G.R. No. L-38544 July 30, 1982
LUZ E. BALITAAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS, BRANCH II, and RITA DE LOS REYES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Luz E. Balitaan filed an estafa case against respondent Rita de los Reyes, her employee, for misappropriating P127.58. The Information alleged that de los Reyes, under an obligation to account for and deliver the said amount collected from Uniware, Inc., converted it to her own use. During the preliminary investigation in the Municipal Court, Balitaan testified that the P127.58 was part of a larger payment of P1,632.97 received by de los Reyes via checks. She further stated that de los Reyes falsely represented that the P127.58 belonged to a certain Cesar Dalangin. Counsel for de los Reyes moved to strike this testimony, arguing it was at variance with the Information, which only mentioned the specific sum of P127.58 and not the larger amount or the false representation. The Municipal Judge overruled the objection.
The respondent then filed a certiorari petition with the Court of First Instance (CFI), challenging the Municipal Court’s orders. The CFI annulled the orders and directed the testimonies regarding the checks and the false representation to be stricken from the record. It held that these testimonies varied from the allegations in the Information, which solely charged misappropriation of a specific sum received.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance erred in ruling that the petitioner’s testimonies regarding the larger sum and the false representation were at variance with the allegations in the Information for estafa.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the CFI decision. The legal logic is twofold. First, on procedural grounds, variance between allegation and proof is not fatal if the evidence presented does not alter the nature of the offense charged or prejudice the accused’s substantial rights. The testimony about the larger sum from which the P127.58 was part did not change the core accusation of misappropriation; it merely provided the context of how the specific sum was received and isolated. Second, on substantive grounds, the false representation testified to did not change the theory of the case from estafa through abuse of confidence to estafa through deceit. The Information clearly alleged estafa with unfaithfulness and grave abuse of confidence. The element of deceit can coexist with abuse of confidence, as the false representation was the means by which the misappropriation was concealed, constituting a continuing deception incidental to the primary breach of trust. The Municipal Court correctly admitted the evidence as it was germane to proving the mechanics of the alleged misappropriation. The CFI therefore erred in granting the writ of certiorari, as the Municipal Court acted within its jurisdiction in overruling the objection to the testimony.