Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 160451 February 9, 2007
EDURDO G. R!CR"E, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF PPE#S, PEOP#E OF T$E P$!#!PP!NES, C#TE% P$!#!PP!NES,
!NC., P$!#!PP!NE COMMERC!# ND !NDUSTR!# &N'
(PC!&N'), Respondents.
D ! I S I O N
C##E*O, SR., J.:
"efore the !ourt is a petition for revie# on certiorari of the Decision
$
of the !ourt of
%ppeals in !%&'.R. SP No. ()*+,, and its Resolution
,
#hich denied the Motion for
Reconsideration and the Supple-ental Motion for Reconsideration thereof.
The %ntecedents
Petitioner duardo '. Ricar.e #as e-plo/ed as a collector&-essen0er b/ !it/
Service !orporation, a do-estic corporation en0a0ed in -essen0erial services. He
#as assi0ned to the -ain office of !alte1 Philippines, Inc. 2!alte13 in Ma4ati !it/. His
pri-ar/ tas4 #as to collect chec4s pa/able to !alte1 and deliver the- to the cashier.
He also delivered invoices to !alte15s custo-ers.
6
On Nove-ber (, $++7, !alte1, throu0h its "an4in0 and Insurance Depart-ent
Mana0er Ra-on Ro-ano, filed a cri-inal co-plaint a0ainst petitioner before the
Office of the !it/ Prosecutor of Ma4ati !it/ for estafa throu0h falsification of
co--ercial docu-ents. Ro-ano alle0ed that, on October $(, $++7, #hile his
depart-ent #as conductin0 a dail/ electronic report fro- Philippine !o--ercial 8
Industrial "an4 2P!I"3 Dela Rosa, Ma4ati "ranch, one of its depositar/ ban4s, it #as
discovered that un4no#n to the depart-ent, a co-pan/ chec4, !hec4 No. 7*99$
dated October $6, $++7 in the a-ount of P:,7+9,:79.,: pa/able to Dante R.
'utierre., had been cleared throu0h P!I" on October $:, $++7. %n investi0ation
also revealed that t#o other chec4s 2!hec4 Nos. 76+++ and 7*9993 #ere also
-issin0 and that in !hec4 No. 7*99$, his si0nature and that of another si0nator/,
Victor S. 'o;uinco, #ere for0eries. %nother chec4, !hec4 No. 7,+,, dated
Septe-ber $:, $++7 in the a-ount of P$,7+9,7:7.,: li4e#ise pa/able to Dante R.
'utierre., #as also cleared throu0h the sa-e ban4 on Septe-ber ,*, $++7< this
chec4 #as li4e#ise not issued b/ !alte1, and the si0natures appearin0 thereon had
also been for0ed. =pon verification, it #as uncovered that !hec4 Nos. 7*99$ and
7,+,, #ere deposited at the "anco de Oro5s SM Ma4ati "ranch under Savin0s
%ccount No. S>% ,99*&99*7,*:&7, in the na-e of a re0ular custo-er of !alte1,
Dante R. 'utierre..
'utierre., ho#ever, diso#ned the savin0s account as #ell as his si0natures on the
dorsal portions thereof. He also denied havin0 #ithdra#n an/ a-ount fro- said
savin0s account. ?urther investi0ation revealed that said savin0s account had
actuall/ been opened b/ petitioner< the for0ed chec4s #ere deposited and endorsed
b/ hi- under 'utierre.5s na-e. % ban4 teller fro- the "anco de Oro, @innie P.
Donable Dela !ru., positivel/ identified petitioner as the person #ho opened the
savin0s account usin0 'utierre.5s na-e.
