G.R. No. L-13814; January 28, 1961
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FEDERICO DESPAVELLADOR Y DULOT, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Federico Despavellador, was charged with damage to property through reckless negligence for sideswiping a passenger jeepney on Azcarraga Street, Manila, causing it to hit a Meralco post. The information specifically alleged damage to the jeepney, owned by Librada Manalo, in the amount of P200.00. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Manila found him guilty, factoring in contributory negligence from the jeepney driver, and sentenced him to pay a fine and indemnities, including P85.00 to a passenger, Flaviana Enriquez, for her destroyed fish cargo.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals remanded the case for further proceedings to ascertain the exact amount of damage to the jeepney and the extent of contributory negligence. Upon remand, the prosecution failed to present additional evidence. The trial court then rendered a new decision, convicting Despavellador of damage to property through reckless imprudence specifically in the amount of P85.00, representing the value of the fish belonging to passenger Flaviana Enriquez, and ordered him to indemnify her accordingly.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court’s second decision, which convicted the appellant for damage to the cargo of a passenger rather than the jeepney as alleged in the information, violates due process.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the second decision suffered from a fatal infirmity as it convicted the appellant of a crime not charged in the information. The information explicitly alleged damage to the jeepney of Librada Manalo. The decision, however, found him guilty of damage to the wares of Flaviana Enriquez, a passenger. This constitutes a violation of the appellant’s right to due process, as he was not legally informed of the offense for which he was ultimately convicted. An accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged or necessarily included in the allegations of the information.
The Court clarified that the prosecution’s failure to conclusively prove the specific value of the damage to the jeepney does not preclude punishment. Applying Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, which mandates that a fine shall be no less than twenty-five pesos when damage to property results, the Court deemed the value of the damage to be at least P25.00. Consequently, the decision was modified. Appellant is convicted of damage to the jeepney of Librada Manalo in the amount of P25.00 and sentenced to pay a corresponding fine and indemnity.