FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 198932, October 09, 2019
DANILO S. IBANEZ, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, C.J.:
The offense of estafa as defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code requires misappropriation or conversion of money. Absent any evidence proving misappropriation or conversion, the accused cannot be justly convicted of said crime.
Also, the estafa charged herein requires breach of trust and confidence as an indispensable element. It is not committed if the transaction is a sale by which the ownership of the thing sold transfers to the accused as the vendee even if the vendor is not paid the proceeds in full by the vendee. The former only becomes an unpaid vendor, whose remedy is to enforce the sale.
That on or about April 25, 2002, in the City of Davao Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, conspiring, confederating together and helping one another, having been authorized by the spouses Arturo T. Pineda and Honorata K. Pineda to sell their three (3) hectares orchard for an agreed price of P6,000,000.00 payable in twenty-four (24) months, located in Baliok, Toril, this [c]ity, and accused having sold various lots with a total amount of P2,513,544.00 and with express obligation to remit 60% of such amount to the complainant but remitted only the amount of P860,166.45, thereby leaving a balance of P647,560.00 (sic) but far from complying with the aforesaid obligation, with grave abuse of confidence and in violation of trust, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously failed and refused to deliver/remit the said amount despite repeated demands made, thereby misappropriating and converting the same to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of spouses Arturo T. Pineda and Honorata K. Pineda in the aforesaid amount of P647,560.00 (sic).5
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
On April 25, 2002, private complainant Atty. Arturo T. Pineda (Atty. Pineda) and his wife Honorata, gravely in need of money to pay off their loan from one Evelyn Cheney, and impressed by the accused-appellants' expertise in real estate deals, engaged the latter's services to sell their three (3) hectares orchard at Baliok, Toril, Davao City, covered by TCT No. T-276925, for a price of Six Million Pesos (Php6,000,000.00), payable in 24 months. On the same date, Atty. Pineda signed a Memorandum (MOA) containing the following:x x x x
- That the VENDOR hereby sells, transfer[s] and convey[s] unto the VENDEES his heirs, assignees, and successor, in interest (sic) the afore[-]described parcel of land including all the improvements existing thereon;
- That the purchase price is SIX MILLION (P6,000,000.00) PESOS to be paid in 24 months in the following manner:
1.A. P750,000.00 – available on September, 2002 – to pay the indebtedness for the (sic) of the [VENDOR] to Evelyn Cheney for the release of title and this represents payments for the month of May 2002 to September 2002;
2-B. P5,250,000.00 – to be paid in 19 months starting end of October 2002 in the amount of P276,315.78 per month and every month thereafter;
3-C. That the VENDOR shall execute a Special Power of Attorney in favor of the VENDEE to subdivide, sell, execute, sign all papers, deeds and affidavits that maybe required in connection with the sale of lots, to receive payments either in cash or checks, with authority to encash with payee bank;
x x x x
On even date, Atty. Pineda executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) appointing the accused-appellants as his "true lawful attorney (sic)-in-fact", authorizing the latter:1. To enter into any contract, subdivide and sell my parcel of land situated in Baliok, Toril, Davao City, covered by TCT T-276925 with an area of 30,000 square meters to any person either natural or juridical.
2. To execute, sign all papers, deeds and affidavits that maybe required in connection with the sale of said land.
3. To receive the payment either in cash or check with authority to encash with payee bank.
Accused-appellants, deriving authority from the SPA and MOA, sold parts of the property to several buyers and collected payments but did not remit the same to Atty. Pineda. Angered, the latter sent letters to the vendees informing them (vendees) that payment should be made to him (Atty. Pineda) being the landowner.
To put an end to their dispute, the parties on December 3, 2002 executed before the barangay a document entitled "Amicable Settlement" wherein they agreed as follows:
- In the maintimes (sic) that the P6 Million is not yet satisfied, Atty. Pineda shall receive 60% of the total collection of sales DRN Resources until such time that the P6 million (sic) is satisfied; - That the obligation with MRS. EVELYN CHENNY shall be shouldered by Atty. Pineda; - While the lot is not yet paid in full, the fruits of the land will still be under the disposal of Atty. Pineda; - The DRN will submit to the Barangay the total list of their collectibles; - That the remittance of the 60% for Atty. Pineda shall be weekly and/or every Monday to start on December 09, 2002; - That the barangay shall be furnished with a copy of the weekly remittances.
The total sales collected by accused-appellants amounted to P2,513,544.00 as of 12 February 2003. However, accused-appellants failed to comply with the agreed 60% (P1,508,126.00) of the total sales collected by them. Instead, accused-appellants remitted only the amount of P860,166.45, leaving a balance of P647,960.00. This prompted Atty. Pineda to file the complaint for Estafa against accused-appellants.8
WHEREFORE, finding the evidence of the prosecution, more than sufficient to prove the guilt of both accused, beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. Accused, Danilo Ibañez, and Rolando Rubio, only, the other accused, Rodolfo Abelido, already dead, pursuant to Art. 315 paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, it appearing the amount involved, is more than P22,000.00, in fact, the total amount misappropriated by both accused, is P647,960.00, applying the above-provision, imposing the indeterminate sentence law, without aggravating and mitigating circumstances in favor or against the accused and prosecution, both above-mentioned accused, are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 8 years, 6 months and 15 days of prision mayor minimum, as minimum penalty, to 16 years, 5 months, and 20 days of reclusion temporal, medium as maximum penalty, together with all accessory penalty as provided for by law.
