SENADOR v PEOPLE
dishonored as it was drawn against a closed account.
FACTS:
An Information dated August 5th, 2002, stated that petitioner
Ramoncita Senador was charged, before RTC Branch 32 of
Dumaguete City, with estafa. The Information stated that she
had received various kinds of jewelry valued in P705,685 from
one Cynthia Jaime for selling the same on consignment with the
express obligation to account for and remit the entire proceeds
of the sale if sold or to return the same if unsold within an agreed
period of time. Senador failed to remit the proceeds of the sale
of said items or return any of the items that were unsold, but
instead misappropriated, misapplied, and converted the same to
his/her own benefit to the damage and prejudice of said Cynthia
James in the amount of P705,685.
Petitioner pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s evidence stated that Rita Jaime and her
daughter-in-law Cynthia Jaime had a jewelry business. Senador
went to see Rita at her house, wanting to see the jewelry that Rita
was selling. Cynthia then delivered to Senador the subject pieces
of jewelry.
The Trust Receipt Agreement by Cynthia and Senador stated
that the latter would undertake to sell the same and deliver the
commission, remit the proceeds, or return the unsold items 15
days from the delivery. Senador failed to do so. Rita demanded
Senador to return the unsold items, but the demand fell on deaf
ears. Rita then filed the instant criminal complaint against
Senador.
Senador tendered to Rita a bank check worth P705,685, but was
Senador refused to testify. She relied on the defense that the facts
alleged in the Information and the facts proven in the trial differ.
She asserted that the person named as the offended in the
Information is not the same person who made the demand and
filed the complaint. The private complainant in the Information
was Cynthia Jaime whereas, during trial, the private complainant
turned out to be Rita Jaime. Senador wanted to be acquitted
because her constitutional rights to be informed has been
violated.
The trial court found Senador guilty and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of 4 years and 1 day of prision correccional as
minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to
indemnify the private complainants.
Senador questioned the RTC decision. The CA upheld the
RTC’s decision in that the guilt of Senador was established
beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an error in the designation in the Information of
the offended party violates the accused’s constitutional right to
be informed, thus entitling her to an acquittal? NO.
RULING:
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. If
there’s no other way to identify him, he must be described under
a fictitious name.
 If the true name of the offended has been ascertained, the court
In offenses against property, if the name of the offended is must cause such true name to be put in the complaint or
unknown, the property itself must be described with such information and the record.
particularity as to properly identify the offense charge. The
materiality of the erroneous designation of the offended would
depend on whether or not the subject matter of the offense was
sufficiently described and identified. If the subject matter of the
offense is generic and not identifiable, an error in the designation
is fatal and would result in the acquittal of the accused. However,
if the subject matter is specific and identifiable, like a warrant,
then an error in the designation of the offended is immaterial.

In the present case, the subject matter is not money or any other
generic property. Instead, the Information stated that it was
various kinds of jewelry valued in P705,685. The charge was
sufficiently fleshed out and proven by the Trust-Receipt
Agreement signed by Sendor, which enumerates theses various
kinds of jewelry in P705,685.

Senador relies on Uba, but is misplaced. In that case, the

appellant was charged with oral defamation, which is a crime
against honor. The identity of the person against whom the
defamatory words is a material element. Thus, an erroneous
designation of the person injured is material. In the instant case,
Senador was charged with estafa, a crime against property. This
does not absolutely require as indispensable the proper
designation of the name of the offended. What is absolutely
necessary, rather, is the correct identification of the criminal
act charged in the information. In crimes against property, an
error in the designation of the offended, according to Rule 110,
Sec. 12 of the Rules of Court, mandates the correction of the
information and not its dismissal.