Pecho vs.

People
G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996

Facts
The decision of the Supreme Court for convicting the accused for the complex crime of
attempted estafa thru falsification of official and commercial document was assailed with the
contention of the defense that the accused may not be convicted of the crime for double
jeopardy. The charge against the accused was on violation of RA 3019 of which he was
acquitted because it only penalizes consummated crime. In the absence of evidence that shows
that the crime was consummated the accused was acquitted but the court held judgment of
prosecuting his conviction for attempted estafa thru falsification of official and
commercial document which is necessarily included in the crime charged. Accused invokes the
defense of double jeopardy since his acquittal from the charge involving RA 3019 is a bar for
prosecution on the crime of attempted estafa thru falsification of official and
commercial document and that the accused was not informed of this charge against him in the
filing of the information.

Issue
Whether or not the accused was informed of the nature and cause of the crime to which he is
convicted

Held
No. there is no merit in the petitioners claim that he could not be convicted of the said crime
without offending his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
Assuming there is sufficient evidence, the petitioner could be convicted of the complex crime of
attempted estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents.

The court presented the objectives of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of the crime he is chargedwith as follows:

1. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable
him to make his defense;
2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution
for the same cause;
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient
in law to support a conviction, if one should be had.

In order that this requirement may be satisfied facts must be stated: not conclusions of law. The
complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to
constitute the crime. What determines the real nature and cause of accusation against an
accused is the actual recital of facts stated in the information or complaint and not the caption or
preamble of the information or complaint nor the specification of the provision of law alleged to
have been violated, they being conclusions of law. It follows then that an accused may be
convicted of a crime which although not the one charged, is necessarily included in the latter. It
has been shown that the information filed in court is considered as charging for two offenses
which the counsel of the accused failed to object therefore he can be convicted for both or either
of the charges.

However by reviewing the case at bar the SC finds lack of sufficient evidence that would
establish the guilt of the accused as conspirator to the crime of estafa beyond reasonable doubt,
the prior decision of the SC was deemed to be based merely on circumstantial evidence, thus
the accused was acquitted.