Esguerra vs. People (G.R. No.

L-14318, July 26, 1960)

● Doctrine
The accused can only be convicted of an offense if the same was both charged and proven as per Sec. 4,
Rule 116 of ROC.

● Facts
The petitioner, Esguerra entered into an agreement with the Yu Yek Huy & Co. business firm with the
obligation to deliver to the company the equivalent worth of corpas on the agreed period on or before
January 31, 1952; or on before 15 days from March 11, 1952 after receiving the amount of PHP 4,400 to
be exclusively used for the delivery of the copras. The petitioner defaulted with the obligation and
misappropriated the money for his own personal use and benefit. The petitioner was convicted with estafa
but later on appealed to the appropriate judgment of the conviction.

● Issue/s
W/n the petitioner is guilty of estafa
W/n the petitioner can be convicted with an offense with different elements of the initial offense.

● Ruling
No, the petitioner is not guilty of estafa nor can be convicted with an offense with different elements of
the initial offense. According to the Supreme Court, improper conviction of an offense that was not
adequately alleged in the information and contrary to the assurance of prosecution deprived the accused
of information with his conviction. Moreover, it also states that an accused can only be convicted of an
offense if he was both charged and proven. In this case, Esguerra was wrongfully convicted due to the
deprivation of lack of information and that the very offense committed was not charged against him.