas applies it to a variance of a full year. Together they mark the range the Court has accepted.
Contrast People vs. Quitlong: an imprecise date is curable, but an unpleaded conspiracy is not. The distinction is between a non-essential recital and a circumstance that expands liability to the acts of others.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Separate Opinions

None reported.