*
In the -eanti-e, the P!I" credited the a-ount of P:)$,,,+.99 to !alte1 on March
,+, $++). Ho#ever, the !it/ Prosecutor of Ma4ati !it/ #as not infor-ed of this
develop-ent. %fter the re;uisite preli-inar/ investi0ation, the !it/ Prosecutor filed
t#o 2,3 Infor-ations for estafa throu0h falsification of co--ercial docu-ents on Aune
,+, $++) a0ainst petitioner before the Re0ional Trial !ourt 2RT!3 of Ma4ati !it/,
"ranch (6. The Infor-ations are #orded as follo#sB
!ri-inal !ase No. +)&$($$
That on or about the ,*th da/ of Septe-ber $++7 in the !it/ of Ma4ati, Metro Manila,
Philippines, a place #ithin the Curisdiction of this Honorable !ourt, the above&na-ed
accused, a private individual, #ith intent to defraud and intent to 0ain, #ithout the
4no#led0e and consent of !alte1 Philippines, Inc. throu0h its dul/ authori.ed
officers>representatives, and b/ -eans of falsification of co--ercial docu-ent, did
then and there #illfull/, unla#full/ and feloniousl/ defraud !alte1 Phils., Inc., in the
follo#in0 -anner, to #itB said accused, havin0 obtained possession of P!I"an4
chec4 no. 7,+,, dated Septe-ber $:, $++7 pa/able to Dante R. 'utierre., in the
a-ount of Php$,7+9,7:7.:9 #ith intent to defraud or cause da-a0e to co-plainant
!alte1 Phils., Inc., #illfull/, unla#full/ and feloniousl/ affi1ed or caused to be affi1ed
si0natures purportin0 to be those of Ra-on Ro-ano and Victor 'o;uin0co, !alte1
authori.ed officers>si0natories, and of pa/ee Dante R. 'utierre., causin0 it to appear
that Ra-on Ro-ano and Victor 'o;uin0co have participated in the issuance of
P!I"an4 chec4 no. 7,+,, and that Dante R. 'utierre. had endorsed it, #hen in truth
and in fact, as said accused #ell 4ne#, such #as not the case, since said chec4
previousl/ stolen fro- Pa/ables Section of !%DTE, #as neither dul/ si0ned b/
Ra-on Ro-ano and Victor 'o;uin0co nor endorsed b/ Dante R. 'utierre., after the
chec4, a co--ercial docu-ent, #as falsified in the -anner above set forth, the said
accused purportin0 hi-self to be the pa/ee, Dante R. 'utierre., deposited the chec4
#ith "anco De Oro under %ccount No. ,99*&99*7,*:&7, thereb/ appropriatin0 the
proceeds of the falsified but cleared chec4, to the da-a0e and preCudice of
co-plainant herein represented b/ Ra-on Ro-ano, in the a-ount of
Php$,7+9,7:7.:9.
!ri-inal !ase No. +)&$($,
1
That on or about the $:th da/ of October $++7 in the !it/ of Ma4ati, Metro Manila,
Philippines, a place #ithin the Curisdiction of this Honorable !ourt, the above&na-ed
accused, a private individual, #ith intent to defraud and intent to 0ain, #ithout the
4no#led0e and consent of !alte1 Philippines, Inc. throu0h its dul/ authori.ed
officers>representatives, and b/ -eans of falsification of co--ercial docu-ent, did
then and there #illfull/, unla#full/ and feloniousl/ defraud !alte1 Phils., Inc., in the
follo#in0 -anner, to #itB said accused, havin0 obtained possession of P!I"an4
chec4 no. 7*99$ dated October $6, $++7 pa/able to Dante R. 'utierre., in the
a-ount of Php:,7+9,:79.,: #ith intent to defraud or cause da-a0e to co-plainant
!alte1 Phils., Inc., #illfull/, unla#full/ and feloniousl/ affi1ed or caused to be affi1ed
si0natures purportin0 to be those of Ra-on Ro-ano and Victor 'o;uin0co, !alte1
authori.ed officers>si0natories, and of pa/ee Dante R. 'utierre., causin0 it to appear
that Ra-on Ro-ano and Victor 'o;uin0co have participated in the issuance of
P!I"an4 chec4 no. 7*99$ and that Dante R. 'utierre. had endorsed it, #hen in truth
and in fact, as said accused #ell 4ne#, such #as not the case, since said chec4
previousl/ stolen fro- Pa/ables Section of !%DTE, #as neither dul/ si0ned b/
Ra-on Ro-ano and Victor 'o;uin0co nor endorsed b/ Dante R. 'utierre., after the
chec4, a co--ercial docu-ent, #as falsified in the -anner above set forth, the said
accused purportin0 hi-self to be the pa/ee, Dante R. 'utierre., deposited the chec4
#ith "anco De Oro under %ccount No. ,99*&99*7,*:&7, thereb/ appropriatin0 the
proceeds of the falsified but cleared chec4, to the da-a0e and preCudice of
co-plainant herein represented b/ Ra-on Ro-ano, in the a-ount of
Php:,7+9,:79.,:.
