MA. ANACLETA RACHELLE PAGUIRIGAN Y CUETO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 255308
- Promulgated: 2024-02-12
- Ponente: LOPEZ, M., J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Ma. Anacleta Paguirigan (Anacleta) was charged with two counts of estafa through false pretenses or fraudulent acts under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), of the Revised Penal Code. This stemmed from two transactions with Elizabeth Delos Triños (Elizabeth) concerning the sale of lots. In 2008, Anacleta, representing herself as the general manager of AJ Construction and Development Company, executed a contract to sell a lot to Elizabeth, acting as the representative of the property owner, Alfredo A. Rosanna. Elizabeth made an initial payment of PHP 100,000.00, but the transaction did not materialize as Alfredo sold the property to another person. In 2009, they executed another contract to sell for a different lot, for which Elizabeth paid PHP 780,000.00. This second transaction also failed because Elizabeth's housing loan application was denied. Elizabeth demanded a refund of the total PHP 880,000.00, and Anacleta issued checks, which subsequently bounced. Elizabeth then filed criminal charges. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Anacleta for the first count (Criminal Case No. 16-03867) for falsely pretending to own the property, causing Elizabeth damage of PHP 100,000.00. However, the RTC acquitted her on the second count (Criminal Case No. 16-03868) for lack of evidence of false ownership claim but held her civilly liable for PHP 780,000.00. Anacleta appealed, arguing that her conviction was based on facts not alleged in the Information, which stated she misrepresented herself as a licensed real estate developer, not as the property owner. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction, finding that Anacleta falsely represented her power to transfer ownership and that the offense proved was included in the offense charged. ## Issues 1. Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming Anacleta's conviction based on grounds not alleged in the Information, thereby violating her constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her? 2. Did the prosecution establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of estafa through false pretenses or fraudulent acts under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), of the Revised Penal Code? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Supreme Court **reversed** the CA decision, ruling that Anacleta's conviction was based on facts not alleged in the Information, thus violating her constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Information specifically alleged that Anacleta pretended to be a "licensed developer... engaged in real estate business" and induced Elizabeth to buy a house and lot she was offering for sale. However, the RTC and CA convicted her for falsely pretending to own the property she was selling and misrepresenting her "power and intent to effect the transfer of the subject property." These factual matters were not in the Information. The Court emphasized that the actual recital of facts in the Information determines the real nature and character of the criminal charge, and the right of the accused to question their conviction based on unalleged facts cannot be waived. To convict Anacleta of acts not alleged, while she defended against the narrated facts, was deemed unfair and prejudicial. The Court held that the **variance doctrine** under Rule 120, Sections 4 and 5 of the **Rules of Court** is inapplicable here. The variance doctrine applies when there is a difference between the offense charged and the offense proved, where one necessarily includes the other. In this case, the variance was not between two different but related offenses, but between the specific acts alleged in the Information as constituting the elements of estafa and the facts actually proven during trial. The difference pertained to the alleged constitutive acts of estafa through false pretenses, not to different crimes. The Court stressed that allowing the use of the variance doctrine to fill lacunae in the prosecution's evidence…
Keywords
Article 315, paragraph 2(a) Revised Penal Code, Rule 120, Sections 4 and 5 Rules of Court, Rule 110, Section 8 Rules of Court, Rule 110, Section 6 Rules of Court, Rule 110, Section 9 Rules of Court, Presumption of Innocence, Variance Doctrine, Civil Liability Ex Delicto, Moral Certainty, Estafa through False Pretenses, Criminal Procedure, Information, Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Preponderance of Evidence, Acquittal, Civil Liability, False Pretense, Fraudulent Acts, Constitutional Right to be Informed, Due Process