SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 186107, April 20, 2016
NARCISA M. NICOLAS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SPOUSES RALPH ADORABLE AND ROWENA ADORABLE, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the November 17, 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31177 affirming with modification the August 27, 2007 Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 274, Parañaque City finding Narcisa M. Nicolas (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document.
Based on Ralph T. Adorable's (Ralph) Complaint-Affidavit3 dated September 12, 2000, petitioner, along with Catalina M. Cacho (Cacho), Primo G. Espiritu (Espiritu) and Raquel Dagsil Cagadas (Cagadas), was charged, in an Information dated March 29, 2001 and filed before the RTC of Parañaque City, with the crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
That sometime in December 1996 or prior thereto, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then private persons, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, by means of deceit, false pretenses and fraudulent acts, did then and there willfully unlawfully and feloniously defraud complainants Spouses Ralph Adorable and Rowena Sta, Ana Adorable in the following manner, to wit: the complainants purchased 293 square meter lot from the accused worth P644,600.00 and after having paid the same, the accused mortgaged the said property to another person by signing the names of the complainants on the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage and Deed of Absolute Sale making it appear that they signed the same when in fact did not so participate as they were in Belgium, and once in possession of the amount, accused appropriated, applied and converted the same to their own personal use, to the damage and prejudice of complainants Spouses Ralph Adorable and Rowena Sta. Ana Adorable, in the aforementioned amount of P644,600.00.On her arraignment on August 6, 2001, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, a pre-trial conference was conducted and terminated on October 8, 2002.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, after duly considering the foregoing, the Court finds the accused Narcisa Mendoza Nicolas GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa Through Falsification of Public Document as charged in the Information, and accordingly therefore hereby penalizes the said accused to suffer the indeterminate sentence of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum, to pay the offended party the sum of Php344,000.00 as indemnity, and costs, with accessory penalty of civil interdiction during the period of the sentence and perpetual absolute disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage.Ruling of the Court of Appeals
As to accused Raquel Dagsil Cagadas, Catalina Cacho and Primo Espiritu, the Court finds them not GUILTY as charged in the Information and accordingly therefore hereby acquits the said accused therefrom.
SO ORDERED.12ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
It was established in evidence that the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 119421 covering the Matatdo property was in the possession of the appellant as she deceitfully took the same from Abel under the false pretense that the same was needed for correction of the measurement of the area of the Matatdo property as stated in the said TCT, when, in truth and in fact, what appellant did was to mortgage and later on sell the Matatdo property, by making it appear that the owners Sps. Ralph and Rowena participated therein when they did not in fact so participate. It was admitted by appellant in the above quoted Agreement that she was the one who sold the Matatdo property to third persons. Clearly, appellant, as the material author, made it appear that Sps. Ralph and Rowena, who were then in Belgium as they returned to the Philippines only in 2000, participated in the execution of the Real Estate Mortgage dated 20 October 1997 (Exhibit "I") over the Matatdo property in favor of Sps. Emilio and Magdalena Marquez, as well as in the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 08 October 1998 (Exhibit "E") selling the Matatdo property to appellant's co-accused Cacho, Epiritu and Cagadas, when said Sps. Ralph and Rowena, as owners thereof, did not in fact do so, to their damage and prejudice, Evidently, appellant is guilty of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document. x x x xHence, the present Petition.
x x x x
As previously discussed, the prosecution was only able to establish that appellant received the total amount of Php572,000.00 as payment for the Matatdo property. Since the amount of Php300,000.00 was already returned by the appellant to Ralph, as admitted by the latter, only the remaining defrauded amount of Php272,000.00 must be paid by appellant to Sps. Ralph and Rowena.13ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
We deny the PetitionI
WHETHER X X X THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION, THAT THE HONORABLE FOURTEENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ADOPTED AS BASIS FOR ITS DECISION, WAS SUFFICIENT TO APPROXIMATE THE DEGREE REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROVE THE GUILT OF ACCUSED NARCISA M. NICOLAS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.II
WHETHER XXX THE HONORABLE FOURTEENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS UNDERTOOK A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE BEYOND THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT.14ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
"Basic is the rule in this jurisdiction that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing errors of law, the findings of fact of the appellate court being conclusive. We have emphatically declared that it is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court. x x xWhether petitioner falsified the signatures of Ralph and his wife in the Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 8, 1998 and the Real Estate Mortgage dated October 20, 1997 is a question of fact. Following the foregoing tenet, therefore, it is not reviewable in this Rule 45 petition.
x x x Where the factual findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals coincide, [as in this case,] the same are binding on this Court. We stress that, subject to some exceptional instances, [none of which is present in this case,] only questions of law - not questions of fact - may be raised before this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court."15ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Endnotes:
1 CA rollo, pp. 127-166; penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.
2 Records, pp. 805-820; penned by Judge Fortunito L. Madrona.
3 Id. at 4-6.
4 Id. at 2.
5 Id. at 291.
6 Id. at 292-293.
7 Id. at 294.
8 Id. at 303-304.
9 Id. at 308-309.
10 Id. at 310.
11 Id. at 311-312.
12 Id. at 796.
13 CA rollo, pp. 157 & 162.
14Rollo, p, 15.
15Soriamont Steamship Agencies, Inc. v. Sprint Transport Services, Inc., 610 Phil. 291, 300 (2009).