G.R. No. L-14313; July 26, 1960
DIONISIO ESGUERRA, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Dionisio Esguerra was charged with estafa under an Information that ambiguously cited Article 315, paragraph 3(b) of the Revised Penal Code (which pertains to estafa in a gambling game). The Information alleged that from January 12 to March 26, 1952, in Atimonan, Quezon, Esguerra, upon representations that he had copra ready for delivery, received P4,400 from Yu Yek Huy & Co. under an express obligation to deliver the equivalent copra or return the money, but he instead misappropriated and converted the amount to his personal use, causing damage to the company. Due to the ambiguity—the allegations suggested possible offenses under either paragraph 2(a) (false pretenses) or paragraph 1(b) (misappropriation)—Esguerra filed a motion to quash. At the hearing, the fiscal and private prosecutor assured the court and the accused that there was a clerical error and that Esguerra was being prosecuted specifically under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) (misappropriation with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence). The trial court admitted this correction, and Esguerra proceeded to trial under that understanding. The trial court convicted him under paragraph 1(b). On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the conviction, finding him guilty instead under Article 315, paragraph 3(2)(a) (estafa through false pretenses of possessing property or business), based on evidence that he falsely pretended to have copra ready for delivery. Esguerra appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether, after the denial of a motion to quash based on the information’s vagueness and upon assurance by the prosecution and acceptance by the court that the accused was being tried for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) (misappropriation), the accused could be convicted on appeal of an entirely different offense under Article 315, paragraph 3(2)(a) (false pretenses), which was not adequately alleged in the information.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted Dionisio Esguerra. The Court held that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense not charged in the information. Here, the information lacked allegations of misrepresentation, bad faith, or false pretense, which are essential elements of the crime under paragraph 3(2)(a). The prosecution had assured the accused and the court that the charge was under paragraph 1(b), and the trial proceeded on that basis. Variance between the allegation and proof cannot justify conviction for an offense not charged unless it is included in the offense charged, which was not the case here. Additionally, on the merits, the Court found that the transaction, as evidenced by a receipt (Exhibit A) for an “advance payment” of copra for future delivery and the finding that Esguerra was a regular supplier, indicated a civil obligation of sale, not a criminal one. Thus, any liability arising from the failure to deliver would be civil, not criminal. The accused was acquitted, with costs de oficio, and his bail bond was ordered cancelled.