FACTS:

The accused, Mila Pangilinan, was charged with Estafa for falsely introducing herself as instructed by Mr. Rodolfo Elnar to take a stereo component and other electrical parts worth P17,450 from Luzviminda SJ Elnar. The accused allegedly tricked Luzviminda into giving her the items for testing, even though she was not authorized by Mr. Elnar to do so. The accused was convicted of Estafa by the Regional Trial Court, and the conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals but with a modified sentence. The accused filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and that her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court found merit in the appeal and noted that the information filed against the accused did not contain all the elements of estafa under Article 315(b) as it failed to allege that a demand was made upon the accused by the offended party. Instead, the information alleged an offense falling under the blanket provision of paragraph 1(a) of Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUES:

1. Is the conviction of the accused-appellant valid despite the information falling within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court?

RULING:

1. The conviction of the accused-appellant is not valid. The information filed against her falls within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, not the Regional Trial Court. The Court ruled that the information lacked the specific elements required for estafa under Article 315(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as there was a failure to allege that demand was made upon the appellant by the offended party. Instead, the appellant was charged under an information alleging an offense falling under the provision of "other Deceits" in paragraph 1(a) of Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, the penalty to be imposed should be imprisonment ranging from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.

PRINCIPLES:

• For a conviction to be valid, the court must have jurisdiction over the crime charged.

• Elements of estafa with abuse of confidence under Article 315(b) of the Revised Penal Code include: (1) receipt of money, goods, or other personal property by the offender in trust or on commission; (2) misrepresentation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial of such receipt; (3) prejudice caused to another; and (4) demand made by the offended party to the offender.

• In cases where the information does not contain all the elements of a specific offense, the accused must be charged under the appropriate provision of the law.