:
Petitioner #as arrai0ned on %u0ust $), $++), and pleaded not 0uilt/ to both
char0es.
(
Pre&trial ensued and the cases #ere Cointl/ tried. The prosecution
presented its #itnesses, after #hich the Si0uion Re/na, Montecillio and On0sia4o
Da# Offices 2SRMO3 as private prosecutor filed a ?or-al Offer of
vidence.
7
Petitioner opposed the pleadin0, contendin0 that the private co-plainant
#as represented b/ the %!!R% Da# Offices and the "al0os and Pere. Da# Office
durin0 trial, and it #as onl/ after the prosecution had rested its case that SRMO
entered its appearance as private prosecutor representin0 the P!I". Since the
%!!R% and "al0os and Pere. Da# Offices had not #ithdra#n their appearance,
SRMO had no personalit/ to appear as private prosecutor. =nder the Infor-ations,
the private co-plainant is !alte1 and not P!I"< hence, the ?or-al Offer of vidence
filed b/ SRMO should be stric4en fro- the records.
Petitioner further averred that unless the Infor-ations #ere a-ended to chan0e the
private co-plainant to P!I", his ri0ht as accused #ould be preCudiced. He pointed
out, ho#ever, that the Infor-ations can no lon0er be a-ended because he had
alread/ been arrai0ned under the ori0inal Infor-ations.
)
He insisted that the
a-end-ents of the Infor-ations to substitute P!I" as the offended part/ for !alte1
#ould place hi- in double Ceopard/.
P!I", throu0h SRMO, opposed the -otion. It contended that the P!I" had re&
credited the a-ount to !alte1 to the e1tent of the inde-nit/< hence, the P!I" had
been subro0ated to the ri0hts and interests of !alte1 as private co-plainant.
!onse;uentl/, the P!I" is entitled to receive an/ civil inde-nit/ #hich the trial court
#ould adCud0e a0ainst the accused. Moreover, the re&credited a-ount #as brou0ht
out on cross&e1a-ination b/ Ra-on Ro-ano #ho testified for the Prosecution. P!I"
pointed out that petitioner had -ar4ed in evidence the letter of the %!!R% Da#
Office to P!I"an4 dated October $9, $++7 and the credit -e-o sent b/ P!I" to
!alte1.
+
Petitioner filed a Motion to 1pun0e the Opposition of SRMO.
$9
In his ReCoinder, he
averred that the substitution of P!I" as private co-plainant cannot be -ade b/ -ere
oral -otion< the Infor-ation -ust be a-ended to alle0e that the private co-plainant
#as P!I" and not !alte1 after the preli-inar/ investi0ation of the appropriate
co-plaint of P!I" before the Ma4ati !it/ Prosecutor.
In response, the P!I", throu0h SRMO, averred that as provided in Section ,, Rule
$$9 of the Revised Rules of !ri-inal Procedure, the erroneous desi0nation of the
na-e of the offended part/ is a -ere for-al defect #hich can be cured b/ insertin0
the na-e of the offended part/ in the Infor-ation. To support its clai-, P!I" cited the
rulin0 of this !ourt in Sa/son v. People.
$$
On Aul/ $), ,99$, the RT! issued an Order 0rantin0 the -otion of the private
prosecutor for the substitution of P!I" as private co-plainant for !alte1. It ho#ever
denied petitioner5s -otion to have the for-al offer of evidence of SRMO e1pun0ed
fro- the record.
$,
Petitioner filed a -otion for reconsideration #hich the RT! denied
on Nove-ber $*, ,99$.
$6
Petitioner filed a Petition for !ertiorari under Rule (: of the Rules of !ourt #ith
=r0ent %pplication for Te-porar/ Restrainin0 Order #ith the !ourt of %ppeals 2!%,3
pra/in0 for the annul-ent of the RT!5s Orders of Aul/ $), ,99$ and Nove-ber $*,
,99$. The petitioner averred thatB
I
RSPONDNT A=D' 'RIVO=SDF 2SI!3 RRD IN RNDRIN' ITS ORDR
ISS=D @ITH 'R%V %"=S O? DIS!RTION T%NT%MO=NT TO D%!G O? OR
IN E!SS O? A=RISDI!TION "F %DDO@IN' TH S="STIT=TION O? PRIV%T
!OMPD%IN%NT, %?TR TH %!=SD @%S %DR%DF %RR%I'ND %ND
PROS!=TION H%S %DR%DF TRMIN%TD PRSNTIN' ITS VIDN!
