SAYSON vs. PEOPLE SC: Sayson’s claim is unavailing.
The rule in our jurisdiction is
J. Cortes | October 28, 1988
TOPIC: Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof
Rule 120, Sec. 4
FACTS
On Mar. 25, 1972, an information for the crime of Estafa through
Falsification of Commercial Document was filed against Ramon F.
Sayson before CFI of Manila.
The information alleged that Sayson intended to defraud Ernesto
Rufino, Sr. as payee of the check and / or the Bank of America by
forging and falsifying a blank US dollar check, making it appear that
the Bank of America duly issued the check.
However, based from the facts as found by the CFI and CA, it
appears that it was Mever Films who actually suffered the losses due
to the estafa committed by Sayson. A perusal of the findings of the
lower courts show that Mever Films was the one in need of dollars
and that Rufino, Sr. merely authorized the transaction with the
accused Sayson who in turn attempted to issue a false check from the
Bank of America.
CFI: Guilty. 2Y 4M 1D to 6Y of PC and to pay 2,000 as fine
CA: Affirmed. 6M of AM without fine
RELEVANT ISSUE / RATIO
WON the CFI of Manila erred in convicting Sayson of the crime
charged despite the alleged variance between the prosecution’s
allegation and proof? NO.
Sayson: Argues that he cannot be convicted under the information
charging him of attempting to defraud Ernesto Rufino, Sr. and / or the
Bank of America because the evidence presented by the prosecution
show very clearly that he allegedly attempted to defraud Mever Films,
Inc., a corporation entirely distinct from Rufino, Sr. Sayson firmly
asserts that his conviction was in gross violation of his right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
that “variance between the allegations of the information and the
evidence offered by the prosecution in support thereof does not
of itself entitle the accused to an acquittal.” (People vs. Catli)
The rules on criminal procedure require the information to 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 and if there is no better way
of identifying him, he must be described under a fictitious name. In
case of offenses against property, the designation of the name of the
offended party is not absolutely indispensable for as long as the
criminal act charged in the information can be properly identified.
In US vs. Kepner, the SC laid down the rule that when an offense
shall have been descried 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 accused.
Accordingly, in US vs. Kepner, which had similar facts as to this case,
where the accused was charged with estafa for the misappropriation
of the proceeds of a warrant which he had cashed without authority,
the erroneous allegation in the information to the effect that the
unlawful act was to the prejudice of the owner of the cheque, when in
reality the back which cashed it was the one which suffered a loss,
was held to be immaterial on the ground that the subject matter of the
estafa, the warrant, was described in the information with such
particularity as to properly identify the particular offense charged.
In this current suit for estafa, which is a crime against property under
the RPC, since the check, which was the subject-matter of the
offense, was describing with such particularity as to properly identify
the offense charged, it becomes immaterial, for purposes of convicting
the accused, that it was established during the trial that the offended
party was actually Mever Films and not Rufino, Sr. nor the Bank of
America as alleged in the information.
DISPOSITIVE Petition DENIED
CA decision AFFIRMED in toto