EDUARDO G. RICARZE, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLEOF THE PHILIPPINES, CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC., PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK (PCIBANK), RESPONDENTS.

Ricarze versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Eduardo Ricarze against the Court of Appeals, the People of the Philippines, Caltex Philippines, and the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank. Ricarze was charged with two counts of estafa through falsification of commercial documents, and he asks the Supreme Court to annul the orders of the trial court that allowed the bank to substitute for Caltex as private complainant after he had already been arraigned and after the prosecution had rested. The case matters because it draws the line between a formal and a substantial amendment of an information, and because it explains when a party steps into the shoes of the offended party by operation of law.

Procedural History

Caltex, through its manager Ramon Romano, filed a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification of commercial documents before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City. After preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor filed two informations against Ricarze before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 63. Ricarze was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to both charges, the cases were jointly tried, and the prosecution presented its evidence. After the prosecution rested, the law office of Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Ongsiako entered its appearance as private prosecutor for the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank and filed a formal offer of evidence. Ricarze opposed it, arguing that the bank had no personality because the informations named Caltex as private complainant, and that any amendment substituting the bank would place him in double jeopardy. The trial court granted the substitution of the bank as private complainant and denied Ricarze's motion to expunge the offer of evidence, and it later denied his motion for reconsideration. Ricarze went to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals denied his motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for reconsideration, so Ricarze elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Eduardo Ricarze was employed as a collector-messenger by City Service Corporation and was assigned to the main office of Caltex Philippines in Makati City. His primary task was to collect checks payable to Caltex and deliver them to the cashier, and he also delivered invoices to Caltex customers.

On October 16, 1997, while Caltex's Banking and Insurance Department was conducting a daily electronic report from the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank, it discovered that a company check dated October 13, 1997 in the amount of 5,790,570 pesos and 25 centavos, payable to Dante Gutierrez, had been cleared through the bank. Investigation revealed that two other checks were missing and that the signatures on this check were forgeries. Another check dated September 15, 1997 in the amount of 1,790,757 pesos and 25 centavos, also payable to Dante Gutierrez, had likewise been cleared, and it too was not issued by Caltex and bore forged signatures. Both checks were deposited at the Banco de Oro under a savings account in the name of Dante Gutierrez, a regular customer of Caltex. Gutierrez disowned the account and his signatures, and a bank teller positively identified Ricarze as the person who opened the savings account using Gutierrez's name.

In the meantime, the bank credited the amount of 581,229 pesos to Caltex on March 29, 1998, but the City Prosecutor was not informed of this development. The informations were filed on June 29, 1998, and both alleged that the offenses were committed to the damage and prejudice of Caltex.

Issues

• Whether or not the substitution of the bank for Caltex as private complainant after arraignment and after the prosecution rested is a substantial amendment prohibited by Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• Whether or not the bank was validly subrogated to the rights of Caltex, such that it may intervene as private complainant.
• Whether or not the informations should be dismissed because they named Caltex rather than the bank as the offended party.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 14. Amendment or substitution. 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.

This is the provision on which Ricarze anchors his claim that the substitution was prohibited after his plea.

Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense; and the place wherein the offense was committed.

This provision defines what an information must contain, including the name of the offended party.

Section 12 of the same Rule provides:

Section 12. Name of the offended party. The complaint or information must state the name and surname of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed, or any appellation or nickname by which such person has been or is known.

This provision governs how the offended party is identified, and it supports the rule that in offenses against property the designation of the offended party is not absolutely indispensable.

Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 104. What is included in civil liability. The civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102 and 103 of this Code includes: Restitution; Reparation of the damage caused; Indemnification for consequential damages.

This provision defines the civil liability that the private complainant may pursue within the criminal action.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the substitution of the bank for Caltex was not a substantial amendment. A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court, and all other matters are merely of form. The substitution did not alter the basis of the charge in either information, the documentary evidence in the form of the forged checks remained the same, and all such evidence was available to Ricarze well before trial, so he could not claim surprise. The test of prejudice is whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment, and whether any evidence the accused might have would be equally applicable in either form.

On the second issue, the Court held that the bank was validly subrogated to the rights of Caltex. Ricarze failed to distinguish legal from conventional subrogation. Legal subrogation takes place without agreement but by operation of law, and the debtor's acquiescence is not necessary. The Court relied on its earlier ruling that where a firm compensates the original offended party for its loss, it becomes subrogated to all the latter's rights, and the loss it suffered is the ultimate result of the unlawful acts. Being subrogated, the bank had the right to intervene and is entitled to restitution, reparation, or indemnification.

On the third issue, the Court held that the failure to name the bank as the true offended party did not warrant dismissal. In offenses against property, the designation of the name of the offended party is not absolutely indispensable for as long as the criminal act charged can be properly identified.

Doctrine

After arraignment, a substantial amendment of an information is proscribed except when beneficial to the accused, while a formal amendment may be made with leave of court and without prejudice to the rights of the accused. A substantial amendment is one that recites the facts constituting the offense and determines the jurisdiction of the court; the substitution of the private complainant, which does not change the nature of the crime or the evidence, is one of form. Legal subrogation occurs by operation of law and requires no consent from the debtor, so a party that compensates the offended party for its loss steps into the latter's shoes and may intervene as private complainant. In offenses against property, the name of the offended party is not indispensable provided the criminal act is properly identified.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal by the Court of Appeals, leaving standing the trial court's orders allowing the bank to substitute for Caltex as private complainant.

Remember This

Memorize the line that after arraignment a substantial amendment is proscribed except when beneficial to the accused, and that legal subrogation needs no consent from the debtor. Examiners use this case to test the formal versus substantial amendment distinction and the rules on the name of the offended party in offenses against property.