THR"F P%TNTDF VIOD%TIN' TH STRI!T !ONDITION IMPOSD =PON "F
R=D $$9 S!. $* R=DS ON !RIMIN%D RO!D=R.
II
%ND %S % !ORODD%RF 'RO=ND RSPONDNT A=D' !OMMITTD 'R%V
%"=S O? DIS!RTION IN E!SS O? A=RISDI!TION IN RNDRIN' %N
ORDR R!O'NIHIN' TH %PP%R%N! O? % N@ PROS!=TOR @ITHO=T
@RITTN OR VN OR%D @ITHDR%@%D O? TH !O=NSD ON R!ORD.
$*
2
%ccordin0 to petitioner, da-a0e or inCur/ to the offended part/ is an essential
ele-ent of estafa. The a-end-ent of the Infor-ations substitutin0 the P!I"an4 for
!alte1 as the offended part/ #ould preCudice his ri0hts since he is deprived of a
defense available before the a-end-ent, and #hich #ould be unavailable if the
Infor-ations are a-ended. Petitioner further insisted that the rulin0 in the Sa/son
case did not appl/ to this case.
On Nove-ber :, ,99,, the appellate court rendered Cud0-ent dis-issin0 the petition.
The fallo readsB
@HR?OR, pre-ises considered, the petition to annul the orders dated Aul/ $),
,99$ and Nove-ber $*, ,99$ of the Re0ional Trial !ourt, "ranch (6, Ma4ati !it/ in
!ri-inal !ase Nos. +)&$($$ and +)&$($, is hereb/ DNID and conse;uentl/
DISMISSD.
SO ORDRD.
$:
The appellate court declared that #hen P!I" restored the a-ount of the chec4s to
!alte1, it #as subro0ated to the latter5s ri0ht a0ainst petitioner. It further declared that
in offenses a0ainst propert/, the desi0nation of the na-e of the offended part/ is not
absolutel/ indispensable for as lon0 as the cri-inal act char0ed in the co-plaint or
infor-ation can be properl/ identified. The appellate court cited the rulin0s of this
!ourt in People v. Ho
$(
and People v. Re/es.
$7
On October $7, ,996, the !% issued a Resolution den/in0 petitioner5s Motion for
Reconsideration and Supple-ental Motion for Reconsideration.
$)
Hence, petitioner filed the instant petition #hich is anchored on the follo#in0
0roundsB
I. TH POPD V. F= !H%I HO :6 PHIDIPPINS )7* IS IN%PPDI!%"D
TO TH !%S %T "%R !ONSIDRIN' TH P%!TS %R
S="ST%NTI%DDF DI??RNT.
II. DIG@IS, TH !%S O? POPD VS. RFS !%, :9 2,3 O' ((:,
NOVM"R $$, $+:6 H%S NO M%TRI%D "%RIN' TO TH PRSNT
!%S.
III. TH S="STIT=TION O? P!I"%NG @IDD S="ST%NTI%DDF
PRA=DI! TH RI'HTS O? TH PTITIONR HN!, IT IS
PROHI"ITD "F S!. $* O? R=D $$9.
IV. THR IS NO V%DID S="RO'%TION "T@N !%DTE %ND
P!I"%NG. %SS=MIN' THR IS, TH !IVID !%S SHO=DD "
DISMISSD TO PROS!=T.
V. TH T@IN IN?ORM%TIONS =PON @HI!H PTITIONR @%S
INDI!TD, %RR%I'ND, PR&TRI%D HDD %ND P="DI! PROS!=TOR
TRMIN%TD TH PRSNT%TION O? ITS VIDN! IN !HI? %R
D?!TIV %ND VOID, HN! TH DISMISS%D IS IN ORDR.
VI. PTITIONR TIMDF O"A!TD TO TH %PP%R%N! O?
PRIV%T PROS!=TOR ?OR P!I"%NG.
VII. TH ?INDIN'S O? M%TRI%D ?%!TS %R NOT S=PORTD "F TH
R!ORD NOR VIDN! %ND "%SD ON MIS%PPR!I%TION O?
?%!TS.
