7. Fernando Espino v People of the Philippines G. R. No.

188217 By Nica Facts: Accused was a senior sales executive whose duty, among others, is to deliver commissions to import coordinators. On October 2002, accused was charged with six counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) for allegedly rediscounting checks which were supposed to be paid to the coordinators. Witnesses, including the aunt of the accused, testified to the fact that the endorsements of the payee on the six checks were forged and that the check were rediscounted and encashed by the said aunt. The RTC convicted the accused of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a). Accused then filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the trial court committed a grave error of convicting him of estafa under paragraph 2(a), which was different from paragraph 1(b) under which he had been charged. He alleged that there was no evidence to support his conviction, and further, that his right to due process of law was thereby violated. Issue: W/N a conviction for estafa under a different paragraph from the one charged is legally permissible Held: The Information in the case may be interpreted as charging the accused with both estafa through abuse of confidence under paragraph 1(b), and for swindling by means of false pretense under 2(a); both of which were attendant in the allegations in the Information. As held in llagan v. Court ofAppeals, the court ruled that estafa can be committed with the attendance of both modes of commission. As such, he could be charged under either. It is a basic and fundamental principle of criminal law that one act can give rise to two offenses, especially when a single offense has multiple modes of commission. While the designation of the circumstances attending the conviction for estafa could have been more precise, there is no reason to review the findings when both the appellate and trial courts agree on the facts. Wherefore, petition is denied. July 3, 2013

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful