1) Senador was charged with estafa for failing to remit proceeds or return jewelry valued at P705,685 that was given to her on consignment by Cynthia Jaime.
2) During trial it was revealed the actual owner of the jewelry was Rita Jaime, not Cynthia as stated in the information.
3) The court found Senador guilty, ruling that for crimes against property, an error in identifying the offended party does not invalidate the charge as long as the criminal act is correctly identified. The subject jewelry was specifically identified through an agreement signed by Senador.
1) Senador was charged with estafa for failing to remit proceeds or return jewelry valued at P705,685 that was given to her on consignment by Cynthia Jaime.
2) During trial it was revealed the actual owner of the jewelry was Rita Jaime, not Cynthia as stated in the information.
3) The court found Senador guilty, ruling that for crimes against property, an error in identifying the offended party does not invalidate the charge as long as the criminal act is correctly identified. The subject jewelry was specifically identified through an agreement signed by Senador.
1) Senador was charged with estafa for failing to remit proceeds or return jewelry valued at P705,685 that was given to her on consignment by Cynthia Jaime.
2) During trial it was revealed the actual owner of the jewelry was Rita Jaime, not Cynthia as stated in the information.
3) The court found Senador guilty, ruling that for crimes against property, an error in identifying the offended party does not invalidate the charge as long as the criminal act is correctly identified. The subject jewelry was specifically identified through an agreement signed by Senador.
1) Senador was charged with estafa for failing to remit proceeds or return jewelry valued at P705,685 that was given to her on consignment by Cynthia Jaime.
2) During trial it was revealed the actual owner of the jewelry was Rita Jaime, not Cynthia as stated in the information.
3) The court found Senador guilty, ruling that for crimes against property, an error in identifying the offended party does not invalidate the charge as long as the criminal act is correctly identified. The subject jewelry was specifically identified through an agreement signed by Senador.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
SENADOR v PEOPLE Senador tendered to Rita a bank check worth P705,685, but was
dishonored as it was drawn against a closed account.
FACTS: An Information dated August 5th, 2002, stated that petitioner Senador refused to testify. She relied on the defense that the facts Ramoncita Senador was charged, before RTC Branch 32 of alleged in the Information and the facts proven in the trial differ. Dumaguete City, with estafa. The Information stated that she She asserted that the person named as the offended in the had received various kinds of jewelry valued in P705,685 from Information is not the same person who made the demand and one Cynthia Jaime for selling the same on consignment with the filed the complaint. The private complainant in the Information express obligation to account for and remit the entire proceeds was Cynthia Jaime whereas, during trial, the private complainant of the sale if sold or to return the same if unsold within an agreed turned out to be Rita Jaime. Senador wanted to be acquitted period of time. Senador failed to remit the proceeds of the sale because her constitutional rights to be informed has been of said items or return any of the items that were unsold, but violated. instead misappropriated, misapplied, and converted the same to his/her own benefit to the damage and prejudice of said Cynthia The trial court found Senador guilty and sentenced to suffer James in the amount of P705,685. imprisonment of 4 years and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to Petitioner pleaded not guilty. indemnify the private complainants.
The prosecution’s evidence stated that Rita Jaime and her Senador questioned the RTC decision. The CA upheld the daughter-in-law Cynthia Jaime had a jewelry business. Senador RTC’s decision in that the guilt of Senador was established went to see Rita at her house, wanting to see the jewelry that Rita beyond reasonable doubt. was selling. Cynthia then delivered to Senador the subject pieces of jewelry. ISSUE: Whether or not an error in the designation in the Information of The Trust Receipt Agreement by Cynthia and Senador stated the offended party violates the accused’s constitutional right to that the latter would undertake to sell the same and deliver the be informed, thus entitling her to an acquittal? NO. commission, remit the proceeds, or return the unsold items 15 days from the delivery. Senador failed to do so. Rita demanded RULING: Senador to return the unsold items, but the demand fell on deaf The complaint or information must state the name and surname ears. Rita then filed the instant criminal complaint against of the person against whom or against whose property the Senador. offense was committed, or any appellation or nickname. If there’s no other way to identify him, he must be described under a fictitious name. If the true name of the offended has been ascertained, the court In offenses against property, if the name of the offended is must cause such true name to be put in the complaint or unknown, the property itself must be described with such information and the record. particularity as to properly identify the offense charge. The materiality of the erroneous designation of the offended 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 and not identifiable, an error in the designation is fatal and would result in the acquittal of the accused. However, if the subject matter is specific and identifiable, like a warrant, then an error in the designation of the offended is immaterial.
In the present case, the subject matter is not money or any other generic property. Instead, the Information stated that it was various kinds of jewelry valued in P705,685. The charge was sufficiently fleshed out and proven by the Trust-Receipt Agreement signed by Sendor, which enumerates theses various kinds of jewelry in P705,685.
Senador relies on Uba, but is misplaced. In that case, the
appellant was charged with oral defamation, which is a crime against honor. The identity of the person against whom the defamatory words is a material element. Thus, an erroneous designation of the person injured is material. In the instant case, Senador was charged with estafa, a crime against property. This does not absolutely require as indispensable the proper designation of the name of the offended. What is absolutely necessary, rather, is the correct identification of the criminal act charged in the information. In crimes against property, an error in the designation of the offended, according to Rule 110, Sec. 12 of the Rules of Court, mandates the correction of the information and not its dismissal.