VIII. PTITIONR5S S=PPDMNT%D MOTION ?OR R!ONSIDR%TION
DID NOT VIOD%T TH OMNI"=S MOTION R=D =NDR S!. ), R=D
$: O? TH $++7 R=DS O? !IVID PRO!D=R.
$+
The !ourt5s Rulin0
Petitioner ar0ues that the substitution of !alte1 b/ P!I" as private co-plainant at
this late sta0e of the trial is preCudicial to his defense. He ar0ues that the substitution
is tanta-ount to a substantial a-end-ent of the Infor-ations #hich is prohibited
under Section $*, Rule $$9 of the Rules of !ourt.
=nder Section :, Rule $$9
,9
of the Revised Rules of Rules, all cri-inal actions
covered b/ a co-plaint or infor-ation shall be prosecuted under the direct
supervision and control of the public prosecutor. Thus, even if the felonies or delictual
acts of the accused result in da-a0e or inCur/ to another, the civil action for the
recover/ of civil liabilit/ based on the said cri-inal acts is i-pliedl/ instituted, and the
offended part/ has not #aived the civil action, reserved the ri0ht to institute it
separatel/ or instituted the civil action prior to the cri-inal action, the prosecution of
the action 2includin0 the civil3 re-ains under the control and supervision of the public
prosecutor. The prosecution of offenses is a public function. =nder Section $(, Rule
$$9 of the Rules of !ri-inal Procedure, the offended part/ -a/ intervene in the
cri-inal action personall/ or b/ counsel, #ho #ill act as private prosecutor for the
protection of his interests and in the interest of the speed/ and ine1pensive
ad-inistration of Custice. % separate action for the purpose #ould onl/ prove to be
costl/, burdenso-e and ti-e&consu-in0 for both parties and further dela/ the final
disposition of the case. The -ultiplicit/ of suits -ust be avoided. @ith the i-plied
institution of the civil action in the cri-inal action, the t#o actions are -er0ed into
one co-posite proceedin0, #ith the cri-inal action predo-inatin0 the civil. The pri-e
purpose of the cri-inal action is to punish the offender in order to deter hi- and
others fro- co--ittin0 the sa-e or si-ilar offense, to isolate hi- fro- societ/,
refor- and rehabilitate hi- or, in 0eneral, to -aintain social order.
,$
On the other hand, the sole purpose of the civil action is for the resolution, reparation
or inde-nification of the private offended part/ for the da-a0e or inCur/ he sustained
3
b/ reason of the delictual or felonious act of the accused.
,,
=nder %rticle $9* of the
Revised Penal !ode, the follo#in0 are the civil liabilities of the accusedB
%RT. $9*. @hat is included in civil liabilit/. I The civil liabilit/ established in %rticles
$99, $9$, $9, and $96 of this !ode includesB
$. Restitution<
,. Reparation of the da-a0e caused<
6. Inde-nification for conse;uential da-a0es.
On the other hand, Section $*, Rule $$9 of the Revised Rules of !ri-inal Procedure
statesB
Section $*. %-end-ent or substitution. I % co-plaint or infor-ation -a/ be
a-ended, in for- or in substance, #ithout leave of court, at an/ ti-e before the
accused enters his plea. %fter the plea and durin0 the trial, a for-al a-end-ent -a/
onl/ be -ade #ith leave of court and #hen it can be done #ithout causin0 preCudice
to the ri0hts of the accused.
Ho#ever, an/ a-end-ent before plea, #hich do#n0rades the nature of the offense
char0ed in or e1cludes an/ accused fro- the co-plaint or infor-ation, can be -ade
onl/ upon -otion b/ the prosecutor, #ith notice to the offended part/ and #ith leave
of court. The court shall state its reasons in resolvin0 the -otion and copies of its
order shall be furnished all parties, especiall/ the offended part/.
Thus, before the accused enters his plea, a for-al or substantial a-end-ent of the
co-plaint or infor-ation -a/ be -ade #ithout leave of court. %fter the entr/ of a
plea, onl/ a for-al a-end-ent -a/ be -ade but #ith leave of court and if it does not
preCudice the ri0hts of the accused. %fter arrai0n-ent, a substantial a-end-ent is
proscribed e1cept if the sa-e is beneficial to the accused.
,6
% substantial a-end-ent consists of the recital of facts constitutin0 the offense
char0ed and deter-inative of the Curisdiction of the court. %ll other -atters are -erel/
of for-.
