1) Senador was charged with estafa for failing to return jewelry or proceeds from its sale that was entrusted to her by Cynthia Jaime.
2) Senador argued for acquittal because the information named the offended party as Cynthia Jaime when it was actually Rita Jaime.
3) The court found that for crimes against property, an error in the name of the offended party is not material if the subject matter of the offense is specifically identified. Since the information specifically identified the jewelry entrusted to Senador, the error in name did not violate her right to be informed or warrant acquittal.
1) Senador was charged with estafa for failing to return jewelry or proceeds from its sale that was entrusted to her by Cynthia Jaime.
2) Senador argued for acquittal because the information named the offended party as Cynthia Jaime when it was actually Rita Jaime.
3) The court found that for crimes against property, an error in the name of the offended party is not material if the subject matter of the offense is specifically identified. Since the information specifically identified the jewelry entrusted to Senador, the error in name did not violate her right to be informed or warrant acquittal.
1) Senador was charged with estafa for failing to return jewelry or proceeds from its sale that was entrusted to her by Cynthia Jaime.
2) Senador argued for acquittal because the information named the offended party as Cynthia Jaime when it was actually Rita Jaime.
3) The court found that for crimes against property, an error in the name of the offended party is not material if the subject matter of the offense is specifically identified. Since the information specifically identified the jewelry entrusted to Senador, the error in name did not violate her right to be informed or warrant acquittal.
10.) Senador vs. People the private complainant turned out to be "Rita Jaime.
" Further, Cynthia
GR NO. 201620 Jaime was never presented as witness. May 18, 1990 9. RTC found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and the CA Petitioners: Ramoncita Senador affirmed the decision of the lower court Respondents: People of the Philippines and Cynthia Jaime HELD/RATIO No By: Martin 1. Senador's reliance on Uba is misplaced. In Uba, the appellant was charged with oral defamation, a crime against honor, wherein the ISSUE identity of the person against whom the defamatory words were directed Whether or not an error in the designation in the Information of the offended party is a material element. Thus, an erroneous designation of the person violates, as petitioner argues, the accused's constitutional right to be informed of injured is material. On the contrary, in the instant case, Senador was the nature and cause of the accusation against her, thus, entitling her to an charged with estafa, a crime against property that does not absolutely acquittal require as indispensable the proper designation of the name of the FACTS offended party. Rather, what is absolutely necessary is the correct 1. Petitioner Ramoncita O. Senador (Senador) was charged before the RTC identification of the criminal act charged in the information. in Dumaguete City with the crime of Estafa under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of 2. Thus, in case of an error in the designation of the offended party in the RPC crimes against property, Rule 110, Sec. 12 of the Rules of Court mandates 2. Rita Jaime (Rita) and her daughter-in-law, Cynthia Jaime (Cynthia), were the correction of the information, not its dismissal: engaged in a jewelry business. Senador went to see Rita at her house, (a) SEC. 12. Name of the offended party. The complaint or expressing her interest to see the pieces of jewelry that the latter was information must state the name and surname of the person selling. Rita's daughter-in-law and business partner, Cynthia, delivered to against whom or against whose property the offense was Senador several pieces of jewelry worth PhP 705,685. committed, or any appellation or nickname by which such 3. In the covering Trust Receipt Agreement signed by Cynthia and Senador, person has been or is known. If there is no better way of the latter undertook to sell the jewelry thus delivered on commission identifying him, he must be described under a fictitious name. basis and, thereafter, to remit the proceeds of the sale, or return the 3. In offenses against property, if the name of the offended party is unsold items to Cynthia within fifteen (15) days from the delivery. unknown, the property must be described with such particularity as to 4. However, as events turned out, Senador failed to turn over the proceeds properly identify the offense charged. of the sale or return the unsold jewelry within the given period. 4. If the true name of the person against whom or against whose property 5. In a letter, Rita demanded from Senador the return of the unsold jewelry the offense was committed is thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the or the remittance of the proceeds from the sale of jewelry entrusted to court must cause such true name to be inserted in the complaint or her. The demand fell on deaf ears prompting Rita to file the instant information and the record. criminal complaint against Senador. 5. It is clear from the above provision that in offenses against property, the 6. During the preliminary investigation, Senador tendered to Rita Keppel materiality of the erroneous designation of the offended party would Bank Check for the amount of PhP 705,685, as settlement of her depend on whether or not the subject matter of the offense was obligations. Nonetheless, the check was later dishonored as it was drawn sufficiently described and identified. against a closed account. 6. If the subject matter of the offense is specific or one described with such 7. Senador refused to testify and so failed to refute any of the foregoing particularity as to properly identify the offense charged, then an evidence of the prosecution, and instead, she relied on the defense that erroneous designation of the offended party is not material and would the facts alleged in the Information and the facts proven and established not result in the violation of the accused's constitutional right to be during the trial differ. informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her. Such 8. In particular, Senador asserted that the person named as the offended error would not result in the acquittal of the accused. party in the Information is not the same person who made the demand 7. In U.S. v. Kepner x x x, this Court laid down the rule that when an offense and filed the complaint. According to Senador, the private complainant in shall have been described in the complaint with sufficient certainty as to the Information went by the name "Cynthia Jaime," whereas, during trial, identify the act, an erroneous allegation as to the person injured shall be deemed immaterial as the same is a mere formal defect which did not tend to prejudice any substantial right of the defendant. 8. We conclude that in offenses against property, if the subject matter of the offense is generic and not identifiable, an error in the designation of the offended party is fatal and would result in the acquittal of the accused. However, if the subject matter of the offense is specific and identifiable, , an error in the designation of the offended party is immaterial. 9. In the present case, the subject matter of the offense does not refer to money or any other generic property. Instead, the information specified the subject of the offense as "various kinds of jewelry valued in the total amount of P705,685.00." The charge was thereafter sufficiently fleshed out and proved by the Trust Receipt Agreement signed by Senador and presented during trial, which enumerates these "various kinds of jewelry valued in the total amount of PhP 705,685 10. The error in the designation of the offended party in the information is immaterial and did not violate Senador's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her.