Section 14 - Ricarze vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No.
160451 February 9, 2007
EDUARDO G. RICARZE, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CALTEX PHILIPPINES,
INC., PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK (PCIBANK)
Facts:
Petitioner Eduardo G. Ricarze was employed as a collector-messenger by City Service

Corporation, a domestic corporation engaged in messengerial services. He was assigned to the
main office of Caltex Philippines, Inc. (Caltex) in Makati City. His primary task was to collect
checks payable to Caltex and deliver them to the cashier. He also delivered invoices to Caltex’s
customers.
On November 6, 1997, Caltex, through its Banking and Insurance Department Manager
Ramon Romano, filed a criminal complaint against petitioner before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Makati City for estafa through falsification of commercial documents. Romano
alleged that while his department was conducting a daily electronic report from Philippine
Commercial & Industrial Bank (PCIB) Dela Rosa, Makati Branch, one of its depositary banks, it
was discovered that unknown to the department, a company check, dated October 13, 1997 in the
amount of ₱5,790,570.25 payable to Dante R. Gutierrez, had been cleared through PCIB on
October 15, 1997. An investigation also revealed that two other checks were also missing and
that in one of the checks, his signature and that of another signatory, Victor S. Goquinco, were
forgeries. In another check payable to Dante Gutierrez in the amount of ₱1,790,757.25, was also
cleared by the same bank and this check was likewise not issued by Caltex, and the signatures
appearing thereon had also been forged.
Gutierrez, however, disowned the savings account as well as his signatures on the dorsal
portions thereof. He also denied having withdrawn any amount from said savings account.
Further investigation revealed that said savings account had actually been opened by petitioner;
the forged checks were deposited and endorsed by him under Gutierrez’s name. A bank teller
from the Banco de Oro, Winnie P. Donable Dela Cruz, positively identified petitioner as the
person who opened the savings account using Gutierrez’s name.
The PCIB credited the amount of ₱581,229.00 to Caltex on March 29, 1998. However,
the City Prosecutor of Makati City was not informed of this development. After the requisite
preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor filed two (2) Informations for estafa through
falsification of commercial documents on June 29, 1998 against petitioner before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 63.
Petitioner further averred that unless the Informations were amended to change the
private complainant to PCIB, his right as accused would be prejudiced. He pointed out, however,
that the Informations can no longer be amended because he had already been arraigned under the
original Informations. He insisted that the amendments of the Informations to substitute PCIB as
the offended party for Caltex would place him in double jeopardy. In his Rejoinder, he averred
that the substitution of PCIB as private complainant cannot be made by mere oral motion; the
Information must be amended to allege that the private complainant was PCIB and not Caltex
after the preliminary investigation of the appropriate complaint of PCIB before the Makati City
Prosecutor.
Issue: Whether or not the substitution of Caltex by PCIB as Private complainant at such a late
stage of trial is prejudicial to his defense.
Ruling: No. The substitution of Caltex by PCIB as private complaint is not a substantial
amendment. The substitution did not alter the basis of the charge in both Informations, nor did it
result in any prejudice to petitioner. The documentary evidence in the form of the forged checks
remained the same, and all such evidence was available to petitioner well before the trial. Thus,
he cannot claim any surprise by virtue of the substitution. The element of "to the prejudice of
another" being as essential element of the felony should be clearly indicated and charged in the
information with truth and legal precision.
A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged
and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form. The
following have been held to be mere formal amendments: (1) new allegations which relate only
to the range of the penalty that the court might impose in the event of conviction; (2) an
amendment which does not charge another offense different or distinct from that charged in the
original one; (3) additional allegations which do not alter the prosecution’s theory of the case so
as to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume; (4) an
amendment which does not adversely affect any substantial right of the accused; and (5) an
amendment that merely adds specifications to eliminate vagueness in the information and not to
introduce new and material facts, and merely states with additional precision something which is
already contained in the original information and which adds nothing essential for conviction for
the crime charged.
Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states: A complaint
or information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time
before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may
only be made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights
of the accused. However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the
offense charged in or excludes any accused from the complaint or information, can be made only
upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court. The
court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all
parties, especially the offended party.
Thus, before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial amendment of the
complaint or information may be made without leave of court. After the entry of a plea, only a
formal amendment may be made but with leave of court and if it does not prejudice the rights of
the accused. After arraignment, a substantial amendment is proscribed except if the same is
beneficial to the accused.

Section 14 - Ricarze vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 14 - Ricarze vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 14 - Ricarze vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

160451 February 9, 2007

Petitioner Eduardo G. Ricarze was employed as a collector-messenger by City Service

You might also like