GR 367; (March, 1902) (Digest)
G.R. No. 376 : March 26, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
The defendant, Francisco Enriquez, was charged with the crime of embezzlement (estafa) under an amended complaint filed on November 13, 1900. The complaint alleged that on November 20, 1897, in Manila, Enriquez appropriated the sum of $4,243, which he had received in the capacity of an agent, to the prejudice of his brothers, Don Rafael and Don Antonio Enriquez. The defendant demurred to the complaint, but the demurrer was overruled. After trial, he was convicted of appropriating $4,243 received by him as agent of his father, consisting of $1,000 on September 13, 1883, and the balance on December 24, 1883. This money was part of the purchase price from the sale of a house on Calle Fundicion, Intramuros.
ISSUE:
Whether the amended complaint is sufficient to inform the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, thereby enabling him to prepare his defense.
RULING:
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the amended complaint was insufficient. The complaint failed to adequately notify the defendant of the specific transaction upon which the charge was based. While the date (November 20, 1897) and the amount ($4,243) were stated, these details alone were insufficient to identify the particular act of embezzlement. The date was not a material ingredient of the crime of estafa and did not point to a specific transaction, especially since the defendant performed many acts on that day. The amount, by itself, was not descriptive of the offense, and the complaint did not specify from whom the money was received as agent. Consequently, the complaint did not restrict the prosecution to proof of a defined transaction, leaving the defendant without proper notice of what he had to defend against.
The judgment of conviction was reversed. The case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to direct the filing of a new complaint or information against the defendant. The Court also noted, for purposes of a new trial, the importance of proving the authenticity of certain documents (a letter and a receipt) and the testimony of a witness named Cajigas.