,*
The follo#in0 have been held to be -ere for-al a-end-entsB 2$3 ne#
alle0ations #hich relate onl/ to the ran0e of the penalt/ that the court -i0ht i-pose
in the event of conviction< 2,3 an a-end-ent #hich does not char0e another offense
different or distinct fro- that char0ed in the ori0inal one< 263 additional alle0ations
#hich do not alter the prosecution5s theor/ of the case so as to cause surprise to the
accused and affect the for- of defense he has or #ill assu-e< 2*3 an a-end-ent
#hich does not adversel/ affect an/ substantial ri0ht of the accused< and 2:3 an
a-end-ent that -erel/ adds specifications to eli-inate va0ueness in the infor-ation
and not to introduce ne# and -aterial facts, and -erel/ states #ith additional
precision so-ethin0 #hich is alread/ contained in the ori0inal infor-ation and #hich
adds nothin0 essential for conviction for the cri-e char0ed.
,:
The test as to #hether a defendant is preCudiced b/ the a-end-ent is #hether a
defense under the infor-ation as it ori0inall/ stood #ould be available after the
a-end-ent is -ade, and #hether an/ evidence defendant -i0ht have #ould be
e;uall/ applicable to the infor-ation in the one for- as in the other. %n a-end-ent
to an infor-ation #hich does not chan0e the nature of the cri-e alle0ed therein does
not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an
opportunit/ to -eet the ne# aver-ent had each been held to be one of for- and not
of substance.
,(
In the case at bar, the substitution of !alte1 b/ P!I" as private co-plaint is not a
substantial a-end-ent. The substitution did not alter the basis of the char0e in both
Infor-ations, nor did it result in an/ preCudice to petitioner. The docu-entar/
evidence in the for- of the for0ed chec4s re-ained the sa-e, and all such evidence
#as available to petitioner #ell before the trial. Thus, he cannot clai- an/ surprise b/
virtue of the substitution.
Petitioner ne1t ar0ues that in no #a/ #as P!I" subro0ated to the ri0hts of !alte1,
considerin0 that he has no 4no#led0e of the subro0ation -uch less 0ave his consent
to it. %lternativel/, he posits that if subro0ation #as proper, then the char0es a0ainst
hi- should be dis-issed, the t#o Infor-ations bein0 Jdefective and void due to false
alle0ations.J
Petitioner #as char0ed of the cri-e of estafa co-ple1 #ith falsification docu-ent. In
estafa one of the essential ele-ents Jto preCudice of anotherJ as -andated b/ article
6$: of the Revise Penal !ode.
The ele-ent of Jto the preCudice of anotherJ bein0 as essential ele-ent of the felon/
should be clearl/ indicated and char0ed in the infor-ation #ith TR=TH %ND D'%D
PR!ISION.
This is not so in the case of petitioner, the t#in infor-ation filed a0ainst hi- alle0ed
the felon/ co--itted J to the da-a0e and preCudice of !alte1.J This alle0ation is
=NTR= and ?%DS for there is no ;uestion that as earl/ as March ,*, $++) or
THR 263 DON' MONTHS before the t#in infor-ation #ere filed on Aune ,+, $++),
the preCudice part/ is alread/ P!I"an4 since the latter Re&!redit the value of the
chec4s to !alte1 as earl/ as March ,*, $++). In effect, assu-in0 there is valid
subro0ation as the subCect decision concluded, the subro0ation too4 place an
occurred on March ,*, $++) THR 263 MONTHS before the t#in infor-ation #ere
filed.
The phrase Jto the preCudice to anotherJ as ele-ent of the felon/ is li-ited to the
person D?R%=DD in the ver/ act of e-be..le-ent. It should not be e1panded to
4
other persons #hich the loss -a/ ulti-atel/ fall as a result of a contract #hich
contract herein petitioner is total stran0er.
In this case, there is no ;uestion that the ver/ act of co--ission of the offense of
Septe-ber ,*, $++7 and October $:, $++7 respectivel/, !alte1 #as the one
defrauded b/ the act of the felon/.
In the li0ht of these facts, petitioner sub-its that the t#in infor-ation are
D?!TIV %ND VOID due to the ?%DS %DD'%TIONS that the offense #as
co--itted to the preCudice of !alte1 #hen it truth and in fact the one preCudiced here
#as P!I"an4.
