Whether an accused charged with estafa can be convicted of the crime of theft; constitutional due process violation in variance between charge and…
Summary
Macario Embuscado, a tenant, was charged with estafa for harvesting and selling 320 mangoes without his landlord's consent. The City Court convicted him of estafa, but the Court of First Instance changed his conviction to theft on appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that an accused cannot be convicted of a crime different from what was charged, as this violates constitutional due process rights. The Court reinstated the estafa conviction but modified the penalty to 3 months and 11 days of arresto mayor, emphasizing that theft is not included in the crime of estafa and that variance between charge and conviction denies the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
Focus of dispute
Whether an accused charged with estafa can be convicted of the crime of theft; constitutional due process violation in variance between charge and conviction
Legal facts
Petitioner Macario Embuscado was a tenant of Prima Macasongsong Vda. de Acapulco since 1958, receiving 1/3 share of agricultural products. On May 22, 1973, he harvested 320 mangoes from the agricultural land without the landlord's knowledge and consent, and sold them to Lucio Cabahug, Jr. for P30.20 on May 27, 1973. He was apprehended by Ozamiz City police before collecting the selling price.
Judgement and reasoning
{"City Court of Ozamiz City, Branch III": "Found petitioner guilty of estafa and imposed penalty of 2 months and 1 day of arresto mayor and to pay costs.", "Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, Branch II, Ozamiz City": "On appeal, found petitioner guilty of theft instead of estafa and sentenced him to 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor and to pay costs. Motion for reconsideration was denied.", "Supreme Court (SC)": "SET ASIDE the Court of First Instance decision and REINSTATED the City Court judgment with modification. Held that petitioner cannot be convicted of theft when charged with estafa, as this violates constitutional right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation and due process. Agreed with Solicitor General that theft is not included in estafa charged. Modified penalty to 3 months and 11 days of arresto mayor based on proper estafa penalty under Article 315, subdivision 4, paragraph 1(b) of Revised Penal Code."}