Dear Atty. Gab,

Musta Atty! I hope this letter finds you well. My name is Ramon Estrada, and I’m writing to you because I’m in a bit of a legal mess and extremely worried. I run a small buy-and-sell business focusing on unique, handcrafted furniture from Pampanga. A few months ago, I received several distinct pieces – a narra dining set with intricate carvings, two solihiya rocking chairs, and a specific antique aparador – from a supplier I met, who introduced himself as Mr. Roberto Ignacio. The agreement, documented in a signed receipt, was that I would sell these items on consignment within 60 days. If sold, I’d remit 80% of the price; if unsold, I’d return the items.

Unfortunately, due to unforeseen personal circumstances and a downturn in sales, I wasn’t able to sell all the items or remit the payment for the one piece I did sell within the agreed period. I admit I struggled to contact Mr. Ignacio immediately afterwards as I misplaced his contact details during a recent move. Last week, I was shocked to receive a subpoena. An Estafa case under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code was filed against me! The Information details the furniture pieces accurately, matching the receipt I have. However, the complainant listed is not Roberto Ignacio, but a certain Mr. Danilo Ignacio, supposedly Roberto’s brother and business partner.

I never dealt with Danilo Ignacio, only Roberto. Does this error in the complainant’s name mean the case against me is invalid? Can I use this mistake to have the case dismissed? I feel like my right to know exactly who is accusing me is being violated. I intended to settle my obligation, but this accusation feels wrong because of the name discrepancy. Please enlighten me on my situation. Maraming salamat po.

Respectfully,
Ramon Estrada

Dear Ramon,

Thank you for reaching out and sharing your situation. It’s understandable to feel stressed and confused when facing a criminal charge, especially when details like the complainant’s name seem incorrect. Let’s break down the legal principles involved.

The core issue you’ve raised touches upon a fundamental right of any accused person: the right to be properly informed of the charges against them. However, in cases like Estafa, which is fundamentally a crime against property, the law has specific nuances regarding errors in naming the offended party. While accuracy is always ideal, an error in the name doesn’t automatically invalidate the charge, particularly if the criminal act and the property involved are clearly identified in the Information (the formal accusation).

Understanding Your Rights When Details in the Information Seem Off

The Constitution guarantees every accused person the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. This means the Information filed by the prosecution must contain enough detail so you understand precisely what crime you are being charged with, enabling you to prepare your defense adequately. This includes stating the acts or omissions constituting the offense.

However, the Rules of Court provide specific guidance on how errors in the Information are handled, particularly concerning the name of the offended party. Generally, a mistake in the name is considered a formal defect rather than a substantial one, provided the offense itself is clearly described. The key focus in crimes against property, like Estafa involving misappropriation, is often the identification of the criminal act and the specific property involved, rather than solely the name of the owner.

Jurisprudence distinguishes between situations where the subject matter is generic (like money, which has no ‘earmarks’) and where it is specific and identifiable. In cases involving generic items, the identity of the owner might be essential to describe the crime sufficiently. But when the property is specific and can be identified on its own, an error in the owner’s name might not be considered critical.

The Rules of Court explicitly address this for offenses against property:

(a) In offenses against property, if the name of the offended party is unknown, the property must be described with such particularity as to properly identify the offense charged. (b) If the true name of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed is thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the court must cause such true name to be inserted in the complaint or information and the record. (Rule 110, Section 12, Rules of Court)

This provision highlights that the description of the property can be sufficient to identify the charge. It also mandates correction of the name, not dismissal of the case, if the true name becomes known. The rationale is that the essence of the crime – the misappropriation of specific items received under an obligation to return – remains the same regardless of minor inaccuracies in naming the person ultimately prejudiced, as long as the accused understands the specific act they are charged with.

Philippine jurisprudence supports the view that if the subject matter of the offense is specific or described with enough particularity to identify the offense charged, an erroneous designation of the offended party is not a fatal flaw. The courts have held:

when an offense shall have been described in the complaint with sufficient certainty to identify the act, an erroneous allegation as to the person injured shall be deemed immaterial.

In your situation, the Information describes specific, identifiable pieces of furniture (narra dining set, solihiya rocking chairs, antique aparador), which likely correspond to the items listed in your consignment receipt. Because these items are specific and identifiable, the prosecution will likely argue that the alleged criminal act – your failure to remit proceeds or return these specific items despite demands – is sufficiently identified. The error in naming Roberto versus Danilo Ignacio, especially if they are indeed partners or related in the business context, may be deemed immaterial to the core accusation of Estafa concerning those specific furniture pieces. The court would likely allow the prosecution to amend the Information to reflect the correct name rather than dismiss the case based solely on this error.

Furthermore, be cautious about actions that could be construed as attempting to compromise the criminal aspect of the case. While settling the civil liability (the amount owed) is encouraged, certain offers might be interpreted negatively.

In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as implied admission of guilt. (Rule 130, Section 27, Rules of Court)

While your intention might be simply to fulfill your obligation, how an offer is made or perceived in the context of an ongoing criminal case matters. It’s best to navigate this with legal counsel.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Review the Information Carefully: Verify that the description of the furniture pieces and the alleged acts of misappropriation are accurate and specific, matching your consignment agreement.
• Focus on the Property Description: Understand that the specificity of the furniture described is likely sufficient under the law to identify the offense, making the name error less critical as a defense for dismissal.
• Anticipate Amendment: Be prepared for the possibility that the prosecution will move to formally amend the Information to correct the complainant’s name once the relationship between Roberto and Danilo is clarified.
• Consult a Criminal Lawyer Immediately: Do not rely solely on the naming error as a defense. A lawyer can assess the entire case, including the evidence of the consignment agreement, the demand made (if any), and your circumstances, to build a proper defense strategy.
• Gather Your Documentation: Collect all relevant documents, especially the signed consignment receipt detailing the items and terms, and any communication attempts with Mr. Roberto Ignacio.
• Address the Civil Obligation Carefully: Discuss with your lawyer the best approach to address the amount owed for the sold item and the return of the unsold pieces. This should be handled strategically alongside the criminal defense.
• Do Not Assume Dismissal: While frustrating, the error in the name is unlikely, on its own, to lead to the dismissal of the Estafa charge given the specific nature of the property involved. Focus on addressing the substance of the accusation.

Facing an Estafa charge is serious, Ramon. While the error in the complainant’s name is a point to note, it’s unlikely to be a silver bullet for dismissal in your case because the specific furniture items identify the transaction and the alleged offense. Your defense should focus on the elements of Estafa itself and your fulfillment (or legally justifiable non-fulfillment) of the consignment terms. Please seek dedicated legal counsel promptly to guide you through the process.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
Atty. Gabriel Ablola

For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.