Ricarze vs. CA
G.R. No. 160451, February 9, 2007

Facts: 

Ricarze was a collector-messenger of CSP, a corporation engaged in messengerial services. He was assigned to collect checks payable to Caltex and deliver them to the cashier. It was discovered that he opened a bank account in the name of Dante Gutierrez, a regular customer of Caltex. Ricarze forged the checks he collected and deposited it in that bank account. Caltex charged Ricarze of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents. In the information, Caltex was stated as the offended party because the prosecutor was not informed that PCI Bank credited the checks to Caltex. 

After the prosecution rested its case, Caltex moved to amend the information to substitute PCI Bank as the offended party. Ricarze argued that the information can no longer be amended because he had already been arraigned under the original information and that doing so would place him in double jeopardy. PCI Bank argued that it had re-credited the amount to Caltex to the extent of the indemnity; hence, the PCIB had been subrogated to the rights and interests of Caltex as private complainant. The RTC granted the motion. Ricarze assailed the Order. He alleged that the charges against him should be dismissed because the allegations in the Informations failed to name PCIB as true offended party. 


Issue: 

1. Is the substitution of Caltex by PCIB as private complaint a substantial amendment?

2. In case of offenses against property, is the designation of the name of the offended party indispensable? 


Held: 

1. The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment is whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other. An amendment to an information which does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to be one of form and not of substance.

In the case at bar, the substitution of Caltex by PCIB as private complaint is not a substantial amendment. The substitution did not alter the basis of the charge in both Informations, nor did it result in any prejudice to petitioner. The documentary evidence in the form of the forged checks remained the same, and all such evidence was available to petitioner well before the trial. Thus, he cannot claim any surprise by virtue of the substitution.


2. In case of offenses against property, the designation of the name of the offended party is not absolutely indispensable for as long as the criminal act charged in the complaint or information can be properly identified.