The t#in infor-ation bein0 D?!TIV %ND VOID, the sa-e should be dis-issed
#ithout preCudice to the filin0 of another infor-ation #hich should state the offense
#as co--itted to the preCudice of P!I"an4 if it still le0all/ possible #ithout
preCudicin0 substantial and statutor/ ri0hts of the petitioner.
,7
Petitioner5s ar0u-ent on subro0ation is -isplaced. The !ourt a0rees #ith
respondent P!I"5s co--ent that petitioner failed to -a4e a distinction bet#een le0al
and conventional subro0ation. Subro0ation is the transfer of all the ri0hts of the
creditor to a third person, #ho substitutes hi- in all his ri0hts.
,)
It -a/ either be le0al
or conventional. De0al subro0ation is that #hich ta4es place #ithout a0ree-ent but
b/ operation of la# because of certain acts.
,+
Instances of le0al subro0ation are
those provided in %rticle $69,
69
of the !ivil !ode. !onventional subro0ation, on the
other hand, is that #hich ta4es place b/ a0ree-ent of the parties.
6$
Thus, petitioner5s
ac;uiescence is not necessar/ for subro0ation to ta4e place because the instant
case is one of le0al subro0ation that occurs b/ operation of la#, and #ithout need of
the debtor5s 4no#led0e.
!ontrar/ to petitioner5s asseverations, the case of People v. Fu !hai Ho
6,
relied upon
b/ the appellate court is in point. The !ourt declared I
@e do not ho#ever, thin4 that the fiscal erred in alle0in0 that the co--ission of the
cri-e resulted to the preCudice of @-. H. %nderson 8 !o. It is true that ori0inall/ the
International "an4in0 !orporation #as the preCudiced part/, but @-. H. %nderson 8
!o. co-pensated it for its loss and thus beca-e subro0ated to all its ri0hts a0ainst
the defendant 2article $)6+, !ivil !ode3. @-. H. %nderson 8 !o., therefore, stood
e1actl/ in the shoes of the International "an4in0 !orporation in relation to the
defendantKs acts, and the co--ission of the cri-e resulted to the preCudice of the
fir- previousl/ to the filin0 of the infor-ation in the case. The loss suffered b/ the
fir- #as the ulti-ate result of the defendantKs unla#ful acts, and #e see no valid
reason #h/ this fact should not be stated in the infor-ation< it stands to reason that,
in the cri-e of estafa, the da-a0e resultin0 therefro- need not necessaril/ occur
si-ultaneousl/ #ith the acts constitutin0 the other essential ele-ents of the cri-e.
Thus, bein0 subro0ated to the ri0ht of !alte1, P!I", throu0h counsel, has the ri0ht to
intervene in the proceedin0s, and under substantive la#s is entitled to restitution of
its properties or funds, reparation, or inde-nification.
Petitioner5s 0ripe that the char0es a0ainst hi- should be dis-issed because the
alle0ations in both Infor-ations failed to na-e P!I" as true offended part/ does not
hold #ater.
Section (, Rule $$9 of the Rules on !ri-inal Procedure statesB
Sec. (. Sufficienc/ of co-plaint or infor-ation. I % co-plaint or infor-ation is
sufficient if it states the na-e of the accused< the desi0nation of the offense b/ the
statute< the acts or o-issions co-plained of as constitutin0 the offense< the na-e of
the offended part/< the appro1i-ate ti-e of the co--ission of the offense< and the
place #herein the offense #as co--itted.
@hen the offense is co--itted b/ -ore than one person, all of the- shall be
included in the co-plaint or infor-ation.
On the other hand, Section $, of the sa-e Rule providesB
Section. $,. Na-e of the offended part/. IThe co-plaint or infor-ation -ust state
the na-e and surna-e of the person a0ainst #ho- or a0ainst #hose propert/ the
offense #as co--itted, or an/ appellation or nic4na-e b/ #hich such person has
been or is 4no#n. If there is no better #a/ of identif/in0 hi-, he -ust be described
under a fictitious na-e.
2a3 In offenses a0ainst propert/, if the na-e of the offended part/ is
un4no#n, the propert/ -ust be described #ith such particularit/ as to
properl/ identif/ the offense char0ed.
2b3 If the true na-e of the person a0ainst #ho- or a0ainst #hose propert/
the offense #as co--itted is thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the court
-ust cause such true na-e to be inserted in the co-plaint or infor-ation
and the record.
