Case Digest (G.R. No. 45964)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Restituto Faller (alias R. Aguilar), G.R. No. 45964, April 25, 1939, the Supreme Court, Avanceña, C.J., writing for the Court.
The People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee) prosecuted Restituto Faller (defendant-appellant) for "damage caused to another's property maliciously and willfully" — in other words, malicious mischief. The information alleged that the accused acted "willfully, maliciously, unlawfully and criminally."
The case was tried before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. After hearing evidence, that court found that the damage was not caused maliciously and willfully but resulted from reckless imprudence. The trial court convicted Faller as principal under paragraph 3 of article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (as stated in the judgment), and sentenced him to pay a fine of P38 and to indemnify Ramon Diokno P38, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The judgment reflects the trial court's view that the culpable mental state was negligence (reckless imprudence), not malice.
Faller appealed to the Supreme Court. His sole assignment of error was that he had been convicted of a crime different from the one charged — that is, convicted for an offense grounded on reckless imprudence though charged with malicious and willful damage — and that such variance was prejudicial. No objection to the information's phrasing was recorded at trial.
The Supreme Court resolved the appeal and issue...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the appellant improperly convicted of an offense different from that charged, in violation of his right to be informed of the accusation against him?
- If there was a variance between the charge (malicious and willful damage) and the conviction (damage by reckless imprudence), may conviction for reckless imprudence stand where the information alleg...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)