FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 229332, August 27, 2020
>MARCELINO B. MAGALONA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, A., JR., J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the Decision dated August 26, 20162 and Resolution dated January 13, 2017,3 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 37514.
That in (sic) or about 11th day of February [2005], in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named-accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to gain, by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to (sic) or simultaneously with the (sic) commission of the (sic) fraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud the complainant one JOEL P. LONGARES amounting to THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 3,500,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, committed in the following manner to wit:On arraignment, only petitioner entered a plea of Not Guilty as Evedin was still at large. Pre-trial and trial then ensued.
That the accused EVEDIN VERGARA introduced the other accused MARCELINO B. MAGALONA to the complainant and convinced the complainant to grant a loan in favor of MARCELINO MAGALONA in the amount of Php 3,500,000.00, that the accused EVEDIN VERGARA assured the complainant that the other Accused MARCELINO MAGALONA has the capacity to pay the loan and had several real estate properties which were given as security for the loan, to wit: Cityland property described as a condominium unit covered by CCT No. 17533 at Wack-Wack Road, Mandaluyong City, Transfer of Certificate of Title Nos. T-220998 and T-334802 issued by the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Rizal, which they represented to be registered under the name of Accused MARCELINO B. MAGALONA, who allegedly has valid Title and ownership over the said Rizal Properties, but they knew fully well that the said representations were false because the Accused MARCELINO B. MAGALONA was not authorized by the real registered owner of Wack-Wack City land properly as security or collateral for any credit or loan, and that the Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-220998 and T-334802 issued by the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Rizal were spurious documents, that by virtue of said representations, complainant granted a loan in favor of MARCELINO MAGALONA in the amount of Php 3,500,000.00, who, once in possession of the money, misappropriated, misapplied and converted the same for their personal use and benefit, despite repeated demands failed and refused to pay the said amount of Php 3,500,000.00 to the damage and prejudice of the Complainant in the aforesaid amount of Php 3,500,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LA W.4
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Marcelino B. Magalona GUILTY for the crime of Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, accused Marcelino B. Magalona is hereby sentenced to suffer the straight penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor and to indemnify and pay complainant Joel P. Longares the amount of Php 300, 000.00 representing the money that the complainant had parted.Joel filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of this Judgment, praying that the above Judgment be reconsidered and that petitioner be found civilly liable for the payment of the amount of P3,500,000.00 plus interest, liquidated damages and attorney's fees.
Let this case be archived as against accused Evedin Vergara pending her arrest.
SO ORDERED.9
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration and its Supplement filed by the accused Marcelino B. Magalona, through counsel, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the matter to the CA, ascribing error upon the RTC for finding him guilty of the crime of Other Deceits and for increasing his liability to Joel from P300,000.00 to P3,500,000.00.
On the other hand, the Partial Motion for Reconsideration filed by private complainant Joel Longares, through counsel, is hereby GRANTED for being impressed with merit.
Accordingly, the Decision, dated September 10, 2014, is hereby PARTIALLY MODIFIED in so far as the civil aspect of the judgment is concerned. Accused Marcelino B. Magalona is hereby ordered to indemnify and pay complainant Joel P. Longares the amount of P3,500,000.00 representing the money that the complainant had parted to the accused as evidenced by receipts and other documentary pieces of evidence. The Promissory Note was also signed by the accused Marcelino B. Magalona acknowledging to have received the said amount of P3,500, 000.00 as loan from complainant Joel Longares.
SO ORDERED.10
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby DENIED. The Judgment dated 10 September 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas, Branch 202, in Criminal Case No. 09-0884, is AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED by the Order dated 12 March 2015.Petitioner sought the reconsideration of this Decision, but the CA, in the Resolution dated January 13, 2017, denied his motion for failing to advance substantial arguments or establish clear and compelling grounds that would justify the CA to reverse its Decision.
SO ORDERED.11
Petitioner argues that the prosecution failed to adduce proof beyond reasonable doubt demonstrating the concurrence of the elements of the crime of Other Deceits. He maintains that he employed neither deceit nor pretense prior to, or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud which constitutes the very cause for Joel to part with his money. He points out that Joel admitted that were it not for Evedin's representation that petitioner can pay the loan, he would not have agreed to loan his money to the latter, and that Joel was already convinced to release the loan before his first meeting with him. Petitioner further maintains that assuming arguendo that he committed deceit or pretense by making Joel believe that he had real property in Binangonan and by signing the Promissory Note, such actuations do not appear to have been committed prior to, or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. Moreover, he claims that the Binangonan property was offered as collateral only after Joel released the loan to Eviden.I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF OTHER DECEITS AS DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER ARTICLE 318 OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE ARE ATTENDANT IN THE PRESENT CASE.II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN SUSTAINING WITHOUT JUDICIOUSLY DISCUSSING THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER INCREASING PETITIONER'S LIABILITY FROM P300,000.00 TO P3,500,000.00 INSTEAD OF EXONERATING HIM FROM CIVIL LIABILITY.
SEC. 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency.The Court may review factual issues if any of the following is present:cralawred
(1) [W]hen the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when thefindings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.14
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 8-35.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan, concurring; id. at 61-71.
3 Id at 73-74.
4 Id. at 45-46.
5 Id. at 62-63.
6 Id. at 63-64.
7 Id. at 64-65.
8 Id. at 45-59.
9 Id. at 59.
10 Id. at 66-67.
11 Id. at 70.
12Century Iron Works, Inc. v. Banas, 711 Phil. 576, 585 (2013).
13Lacson v. M.J Lacson Development Co., Inc., 652 Phil. 34, 47 (2010).
14Kim Liang v. People, G.R. No. 200630, June 4, 2018.
15Republic v. Saromo, G.R. No. 1 89803, March 14, 2018.
16 Supra note 4.