2c3 If the offended part/ is a Curidical person, it is sufficient to state its na-e,
or an/ na-e or desi0nation b/ #hich it is 4no#n or b/ #hich it -a/ be
identified, #ithout need of averrin0 that it is a Curidical person or that it is
or0ani.ed in accordance #ith la#. 2$,a3
In Sa/son v. People,
66
the !ourt held that in case of offenses a0ainst propert/, the
desi0nation of the na-e of the offended part/ is not absolutel/ indispensable for as
lon0 as the cri-inal act char0ed in the co-plaint or infor-ation can be properl/
identifiedB
5
The rules on cri-inal procedure re;uire the co-plaint or infor-ation to state the
na-e and surna-e of the person a0ainst #ho- or a0ainst #hose propert/ the
offense #as co--itted or an/ appellation or nic4na-e b/ #hich such person has
been or is 4no#n and if there is no better #a/ of Identif/in0 hi-, he -ust be
described under a fictitious na-e 2Rule $$9, Section $$, Revised Rules of !ourt< no#
Rule $$9, Section $, of the $+): Rules on !ri-inal Procedure.L In case of offenses
a0ainst propert/, the desi0nation of the na-e of the offended part/ is not absolutel/
indispensable for as lon0 as the cri-inal act char0ed in the co-plaint or infor-ation
can be properl/ identified. Thus, Rule $$9, Section $$ of the Rules of !ourt provides
thatB
Section $$. Na-e of the offended part/&
M
2a3 In cases of offenses a0ainst propert/, if the na-e of the offended part/ is
un4no#n, the propert/, subCect -atter of the offense, -ust be described
#ith such particularit/ as to properl/ Identif/ the particular offense char0ed.
2b3 If in the course of the trial, the true na-e of the person a0ainst #ho- or
a0ainst #hose propert/ the offense #as co--itted is disclosed or
ascertained, the court -ust cause the true na-e to be inserted in the
co-plaint or infor-ation or record.
M
In =.S. v. Gepner N$ Phil. :$+ 2$+9,3L, this !ourt laid do#n the rule that #hen an
offense shall have been described in the co-plaint #ith sufficient certaint/ as to
Identif/ the act, an erroneous alle0ation as to the person inCured shall be dee-ed
i--aterial as the sa-e is a -ere for-al defect #hich did not tend to preCudice an/
substantial ri0ht of the defendant. %ccordin0l/, in the afore-entioned case, #hich
had a factual bac4drop si-ilar to the instant case, #here the defendant #as char0ed
#ith estafa for the -isappropriation of the proceeds of a #arrant #hich he had
cashed #ithout authorit/, the erroneous alle0ation in the co-plaint to the effect that
the unla#ful act #as to the preCudice of the o#ner of the che;ue, #hen in realit/ the
ban4 #hich cashed it #as the one #hich suffered a loss, #as held to be i--aterial
on the 0round that the subCect -atter of the estafa, the #arrant, #as described in the
co-plaint #ith such particularit/ as to properl/ Identif/ the particular offense char0ed.
In the instant suit for estafa #hich is a cri-e a0ainst propert/ under the Revised
Penal !ode, since the chec4, #hich #as the subCect&-atter of the offense, #as
described #ith such particularit/ as to properl/ identif/ the offense char0ed, it
beco-es i--aterial, for purposes of convictin0 the accused, that it #as established
durin0 the trial that the offended part/ #as actuall/ Mever ?il-s and not rnesto
Rufino, Sr. nor "an4 of %-erica as alle0ed in the infor-ation.
Dastl/, on petitioner5s clai- that he ti-el/ obCected to the appearance of SRMO
6*
as
private prosecutor for P!I", the !ourt a0rees #ith the observation of the !% that
contrar/ to his clai-, petitioner did not ;uestion the said entr/ of appearance even as
the RT! ac4no#led0ed the sa-e on October ), $+++.
6:
Thus, petitioner cannot fei0n
i0norance or surprise of the incident, #hich are Jall #ater under the brid0e for NhisL
failure to -a4e a ti-el/ obCection thereto.J
6(
@HR?OR, the petition is DNID. The assailed decision and resolution of the
!ourt of %ppeals are %??IRMD. This case is RM%NDD to the Re0ional Trial
!ourt of Ma4ati !it/, "ranch (6, for further proceedin0s.
SO ORDRD.
6