G.R. No. L-51745 October 28, 1988
RAMON F. SAYSON, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ramon F. Sayson was charged with Estafa through Falsification of a Commercial Document. The information alleged that on March 22, 1972, with intent to defraud Ernesto Rufino, Sr. and/or Bank of America, he falsified a blank US dollar check by filling it out to make it appear as a genuine Bank of America draft for $2,250.00 payable to “Atty. Norberto S. Perez,” forging the bank officer’s signature. Posing as Perez, he then presented this check to Ernesto Rufino, Sr., who, through his companies, exchanged it for a Manufacturer’s Bank check for P14,850.00 payable to “Norberto Perez.” Sayson endorsed and deposited this peso check at Banco Filipino. However, the bank manager grew suspicious, and upon verification, Mever Films, Inc. (the drawer of the peso check) discovered the dollar draft was spurious and stopped payment.
The trial court, after denying a postponement motion from the defense and proceeding without the petitioner’s evidence, found him guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The petitioner appealed, arguing a fatal variance between the allegation and proof regarding the offended party.

ISSUE

Whether the variance between the offended party named in the information (Ernesto Rufino, Sr./Bank of America) and the party proven to have suffered damage (Mever Films, Inc.) is fatal to the conviction for estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the rules governing allegations in criminal informations for crimes against property. Under the Rules of Court, while the name of the offended party should be stated, it is not absolutely indispensable in offenses against property. What is essential is that the criminal act and the property subject of the offense are described with sufficient particularity to properly identify the crime charged. The rule provides that if the name is unknown, a description of the property suffices, and if the true name is later ascertained, it may be inserted in the record.
Applying this, the Court found the information sufficiently identified the offense. The falsified dollar check (Bank of America Check No. 605908142) and the fraudulent transaction were described in detail. The fact that the evidence established Mever Films, Inc., not the originally named parties, as the entity that actually suffered the loss (by issuing the peso check in exchange for the worthless draft) is a mere formal variance. This does not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused to be informed of the charge against him, as the core criminal act of estafa through falsification involving the specific check was clearly laid out. The misdesignation of the offended party is immaterial when the subject property is described with particularity, following the precedent in U.S. v. Kepner. Therefore, the conviction stands.