View full case

RAMONCITA O. SENADOR v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Petitioner Ramoncita O. Senador was charged with Estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. Senador received jewelry worth Php 705,685 from Cynthia Jaime under a Trust Receipt Agreement. Senador was supposed to sell the jewelry and return the proceeds or unsold items to Cynthia within fifteen days. Senador failed to fulfill her obligation and did not return the jewelry or remit the proceeds. Rita Jaime demanded the return of the unsold jewelry or the remittance of the proceeds, but Senador did not comply. Senador tendered a check as settlement during the preliminary investigation, but it was dishonored. Senador was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA). Senador filed a petition for review, questioning whether an error in the designation of the offended party violates the accused's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether an erroneous designation of the offended party is material in offenses against property.

  2. Whether the identity of the offended party is necessary for the proper identification of the offense charged.

  3. Whether an error in the designation of the offended party in an information for estafa is material.

  4. Whether the subject matter of the offense in the present case is specific and identifiable.

RULING:

  1. 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. If the subject matter of the offense is generic or not described with sufficient particularity, 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 them, leading to acquittal. However, if the subject matter of the offense is specific or described with sufficient particularity, an erroneous designation of the offended party is not material and would not result in acquittal.

  2. The identity of the offended party is necessary for the proper identification of the offense charged in cases where the subject matter of the offense, such as money, is generic and has no earmarks that could properly identify it. In such cases, the only way to describe and identify the subject matter is by connecting it to the offended party or the individual who was robbed as its owner or possessor. Hence, the erroneous designation of the offended party is material and necessary for the proper identification of the offense charged.

  3. An error in the designation of the offended party in an information for estafa is immaterial if the subject matter of the offense is specific and identifiable.

  4. In the present case, the subject matter of the offense is specific and identifiable as "various kinds of jewelry valued in the total amount of P705,685.00." Therefore, the error in the designation of the offended party is immaterial.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In offenses against property, the materiality of the erroneous designation of the offended party depends on the sufficient description and identification of the subject matter of the offense.

  • If the subject matter of the offense is generic or not described with sufficient particularity, an erroneous designation of the offended party is material and would result in acquittal.

  • If the subject matter of the offense is specific or described with sufficient particularity, an erroneous designation of the offended party is not material and would not result in acquittal.

  • In cases where the subject matter of the offense is generic and cannot be properly identified without connecting it to the offended party or the individual who was robbed as its owner or possessor, the identity of the offended party is necessary for the proper identification of the offense charged.

  • In offenses against property, if the subject matter of the offense is generic and not identifiable, an error in the designation of the offended party is fatal and would result in the acquittal of the accused.

  • If the subject matter of the offense is specific and identifiable, an error in the designation of the offended party is immaterial.

  • An offer of compromise by the accused in a criminal case may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

  • Exemplary damages are imposed to serve as a deterrent against socially deleterious actions.