A.M. SDC-97-2-P - Alawi vs. Alauya

Petitioner Eduardo G. Ricarze was employed by City Service Corporation as a collector-messenger assigned to Caltex Philippines, Inc. (Caltex) in Makati.
His duties included collecting Caltex checks and delivering invoices to customers.

On October 15 and September 24, 1997, forged Caltex checks No. 74001 (₱5,790,570.25) and No. 72922 (₱1,790,757.25), payable to Dante R. Gutierrez, were cleared through Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank (PCIB).
Caltex’s Banking Manager discovered the forgeries during a daily electronic report and traced deposits of both checks into a Banco de Oro (BDO) savings account opened in Gutierrez’s name but actually opened, endorsed, and managed by petitioner.
Gutierrez disowned the signatures and account; a BDO teller positively identified petitioner as the person who opened the account.
PCIB later re-credited Caltex with ₱581,229.00 on March 29, 1998, without informing the Makati City Prosecutor immediately.

On June 29, 1998, two Informations for estafa through falsification of commercial documents were filed in RTC Makati City (Crim. Cases 98-1611 and 98-1612), charging petitioner with forging signatures of Caltex signatories and payee Gutierrez, depositing the checks, and appropriating proceeds, “to the damage and prejudice of Caltex.”
Petitioner pleaded not guilty on August 18, 1998; pre-trial and joint trial ensued. The private prosecutor (SRMO Law Offices) filed a Formal Offer of Evidence on behalf of PCIB.
Petitioner moved to strike SRMO’s appearance and evidence, arguing that Caltex (not PCIB) was the offended party named in the Informations and that substitution of private complainant after arraignment was a prohibited substantial amendment.

RTC Branch 63 granted PCIB’s substitution as private complainant by order of July 18, 2001, but denied expungement of SRMO’s evidence; motion for reconsideration denied November 14, 2001.
Petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition with CA; on November 5, 2002 the CA denied the petition, ruling that PCIB’s re-credit constituted legal subrogation to Caltex’s rights and that naming the offended party is a mere formal defect in property offenses (citing People v. Ho and People v. Reyes).
CA denied reconsideration on October 17, 2003.

Petitioner sought review before the SC, alleging grave abuse of discretion in allowing late substitution, lack of valid subrogation, false allegations in the Informations regarding the offended party, and procedural defects under Rule 110 and the omnibus motion rule.

Whether substituting PCIB as private complainant after petitioner’s arraignment and after the prosecution rested amounts to a prohibited substantial amendment under Rule 110, Section 14.
Whether PCIB was validly subrogated to Caltex’s rights and therefore entitled to prosecute civil liability in the criminal action.
Whether the Informations were defective or void for naming Caltex instead of PCIB as the offended party, thus failing to allege an essential element of estafa (“to the prejudice of another”).
Whether a late entry of appearance by SRMO as private prosecutor prejudiced petitioner’s right to a fair trial.