Pecho v People 262 SCRA 518 (1996)

Facts: The decision of the Supreme Court for convicting the accused for the complex crime of attempted estafa thru falsification of official and commercial document was assailed with the contention of the defense that the accused may not be convicted of the crime for double jeopardy. The charge against the accused was on violation of RA 3019 of which he was acquitted because it only penalizes consummated crime. In the absence of evidence that shows that the crime was consummated the accused was acquitted but the court held judgment of prosecuting his conviction for attempted estafa thru falsification of official and commercial document which is necessarily included in the crime charged. Accused invokes the defense of double jeopardy since his acquittal from the charge involving RA 3019 is a bar for prosecution on the crime of attempted estafa thru falsification of official and commercial document and that the accused was not informed of this charge against him in the filing of the information.

Issue: Whether or not the accused was informed of the nature and cause of the crime to which he is convicted

Held: The court presented the objectives of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the crime he is charged with as follows:

1. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense;
2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause;
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had.

In order that this requirement may be satisfied facts must be stated: not conclusions of law. The complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the crime. What determines the real nature and cause of accusation against an accused is the actual recital of facts stated in the information or complaint and not the caption or preamble of the information or complaint nor the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law. It follows then that an accused may be convicted of a crime which although not the one charged, is necessarily included in the latter. It has been shown that the information filed in court is considered as charging for two offenses which the counsel of the accused failed to object therefore he can be convicted for both or either of the charges.

However by reviewing the case at bar the SC finds lack of sufficient evidence that would establish the guilt of the accused as conspirator to the crime of estafa beyond reasonable doubt, the prior decision of the SC was deemed to be based merely on circumstantial evidence, thus the accused was acquitted.