For lack of evidence of the prosecution, to prove the civil aspect in this case, no pronouncement is made on the civil indemnity, with cost against both accused.
SO ORDERED.9
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 17 dated 27 July 2007 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION as the penalty hereby imposed upon each of the accused-appellants is an indeterminate sentence of Four (4) years, Two (2) months of prision correctional, as minimum, to Twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, maximum.
Accused-appellants are likewise ORDERED to pay, jointly and severally, private complainant Atty. Pineda the amount of P647,960.00 as actual damages, with legal rate of interest from the date of filing of the information until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.10
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE GUILT OF THE PETITIONER IN THE CRIMINAL ACTION FOR ESTAFA WAS ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN EVEN WITHOUT THE STATE PRESENTING ANY WITNESS IN THE CASE.II. WHETHER OR NOT THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED DANILO S. IBAÑEZ FOR ESTAFA IN THE CASE IS TAINTED WITH REASONABLE DOUBT.12
x x x x
1. That the VENDOR hereby sells, transfer[s] and convey[s] unto the vendees his heirs, assigns, and successor, in interest the afore-described parcel of land, including all the improvements existing thereon;
2. That the purchase price is SIX MILLION (P6,000,000.00) PESOS to be paid in 24 months in the following manner;
1-A. P750,000.00 – available on September, 2002 – to pay the indebtedness for the (sic) of the VENDOR to Evelyn Cheney for the release of title and this represents payments for the month of May 2002 to September 2002;
2-B. P5,250,000.00 balance to be paid in 19 months starting end of October 2002 in the amount of P276,315.78 per month and every month thereafter;
3-C. That the VENDOR shall execute a Special Power of Attorney in favor of the VENDEE to subdivide, sell, execute, sign all papers, deeds and affidavits either in cash or checks, with authority to encash with payee bank;15 (Bold emphases supplied)
x x x x
SEC. 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.
The genuineness and due execution of prosecution, Exh. "A" to "JJ", only Exhs. "B", "F", "G" to "FF", "GG", "HH", "II" and "JJ" are admitted by the accused through counsel. That of accused Exhs. "1" to "4" and submarkings, only Exhs. "1" and "3" are admitted by the prosecution through counsel.18 (Bold underscoring supplied)
Q: You bought the property of the complainant and yet you intend to sell the same?
A: No, because the mode of payment is 24 months and the 24 months payments which we agree (sic) that we have to sell his property in terms which the memorandum of agreement coupled with the SPA (sic). We are not agent (sic) but we are buyers of the same property.
Q: Ok. Having brought the complainant's property, why do you have to sell the same?
A: Yes, because we are in the space of the row lot partitioning (sic), we are in this kind of business, we agree that we have to sell it in 24 months installment, so we pay him in 24 months installment.21
x x x x
(b) By misappropriating or converting to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission or for administration, or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property.
x x x x
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 26-42; penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, and concurred in by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino.
2 Id. at 43-44.
3 Id. at 97-107; penned by Judge Renato A. Fuentes.
4 Id. at 97-107.
5 Id. at 45.
6 Id. at 27.
7 Id. at 9.
8 Id. at 27-29.
9 Id. at 106-107.
10 Id. at 41.
11 Id. at 108-110.
12 Id. at 12.
13Caubang v. People, G.R. No. 62634, June 26, 1992, 210 SCRA 377, 385.
14Mariano v. People, G.R. 80161, December 14, 1992, 216 SCRA 541, 549.
15Rollo, p. 57.
16 Article 1370 of the Civil Code says:
Article 1370. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.
If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former. (1281)
17Norton Resources and Development Corporation v. All Asia Bank Corporation, G.R. No. 162523, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 370, 378.
18Rollo, pp. 47.
19Unchuan v. Lozada, G.R. No. 172671, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 421, 435.
20People v. Quitado, Jr., G.R. No. 117401, October 1, 1998 297 SCRA 1, 8.
21Rollo, pp. 32-33.
22Viloria v. Continental Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 188288, January 16, 2012, 663 SCRA 57, 68.
23R.R. Paredes v. Calilung, G.R. 156055, March 5, 2007, 517 SCRA 369, 407.
24 Article 1373 of the Civil Code.
25Nabus v. Pacson, G.R. No. 161318, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 334, 349.
26Montecillo v. Reynes, G.R. 138018, July 26, 2002, 385 SCRA 244, 256.
27Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014, 724 SCRA 1, 31-32.
28Viloria v. Continental Airlines, Inc., supra, note 22, at 75-76.
29Gamaro v. People, G.R. No. 211917, February 27, 2017, 818 SCRA 640, 656-657.
30Dy v. People, G.R. 189081, August 10, 2016, 800 SCRA 39, 53.
31Ysidoro v. Leonardo-Castro, G.R. No. 171513, February 6, 2012, 655 SCRA 1, 17.
32Khitri v. People, G.R. 210192, July 4, 2016, 795 SCRA 502, 517-518.
33Serona v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No, 130423, November 18, 2002, 392 SCRA 35, 45