G.R. No. L-47817 August 29, 1988
JOVITA SALES, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jovita Sales issued two checks payable to “cash,” with a total value of P8,000.00, to Renato Magdaluyo. Upon presentment, the checks were dishonored because Sales had issued a “stop payment” order to her bank. Consequently, an Information was filed charging her with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, alleging she issued the checks in exchange for cash, which were later dishonored, causing damage to Magdaluyo. At trial, the prosecution established that Sales received P8,000.00 from Magdaluyo for the checks and later stopped their payment without fulfilling her subsequent promise to pay the amount in cash.
The Pasay City Court, however, convicted Sales not of Estafa under Article 315(2)(d), but of the crime of “Other Deceits” under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed this conviction. Sales appealed to the Supreme Court, contending her constitutional right to be informed of the charge against her was violated, as she was convicted of a crime different from that alleged in the Information.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner was validly convicted of the crime of “Other Deceits” under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code despite being charged in the Information with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d).

RULING

Yes, the conviction was valid. The Supreme Court held there was no violation of the petitioner’s right to be informed of the accusation. The Information sufficiently alleged the essential facts constituting deceit and damage: that she issued checks, received value for them, subsequently stopped their payment, and failed to pay despite demand, causing prejudice to Magdaluyo. While the specific statutory provision cited was Article 315(2)(d), the facts alleged and proven encompassed the elements of “Other Deceits” under Article 318, which also requires proof of deceit and damage.
The legal logic rests on the application of the rule on variance between allegation and proof under the Revised Rules of Court. A conviction for an offense proved, which is included in the offense charged, is permissible. Here, the prosecution proved deceit and damage but failed to establish an essential element of Article 315(2)(d)—that the drawer had no or insufficient funds at the time of issuance. The proven facts, however, fully satisfied the elements of Article 318. The act of issuing checks and then stopping payment with intent to defraud constitutes the deceit contemplated by law. The Court found the factual findings of the lower courts, supported by substantial evidence, to be conclusive. Therefore, the conviction under Article 318 was a proper correction under the variance rule, not a violation of due process. The petition was dismissed and the appellate court’s decision affirmed.