Case Digest (G.R. No. 188217)
Facts:
Fernando M. Espino v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188217, March 17, 2014, Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Fernando M. Espino (the accused) was a senior sales executive for Kuehne and Nagel, Inc. (KN Inc.) tasked with liaising with import coordinators and delivering commissions. The Fiscal’s Office of Parañaque filed six informations on 14 October 2002 charging him with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly rediscounting checks that were payable to the company’s import coordinators.
At trial the prosecution produced evidence that endorsements on six checks were forged and that the checks were rediscounted through the accused’s aunt‑in‑law; the aunt‑in‑law later admitted to her role in the rediscounting and encashment. The accused testified that the charges arose from his employer’s displeasure after losing an account, that he was pressured into resigning and into signing a paper, and that he had earlier filed an illegal dismissal case in which he denied forging a payee’s signature on the checks.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 194, Parañaque City, convicted Espino of estafa but under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) (estafa by false pretenses/fraudulent acts). The accused moved for reconsideration, arguing that conviction under paragraph 2(a) violated his right to due process because he had been charged under paragraph 1(b) and that the information failed to allege the elements of paragraph 2(a). The RTC denied the motion.
Espino appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CR. No. 31106; the CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction in a Decision dated 24 February 2009 and denied his motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated 25 May 2009. He then filed this Petition for Review under Ru...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner denied due process by being convicted under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) when he was charged under Article 315, paragraph 1(b)?
- Do the factual allegations in the informations support a conviction for estafa under paragraph 2(a), paragra...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)