Case Digest: Dico vs. CA, G.R. No. 141669, February 28, 2005
Rule 115: Rights of the Accused | Criminal Procedure
Right to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of the Accusation
Facts:
Jaime Dico was charged with three counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg. 22).
The prosecution presented Lily Canlas, Collection Manager of Equitable Card Network, Inc., as its sole witness. The defense presented two witnesses: Debbie Dy, Manager of Equitable Card Network, Inc., Cebu Branch, as a hostile witness, and the petitioner himself.
The evidence showed that the accused issued checks to Equitable Card Network, Inc., which bounced due to "Account Closed."
The complainant sent a letter to the accused demanding payment, but the accused refused to comply. The accused admitted issuing the checks but claimed there were conflicts and inconsistencies in his billings, so he didn't redeem them until the issues were resolved.
Issue:
WON the issue as to the identity of the check, though not raised as an error, should be considered in favor of the petitioner.
Held: YES. The issue as to the identity of the check, though not raised as an error, should be considered in favor of the petitioner.
In the information filed by Felipe C. Belciña, Prosecutor II, the check involved is described as Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) Check No. 364903 dated 12 May 1993 in the amount of P100,000 payable to Equitable Banking Corporation.
However, after going over the records of the case, the parties, including the courts, overlooked the fact that the check being identified in court was different from that described in the information. The prosecution marked as its Exhibit "B" FEBTC Check No. 369403 dated 12 May 1993 in the amount of P100,000 payable to Equitable Banking Corporation.
The variance in the identity of the check nullifies petitioner’s conviction. The identity of the check enters into the first element of the offense under Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 – that a person draws or issues a check on account or for value.
There being a discrepancy in the identity of the checks described in the information and that presented in court, petitioner’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the offense charged will be violated if his conviction is upheld.
When there was a variance involving the date as regards the check described in the information and that adduced in evidence:
As the FEBTC Check No. 369403 dated 12 May 1993 in the amount of P100,000.00 was the check adduced in evidence and used as payment for petitioner’s unpaid obligation to Equitable Card Network, Inc., petitioner cannot be held civilly liable therefor considering that this is not the check described in the information.
Comments
Post a Comment