Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Senador vs. People
Senador vs. People
RAMONCITA O. SENADOR, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and CYNTHIA JAIME, Respondents.
FACTS:
That on or about the 10th day of September 2000 in the City of Dumaguete,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
having obtained and received from one Cynthia Jaime various kinds of
jewelry valued in the total amount of ₱705,685.00 for the purpose of selling the
same on consignment basis with express obligation to account for and remit the
entire proceeds of the sale if sold or to return the same if unsold within an agreed
period of time and despite repeated demands therefor, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously fail to remit proceeds of the sale of said items or to
return any of the items that may have been unsold to said Cynthia Jaime but
instead has willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and
converted the same to his/her own use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of
said Cynthia Jaime in the aforementioned amount of ₱705,685.00.
RTC’S RULING:
Despite her argument, the trial court, by Decision dated June 30, 2008,
found Senador guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ESTAFA under Par. 1
(b), Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of four
(4) years and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to twenty (20) years of
reclusion temporal as maximum and to indemnify the private complainants.
CA’s
Senador questioned the RTC Decision before the CA. However, on May 17,
2011, the appellate court rendered a Decision upholding the finding of the
RTC that the prosecution satisfactorily established the guilt of Senador
beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE:
SC’s RULING:
NO.
On the contrary, in the instant case, Senador was charged with estafa, a
crime against property that does not absolutely require as indispensable the proper
designation of the name of the offended party. Rather, what is absolutely necessary
is the correct identification of the criminal act charged in the information. Thus, in
case of an error in the designation of the offended party in crimes against property,
Rule 110, Sec. 12 of the Rules of Court mandates the correction of the
information, not its dismissal:
SEC. 12. Name of the offended party.—The complaint or information must state
the name and surname of the person against whom or against whose property the
offense was committed, or any appellation or nickname by which such person has
been or is known. If there is no better way of identifying him, he must be described
under a fictitious name.
(b) If the true name of the person against whom or against whose property
the offense was committed is thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the court
must cause such true name to be inserted in the complaint or information
and the record. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
It is clear from the above provision that in offenses against property, the
materiality of the erroneous designation of the offended party would depend on
whether or not the subject matter of the offense was sufficiently described and
identified.
Lahoylahoy cited by Senador supports the doctrine that if the subject matter
of the offense is generic or one which is not described with such particularity as to
properly identify the offense charged, then an erroneous designation of the offended
party is material and would result in the violation of the accused’s constitutional
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her. Such
error, Lahoylahoy teaches, would result in the acquittal of the accused, viz:
In Lahoylahoy, the subject matter of the offense was money in the total sum
of PhP 100. Since money is generic and has no earmarks that could properly
identify it, the only way that it (money) could be described and identified in a
complaint is by connecting it to the offended party or the individual who was
robbed as its owner or possessor. Thus, the identity of the offended party is
material and necessary for the proper identification of the offense charged.
Corollary, the erroneous designation of the offended party would also be material,
as the subject matter of the offense could no longer be described with such
particularity as to properly identify the offense charged.
In Sayson, this Court upheld the conviction of Sayson for attempted estafa,
even if there was an erroneous allegation as to the person injured because the
subject matter of the offense, a check, is specific and sufficiently identified. We
held, thus:
In U.S. v. Kepner x x x, this Court laid down the rule that when an offense
shall have been described in the complaint with sufficient certainty as to 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.
ANALYSIS:
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 ₱705,685.00." 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.
Lest it be overlooked, Senador offered to pay obligations through Keppel Check No.
0003603, which was dishonored because it was drawn against an already closed
account. The offer indicates her receipt of the pieces of jewelry thus described and
an implied admission that she misappropriated the jewelries themselves or the
proceeds of the sale. Rule 130, Section 27 states:
Taken together, the C A did not err in affirming petitioner's conviction for the
crime of estafa.1âwphi1