## FACTS:

The petitioner in this case was originally charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, but the Sandiganbayan later modified the judgment and found the petitioner guilty of the complex crime of attempted estafa through falsification of official and commercial documents. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that he cannot be convicted again due to double jeopardy. The Office of the Solicitor General agreed with the petitioner's plea for acquittal based on insufficient evidence and disagreed with the petitioner's double jeopardy argument. The Court directed the parties to submit their memoranda on the sufficiency of evidence and validity of conviction.

The petitioner, charged with estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents, argued that he could not be convicted based solely on circumstantial evidence as the prosecution failed to satisfy the requisites under the Rules of Court. The petitioner cited the testimony of a Customs Broker to prove that another person, not him, transacted and delivered the necessary documents for the import entry declaration. The petitioner alleged that there was no evidence to connect him to the processing or approval of the import entry declaration. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed that convicting him of a complex crime violates his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Office of the Solicitor General disagreed with the petitioner's arguments and asserted that the information in this case contained the essential elements of estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents.

ISSUES

1. Whether the conviction for the complex crime of attempted estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents under an information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, violated the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

2. Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the petitioner for the complex crime of attempted estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents.

RULING

1. On the issue of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation: The Supreme Court ruled that the information filed did contain the essential ingredients of estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents. The court held that an accused can be convicted of a crime which, although not the one charged, is necessarily included in the charged offense. Thus, the petitioner's conviction did not infringe upon his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against him.

2. Regarding the sufficiency of evidence for conviction: The Supreme Court, upon re-evaluation, found the evidence insufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt the petitioner’s guilt for the crime charged. The evidence presented by the prosecution was circumstantial and did not provide a conclusive link to prove the petitioner’s participation in the criminal conspiracy with his co-accused Catre. Consequently, the court reversed its earlier decision and acquitted the petitioner.

PRINCIPLES

1. The constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation: This right ensures that the accused is sufficiently informed of the charges against him to enable a proper defense.

2. Conviction on circumstantial evidence: Circumstantial evidence can lead to a conviction if it fulfills certain conditions such as: a) there is more than one circumstance; b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and c) the combination of all the circumstances leads to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Doctrine of Variance between Allegation and Proof: An accused may be convicted of an offense that is necessarily included in the offense charged in the information, provided that the basic facts constituting the charged offense have been established.

4. Conspiracy to commit a crime: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a felony and decide to commit it. It must be proven with the same degree of proof required for establishing the commission of the crime itself. Each conspirator must perform an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

5. The presumption of innocence and requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt remain the cornerstone of criminal justice, ensuring that no individual is wrongfully deprived of liberty.