G.R. No. 255308 , February 12, 2024
MA. ANACLETA RACHELLE PAGUIRIGAN Y CUETO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

In 2008, petitioner Ma. Anacleta Paguirigan introduced herself to Elizabeth Delos Triños as the general manager of AJ Construction and Development Company. They executed a contract to sell for a lot in Quezon City, which stated Anacleta was representing the owner, Alfredo Rosanna. Elizabeth paid PHP 100,000.00. The sale failed as Alfredo sold the property to another. In 2009, they executed another contract to sell for a different lot. Elizabeth paid PHP 780,000.00, but the sale also failed due to a denied loan. Elizabeth demanded a refund of PHP 880,000.00. Anacleta issued checks that bounced. Elizabeth filed two Informations for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The Informations alleged Anacleta defrauded Elizabeth by false manifestations that she was a licensed developer and owner/general manager of AJ Construction to induce the sale of a house and lot, and once in possession of the money, misappropriated it. Anacleta pleaded not guilty, claiming she was the owner of AJ Construction and that Elizabeth knew she was merely representing property owners. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Anacleta in the first case (Criminal Case No. 16-03867), finding she falsely pretended to own the first property, but acquitted her in the second case (Criminal Case No. 16-03868) for lack of evidence of false ownership claims. The RTC, however, held her civilly liable to return PHP 780,000.00 in total. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling she falsely represented she had the power to transfer ownership. Anacleta appealed, arguing her conviction was based on facts not alleged in the Information, which alleged misrepresentation as a developer, not as the property owner.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner’s conviction for estafa is valid despite a variance between the allegations in the Information and the evidence presented and the trial court’s factual findings.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and acquitted the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her was violated. The Information specifically alleged deceit based on false representations that she was a “licensed developer and engaged in real estate business and owner/general manager of AJ Const. & Dev’t Co.” However, the RTC convicted her based on a different deceit: falsely pretending to be the owner of the specific property subject of the sale. This constitutes a fatal variance between the allegation and the proof. The deceit proven was not the deceit charged. The elements of estafa by deceit require that the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means be alleged with particularity and proven as laid. Since the false representation of ownership was not alleged in the Information, the petitioner could not be validly convicted for it. The rule is strict: an accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearly and explicitly charged. Any doubt in the allegations is construed in favor of the accused. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime as charged. The Court ordered her acquittal. However, the civil liability for the return of the PHP 100,000.00, as ordered by the RTC, was upheld, as this obligation arises from a separate source of obligation.