Title
Ricarze vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 160451
Decision Date
Feb 9, 2007
A collector-messenger forged checks, deposited them into a fraudulent account; PCIB, after reimbursing Caltex, was subrogated as complainant without prejudicing the accused's defense.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 160451)

Criminal Proceedings and Informations

Caltex filed an estafa through falsification complaint on November 6, 1997. After preliminary investigation, the Makati City Prosecutor indicted Ricarze on June 29, 1998 under two separate Informations (Criminal Case Nos. 98-1611 and 98-1612), charging falsification of commercial documents with intent to defraud and to gain, to the damage and prejudice of Caltex in amounts of P1,790,757.50 and P5,790,570.25 respectively. Ricarze pleaded not guilty on August 18, 1998, and pre-trial and trial followed.

Motion for Substitution of Offended Party

During trial, PCIBank—having re-credited P581,229.00 to Caltex—moved to substitute itself as private complainant, claiming subrogation to Caltex’s rights. Ricarze opposed, arguing that after arraignment and prosecution’s presentation of evidence, substitution would constitute a prohibited substantial amendment under Section 14, Rule 110, and prejudice his defense.

RTC’s Orders on Substitution and Reconsideration

On July 18, 2001, the RTC granted PCIBank’s motion to substitute and refused to expunge SRMO’s formal offer of evidence. Ricarze’s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 14, 2001.

CA Proceedings and Decision

Ricarze petitioned the CA for certiorari to annul the RTC’s orders. On November 5, 2002, the CA dismissed the petition, holding that PCIBank had been subrogated to Caltex’s rights upon re-credit, substitution was a mere formal amendment not prejudicial to Ricarze, and in property offenses misnaming the offended party is a formal defect under People v. Ho and People v. Reyes. A October 17, 2003 CA resolution denied reconsideration.

Issues on Substantial Amendment and Prejudice

Ricarze contended that substitution of Caltex by PCIBank after arraignment and presentation of evidence was a substantial amendment barred by Section 14, Rule 110, and that the original Informations falsely alleged prejudice to Caltex when PCIBank was already prejudiced by March 1998. He argued this defect voided the Informations and warranted dismissal.

Legal Subrogation of PCIBank’s Rights

The Court distinguished legal subrogation (by operation of law) from conventional subrogation (by agreement). Under Civil Code Article 1302, PCIBank’s re-credit to Caltex legally subrogated it to Caltex’s rights without debtor’s knowledge or consent. The Supreme Court held Ricarze’s acquiescence was unnecessary for legal subrogation.

Formal Defect in Naming the Offended Party

Under Rule 110, Section 6 and Section 12, mere misdesignation of the offended party in offenses against property is a formal defect curable by amendment if

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.