View full case

FERNANDO M. ESPINO v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The accused, a senior sales executive of Kuehne and Nagel, Inc. (KN Inc.), was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) for allegedly rediscounting checks meant for the company's import coordinators. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified that the payee endorsements on the checks were forged and that the accused's aunt-in-law rediscounted and encashed the checks. The accused claimed that he was forced to resign and settle special arrangements with the complainant under duress. He denied forging the signature on the checks. The prosecution presented the testimony of the accused's aunt-in-law, who confirmed that the accused had asked her to rediscount the checks. The RTC convicted the accused of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), which was different from the charge. The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that his right to due process was violated. The prosecution argued that the designation of the offense in the information is not controlling, and it is the facts alleged in the information that determine the nature of the accusation. The RTC denied the Motion, and the CA affirmed the decision. The accused filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45, arguing that he was convicted of a different offense from what he was charged with, violating his right to due process.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the crime set forth in the body of the information and proved in the trial is the same as the crime characterized by the fiscal in the caption of the information.

  2. Whether the factual allegations in the information sufficiently inform the accused of the acts constituting the offense charged.

  3. Whether the accused can be charged with estafa under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

  4. Whether the accused can be charged with estafa under paragraph 1(b) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING:

  1. The designation of the crime by name in the caption of the information is a conclusion of law made by the fiscal. The accused's full and complete defense does not depend on knowing the name of the crime. If the accused performed the acts alleged in the information, the law determines the name of the crime and the corresponding penalty.

  2. The important question is whether the facts in the information constitute the crime of which the accused was convicted. It is not necessary for the information to use technical and legal words like "fraud" or "deceit" to properly allege an offense. What is important is that the crime is described in intelligible and reasonable certainty. As long as the factual allegations in the information sufficiently inform the accused of the acts constituting the offense charged, it is valid.

  3. No, the accused cannot be charged under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused did not use a fictitious name or falsely pretend to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or engage in any other similar deceit. The situation could only be likened to an imaginary transaction, as the accused represented the existence of a deliverable commission when in fact there was none.

  4. Yes, the accused can be charged under paragraph 1(b) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused received personal property in the form of checks in trust or on commission, with the duty to deliver it to the payee. Despite misrepresenting the existence of a deliverable commission, the accused was obliged to deliver the checks and account for it. The accused misappropriated the checks by rediscounting them and wrongfully encashed them. This wrongful encashment prejudiced the injured party, causing them to lose the proceeds of the checks.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The designation of the crime in the caption of the information is a conclusion of law made by the fiscal. The accused's defense does not depend on knowing the name of the crime.

  • The factual allegations in the information should sufficiently inform the accused of the acts constituting the offense charged. It is not necessary for the information to use technical and legal words to properly allege an offense. What is important is that the crime is described in intelligible and reasonable certainty.

  • Estafa can be committed through abuse of confidence and deceit employed against the same victim, causing damage to the victim.

  • One act can give rise to two offenses, especially when a single offense has multiple modes of commission.