[ G.R. No. 143459. July 26, 2000]

MERCEDES LIBUNAO vs. CA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 26, 2000.

G.R. No. 143459 (Mercedes Libunao vs. The Court of Appeals, Special Former Third Division.)

Petitioners assails the decision of the Court of Appeals modifying the decision of the trial court declaring thusly:

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the lower court is hereby MODIFIED. The accused Libunao is hereby CONVICTED of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (d), and the penalty of Two (2) Years, Eleven (11) Months and Ten (10) Days of imprisonment of prision correccional as minimum to Six (6) Years, eight (8) Months and twenty (20) Days of imprisonment of prison mayor as maximum is hereby imposed. The rest of the judgement of the Court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

(p. 13, Rollo.)

Petitioner, together with a certain Conception Abastilla, was charged with Estafa as defined in Article 315, paragraph 2 of the revised Penal code in an information stating:

That in or about the month of august 1991, at Cruz, Municipality of la Trinidad, Province of Benguet, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, did then and there knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with after thought deceit by false pretense or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously (sic) with the commission of fraud by falsely pretending to possess or own a parcel of land which representation they knew was false and was only made to induce the complainants, LOURDES LOQUIS and ASUNTA PANICO, to purchase the said parcel of land and deliver the amount of FIFTY ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P51,000.00), Philippine Currency, and once in possession of said sum of money, misappropriated, misapplied and converted the amount to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the above-mentioned complainants in the aforementioned amount.

Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty. However, only petitioner faced trial as Abastilla was released to be a state witness.

On September 10, 1996, the trial court rendered a decision convicting petitioner. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decisions of the trial court, discharged petitioner from her conviction under Paragraph 2 of Article 315 of the Revised Penal code, but held her liable under Paragraph 1(b) of the same Article. Article 315,paragraph 1(b) has the following elements:

1. that money, goods, or other personal property be received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same;

2. That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt;

3. That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and

4. That there is a demand made by the offender party to the offender.

Petitioner filed the instant petition claiming denial of her constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her. The rationale for the constitutional guarantee of the right to be informed is: first, to furnished the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense; second, to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal, for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause; and third, 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 (People vs. Manalili, 294 SCRA 220).

Pertinently, the information in the case at bar states:

"x x x and once in possession of said sum of money, misappropriated, misapplied and converted the amount to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the above-mentioned complainants in the aforementioned amount."

It is hornbook doctrine that what determines the real nature and cause of the accusation against an accused is the actual recital of facts stated in the information or complaint not the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law (People vs. Manalili, 294 SCRA 220). Hence, petitioner can not claim that she was not informed of the nature and cause of action against her.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com