View full case

EDUARDO G. RICARZE v. CA

FACTS:

Eduardo G. Ricarze was employed as a collector-messenger by City Service Corporation, assigned to Caltex Philippines, Inc. On November 6, 1997, Caltex filed a criminal complaint against Ricarze for estafa through falsification of commercial documents. It was alleged that Ricarze opened a savings account in a customer's name and deposited forged checks in that account. The bank teller identified Ricarze as the person who opened the account. Informations for estafa were filed against Ricarze before the Regional Trial Court.

Dante R. Gutierrez is accused of using stolen PCIBank checks and depositing them in Banco De Oro. During the trial, Siguion Reyna, Montecillio and Ongsiako Law Offices (SRMO) represented PCIB as private prosecutor. The trial court allowed the substitution of PCIB as the complainant, denying the petitioner's motions. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, but it was dismissed.

Yu Chai Ho filed a petition seeking the reversal of his conviction for estafa. He argues that the Court of Appeals erred in relying on different cases, that the substitution of PCIB as the offended party would prejudice his rights, that there is no valid subrogation between Caltex and PCIB, and that the twin informactions are defective. The petitioner also objects to the appearance of a private prosecutor for PCIB and disputes the findings of material facts. He maintains that his supplemental motion for reconsideration did not violate the omnibus motion rule.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the substitution of Caltex by PCIB as private complainant at this late stage of the trial is prejudicial to the petitioner's defense.

  2. Whether the substitution is a substantial amendment of the Informations in violation of Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.

  3. Whether PCIBank is properly subrogated to the rights of Caltex.

  4. Whether the twin Informations filed against the petitioner are defective and void due to false allegations.

  5. Is it necessary to state the name of the offended party in the complaint or information for offenses against property?

  6. Can an erroneous allegation as to the identity of the offended party be considered a material defect in the complaint?

RULING:

  1. The substitution of Caltex by PCIB as private complainant is not prejudicial to the petitioner's defense.

  2. The substitution is not a substantial amendment of the Informations.

  3. PCIBank is properly subrogated to the rights of Caltex. The Court distinguishes between legal and conventional subrogation. In this case, the subrogation occurred by operation of law, without the need for the debtor's knowledge or consent. Therefore, petitioner's argument that he did not give his consent to the subrogation is misplaced.

  4. The twin Informations are not defective and void due to false allegations. The Court states that the element of "to the prejudice of another" in the crime of estafa should be clearly indicated and charged in the information with truth and legal precision. However, in this case, the allegations in the Informations stated that the offense was committed to the damage and prejudice of Caltex, which is untrue. The Court acknowledges that PCIBank was the one prejudiced by the offense, as it had already re-credited the value of the checks to Caltex before the Informations were filed. Therefore, the Informations should be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of another information that accurately states the offense was committed to the prejudice of PCIBank.

  5. In offenses against property, it is not absolutely necessary to state the name of the offended party in the complaint or information. It is sufficient to describe the property with such particularity as to properly identify the offense charged.

  6. An erroneous allegation as to the identity of the offended party is considered a formal defect and does not prejudice any substantial right of the defendant if the offense charged can be properly identified.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Criminal actions covered by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the supervision and control of the public prosecutor.

  • The civil action for the recovery of civil liability based on criminal acts is impliedly instituted and the offended party may intervene in the criminal action to protect their interests.

  • The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender, while the sole purpose of the civil action is for the resolution, reparation, or indemnification of the private offended party.

  • A complaint or information can be amended without leave of court before the accused enters a plea, but after arraignment, a substantial amendment is proscribed except if it is beneficial to the accused.

  • A substantial amendment consists of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court, while all other matters are deemed as mere formal amendments.

  • The test to determine prejudice from an amendment is whether a defense under the original information would still be available after the amendment is made.

  • The substitution of a private complainant does not constitute a substantial amendment as long as the basis of the charge and the evidence remain the same.

  • Subrogation may be legal or conventional. Legal subrogation occurs without the debtor's knowledge or consent, while conventional subrogation occurs by agreement of the parties.

  • In the crime of estafa, the damage resulting from the offense need not necessarily occur simultaneously with the acts constituting the other essential elements of the crime.

  • A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed.

  • For offenses against property, the designation of the name of the offended party is not absolutely indispensable as long as the criminal act charged in the complaint or information can be properly identified.

  • An erroneous allegation as to the person injured in the complaint is immaterial if the offense has been described in sufficient certainty to identify the act. It is a mere formal defect and does not prejudice any substantial right of the defendant.