Sales v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jovita Sales issued two checks, Equitable Banking Corporation Check No. 13430152 for P2,000.00 and Check No. 13430153 for P6,000.00, both dated January 30, 1971, payable to cash, in favor of Renato Magdaluyo. Magdaluyo accommodated Sales by giving her P8,000.00 in cash. Subsequently, when Magdaluyo presented the checks for encashment, they were dishonored due to a "stop payment" order issued by Sales to her bank. Despite repeated demands, Sales failed to return the P8,000.00. Procedural History: An information was filed charging Sales with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. The City Court of Pasay found her guilty not of estafa, but of "Other deceits" under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing her to four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, a fine of P8,000.00, and to indemnify Magdaluyo in the same amount. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment in toto, as did its resolution denying Sales' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals, arguing that she was deprived of her right to be informed of the charge against her, that there was no estafa, and that she should have been acquitted. The core issue is whether she could be validly convicted under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code when charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d).
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner was deprived of her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her. Whether the act of causing a "stop payment" order on the checks constituted deceit under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the petitioner could be validly convicted under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code when charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d).
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of being informed of the charge: The Court held that the petitioner was not deprived of her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The information charged estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), which requires deceit and damage. The offense of "Other deceits" under Article 318 also requires deceit and damage. The Court reasoned that "Other deceits" is necessarily included in the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), making the conviction valid under Rule 120, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Court. This rule allows conviction of an offense proved if it is included in the charge, or of an offense charged which is included in that proved. Therefore, the petitioner was properly convicted of a crime that was necessarily included in the original charge. On whether the act constituted deceit under Article 318: The Court affirmed that the petitioner's act of issuing checks and then ordering a "stop payment" constituted deceit. The prosecution presented evidence showing that Sales issued the checks in exchange for P8,000.00 cash, and subsequently ordered payment stopped. This act, coupled with the failure to pay the amount despite demands, demonstrated deceit. The Court cited United States v. Lee Cheng Poe to support the principle that stopping payment on checks issued for value, with the intent to do so at the time of issuance, can constitute estafa. Although the specific element of insufficient funds for estafa under Article 315(2)(d) was not fully proven, the deceitful act itself was established, falling under Article 318. On the validity of conviction under Article 318: The Court reiterated that the conviction under Article 318 was valid due to the rule on variance between allegation and proof. The elements of deceit and damage, essential for estafa under Article 315(2)(d), were also present in the "Other deceits" under Article 318. The prosecution failed to prove all elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(d), specifically the lack of funds at the time of issuance. However, the deceitful act of stopping payment on the checks issued for cash was proven, which is sufficient for a conviction under Article 318. The Court emphasized that the factual findings of the lower courts, supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
An accused may be convicted of an offense proved if it is included in the charge, or of an offense charged which is included in that which is proved, pursuant to Rule 120, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Court, even if the offense proved is 'Other deceits' under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code and the charge was estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d).