G.R. No. 206310-11 - Dichaves vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Case Summary (G.R. No. 206310-11)

Factual background alleged in the information

The information accused petitioner of inducing a 15‑year‑old girl, Luzviminda SJ Elnar, by false pretenses and misrepresentations, to surrender certain stereo components and accessories, allegedly by claiming she was instructed by the minor’s father to test the stereo component in EDSA, Mandaluyong. The information alleges that the accused was not authorized by the parents to take the items and that she removed them to the prejudice of Rolando and Soledad Elnar to the amount of P17,450.00.

Trial and intermediate appellate proceedings

Petitioner was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Morong, Rizal, on March 12, 1991, and pleaded not guilty. After trial the RTC rendered a decision dated October 7, 1992, convicting petitioner of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and imposing a term of prisión correccional and an award of P17,000.00 as damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on August 13, 1993, but modified the penalty to four (4) months arresto mayor and a fine of P17,450.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Motions for reconsideration and for new trial filed in the Court of Appeals were denied, and petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Issues presented to the Supreme Court

The petition raised two principal grounds: (1) the RTC’s conviction is null and void for lack of jurisdiction because the information alleged an offense within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC); and (2) in the alternative, that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The jurisdictional question was treated as determinative by the Supreme Court.

Defect in the information: generic charging of "Estafa" without specification

The information employed only the generic label "Estafa" without identifying which specific provision of the Revised Penal Code was alleged to have been violated. The RTC treated the charge as estafa under Article 315 and assumed jurisdiction on that basis. The Supreme Court examined whether the allegations in the information in fact pleaded the elements of the particular form of estafa under Article 315 relied upon by the RTC.

Elements required under Article 315(1)(b) (estafa with abuse of confidence)

The Court reiterated the elements of estafa under subdivision No. 1, paragraph (b) of Article 315 as: (1) the offender received money, goods or other personal property in trust, on commission, for administration or under other obligation involving the duty to make delivery or to return the same; (2) there was misrepresentation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial of receipt; (3) such misappropriation or conversion or denial caused prejudice to another; and (4) there was a demand made by the offended party upon the offender.

The information failed to allege an essential element of Article 315(1)(b)

On close examination, the information did not allege that a demand was made by the offended party upon the accused — an essential element of estafa under Article 315(1)(b). Because of this omission, the information did not plead the elements of that particular form of estafa and thus did not properly charge an offense within the RTC’s jurisdiction as assumed by that court.

Proper characterization of the pleaded offense: Article 318 ("other deceits")

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and the Solicitor General that the factual allegations of the information, viewed in context and read as pleaded, actually fit within the blanket provision of paragraph 1(a) of Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code (other deceits). The penalty for such an offense, as reflected in the record at the time of filing, was imprisonment of not more than six months, placing it within the jurisdictional ambit addressed by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 32.

Jurisdiction under B.P. Blg. 129, Section 32

Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129 vested exclusive original jurisdiction in municipal‑level trial courts over criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding four years and two months (or fines not exceeding P4,000, inclusive of accessory penalties and civil liability arising from such offenses). Since the offense as pleaded (Article 318) carried a penalty within those bounds, the Municipal Trial Court (not the RTC) had exclusive original jurisdiction over the case.

Estoppel and the Office of the Solicitor General’s contention

The Solicitor General argued that petitioner was estopped from challenging jurisdiction because estoppel previously attached in similar circumstances (citing Tijam v. Sibanghanoy). The Supreme Court rejected that contention. It explained that the Tijam doctrine is an exception applicable where the party complaining had previously invoked the forum’s jurisdiction to obtain affirmative relief and later sought to repudiate that jurisdiction. Here, petitioner never invoked the RTC’s ju

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 206310-11)

Title, Citation and Forum

Case reported at 378 Phil. 670, First Division, G.R. No. 117363, December 17, 1999.
Decision penned by Justice Kapunan.
Petitioner: Mila G. Pangilinan.
Respondents: Hon. Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines.

Central Legal Question

Whether the conviction of the accused-appellant by the Regional Trial Court under an information falling within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court is valid.

Facts as Alleged in the Information

Date of alleged offense: on or about 15 June 1984.
Place: Municipality of Tanay, Rizal, Philippines.
Accused: Mrs. Mila Pangilinan.
Manner of commission (as alleged): By means of false pretenses and misrepresentations, the accused introduced and misrepresented that she was instructed by Mr. Rodolfo Elnar, father of Miss Luzviminda SJ Elnar (a girl 15 years of age), to get one (1) stereo component marked Fisher PH 430K valued at approximately P17,000.00, one (1) headphone, one (1) electrical jack and two (2) record tapes worth P450.00, total amount P17,450.00, from their house; falsely alleging said father further instructed her that the stereo component be tested in a turntable somewhere in EDSA, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila; taking advantage of the inexperience and feelings of the minor Luzviminda SJ Elnar, she induced the minor to give her the stereo component and electrical parts belonging to spouses Rolando Elnar and Soledad SJ Elnar; in truth and in fact the accused was not authorized by Mr. Rolando Elnar to have said stereo component tested; once in possession she took the articles away to the damage and prejudice of Mr. and Mrs. Rolando Elnar in the amount of P17,450.00.
Legal characterization in the information: generic term “Estafa.” The information did not cite the specific article of the Revised Penal Code allegedly violated.

Procedural History

12 March 1991: Appellant was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Morong, Rizal; she entered a plea of “not guilty.”
7 October 1992: RTC rendered a Decision convicting appellant of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced her to imprisonment (specified in the RTC decision) and ordered payment of P17,000.00 to complainant Soledad Elnar for the unrecovered stereo component.
13 August 1993: Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence, stating: “[t]here being no proof of mitigating and or aggravating circumstances which attended the commission of the offense, the appellant should suffer the penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor and a fine of P17,450.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.”
11 November 1993: Motion for Reconsideration denied by the Court of Appeals.
3 December 1993: Appellant filed a Petition for New Trial in the Court of Appeals.
10 January 1994: Petition for New Trial denied by the Court of Appeals.
Subsequent remedy: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 filed in the Supreme Court raising jurisdictional and sufficiency-of-evidence grounds.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Primary issue: Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to try and convict the petitioner when the offense as alleged in the information fell within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
Alternative issue: If the RTC had jurisdiction, whether the guilt of the petitioner was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Trial Court’s Characterization and Judgment

The RTC presumed the petitioner was charged with the form of estafa falling under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (specifically estafa with abuse of confidence under subdivision No. 1, par. (b) of Art. 315).
RTC verdict (excerpt): “WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused MILA PANGILINAN, GUILTY of the Crime of Estafa, in violation of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and hereby sentences her to suffer imprisonment of One (1) year, Eight (8) months and Twenty (20) days of Prision Correccional , as minimum to Five (5) years, Five (5) months and Eleven (11) days of Prision Correccional as maximum, plus costs. Further to pay the complainant Soledad Elnar the amount of P17,000.00 the value of the unrecovered one stereo component. SO ORDERED.”

Elements of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) (as Stated by the Court)

The Court set out the elements required to find estafa with abuse of confidence under subdivision No. 1, par. (b) of Art. 315:
- 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;
- That there be misrepresentation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt;
- That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
- That there is a demand made by the offended party to the offender.

Court’s Examination of the Information Against Article 315 Elements

The Supreme Court observed that the information did not allege all the elements requir