DOCTRINE

It is settled that an accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the information filed against him or her.

FACTS

Several public officials, including Reyes who was then the Project Manager of DPWH, and private individuals were charged with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019  or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to falsely represent the existence of a warehouse owned by Servy Realty Corporation, leading to the government paying unjust compensation for its expropriation. The Information specifically alleged that the warehouse did not exist, yet the accused recommended its expropriation, resulting in the government paying Servy Realty Corporation a substantial amount of money. However, in later pleadings, the prosecution introduced an alternative theory, suggesting that while a warehouse might have existed, its actual size was less than what was reported.

ISSUE

Was Reyes’ constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, as echoed in Section 1(b) of Rule 115 violated?

RULING

YES. The sudden shift from the original accusation in the Information against Macapugay et al. that the warehouse did not exist at all to the theory that the warehouse may have existed, albeit less than 457.2 square meters, violates their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of action against them[72] which is also found in Section 1(b), Rule 115 of the Rules of Court. It is settled that an accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the information filed against him or her.

Here, Macapugay et al. were charged with conniving to make it appear that a non-existent warehouse is existing which is totally different from an accusation that they conspired to make it appear that a warehouse is larger in size than it originally is. It cannot be said that the latter’s accusation is deemed included in the former charge.

Due to the prosecution’s inconsistent theories and failure to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused.