SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 215132, September 13, 2021
SPOUSES ISIDRO DULAY III* AND ELENA DULAY, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
Deceit is rarely simple and far from cut and dried. Although ostensibly uncomplicated, deception in various forms of dissembling, suppression of truth, concealment and misrepresentation, once established beyond reasonable doubt will give rise to criminal liability.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the April 29, 2014 Decision 2 and October 15, 2014 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 33777 which affirmed with modification the September 14, 2010 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agoo, La Union, Branch 32, in Criminal Case No. A-5180. The lower courts uniformly convicted petitioners spouses Isidro (Isidro) and Elena Dulay (Elena; spouses Dulay/petitioners collectively), of Estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Claiming to be the actual owners of a 450-square meter lot in Baguio City (subject property), petitioners sold it to private complainants, the spouses Isabelo and Hilaria Dulos (Hilaria; collectively as spouses Dulos); hence, petitioners were charged with estafa under Article 315 2(a) of the RPC. The Information against petitioners reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
That sometime in the month of February 1999 and sometime subsequent thereto in the Municipality of Agoo. Province of La Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding each other, with intent to defraud, and by means of false pretenses and fraudulent acts which they made to spouses Isabelo L. Dulos and Hilaria C. Dulos prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud, to the effect that they are the owners of a parcel of land in Baguio City when in truth and in fact they are not, succeed in inducing the said spouses to deliver to them the aggregate sum of SEVEN HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND PESOS (P707,000.00) as partial or advance payment for the aforesaid parcel of land and then once in possession of the said sum of money did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously convert and misappropriate the said sum of money to their own personal use and benefit and then despite demand, fell or refuse and continue to fail or refuse to return the sum of P707,000.00 they took from spouses Isabelo L. Dulos and Hilaria C. Dulos to the damage and prejudice of the said spouses in the said amount and other consequential damages.Before the arraignment, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash which was denied by the RTC In its December 19, 2007 Order.6 The RTC ruled that: (1) the trial court has jurisdiction to try the case for estafa under Article 315 2(a) of the RFC, and (2) there is no other pending criminal case before the first level courts of Agoo, La Union which constitutes as litis pendentia. Thus, at the arraignment, petitioners pleaded not guilty.7
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
February 19, 1999When the spouses Dulos' monthly payments reached the total amount of P707,000.00 without receiving the promised title or a copy thereof from petitioners, they made further inquiries on the subject property and learned that: (1) the registered owners indicated in TCT No. T-2135, i.e., Isidro and Virginia Dulay, are different persons from petitioners; (2) the Isidro Dulay named in TCT No. T-2135 is petitioner Isidro's uncle and namesake; and (3) the long deceased spouses Isidro and Virginia Dulay has a daughter, Carmencita. Forthwith, the spouses Dulos stopped paying the monthly installments.13
Received the amount of One-hundred fifty thousand pesos only (P150,000.00) from Mr. Isabelo L. Dulos and Mrs. Hilaria C. Dulos residing at San Nicolas Central, Agoo, La Union as partial payment for the lot located at Brgy. Andres de Bonifacio along Subd. Road 150 mts. From Avelino St., Baguio City with a total land area of Four hundred fifty square meters (450 sq. m.) more or less. Owned by Mr. Isidro D. Dulay and Mrs. Elena P. Dulay residing at #23 M. Dulay St., Poblacion Aringay, La Union, with a monthly payment of Thirty thousand pesos only (P30,000.00) for two (2) years starting May 1999.12
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, accused Isidro Dulay and Elena Dulay are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa by means of false pretenses and fraudulent representations and are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correcional as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.The trial court ruled that all the elements of estafa by deceit under Article 315 (2)(a) of the RFC were established and proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioners, through false pretenses and fraudulent acts of ostensible ownership of the subject property, deceived the spouses Dulos into buying the property and. paying the total amount of P707,000.00.19
SQ ORDERED.18
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated September 14, 2010 of the RTC of Agoo, La Union, Branch 32 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that appellants are further ordered to pay interest of 6% per annum on the awarded actual damages, reckoned from the finality of this decision until full payment thereof.The lower courts uniformly found that petitioners sold the subject property to the spouses Dulos under false pretenses of ownership. Petitioners misrepresented to the spouses Dulos that they were the Isidro and Virginia Dulay indicated as registered owners in TCT No. T-2315. In the belief that petitioners were the owners, the spouses Dulos purchased the subject property on installment. Overall, the CA ruled that the misrepresentations and false pretenses of petitioners were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of fraud which impelled the spouses Dulos to part with the total amount of P707,000,00.22
The aforesaid Decision is hereby affirmed in all other respects.21
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbeiow shall be punished by:Jurisprudence has long established the elements of Estafa by means of deceit as defined under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
x x x
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits.
x x x
(1) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;We abide by the uniform factual findings of the lower courts which establish petitioners' commission of estafa by deceit through false pretenses and fraudulent misrepresentation.
(2) that such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
(3) that the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and
(4) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.26
Plainly, petitioners deceived private complainants and misrepresented to them that: (a) TCT No. T-2135 covering the subject property is registered in their names; (b) the Virginia indicated in TCT No. T-2135 is the same person as petitioner Elena; and (c) they are simply reconstituting their lost title, TCT No. T-2135.
ATTY. HIDALGO:35 Q Madam Witness, is it not that upon payment of that PI 50,000.00, there were conditions imposed by both of them, am I correct? A Yes, sir. Q That P150,000.00 will be used to transfer the property in their names, am I correct? A Yes, sir. Q Madam Witness and after payment of one-half (1/2) of the total consideration or in the amount of P450,000.00, madam witness, the title will be transferred to your in-laws, the buyer of the property? A Yes, sir. Q And after paying P450,000.00 Madem Witness, is it not that you will require the accused to deliver to you the title? A Yes, sir. Q Now Madam Witness, will you please extend your patience and tell to this Honorable Court that despite payment of more than P450,000.00 you still paid despite of none delivery to you the title? A Yes, sir. Q And at the time you know that the conditions were not complied anymore for the accused to transfer the property in their names? A Yes, sir. Q Madam Witness, is it not that when the transactions [took place] between your father-in-law and the accused, the title which was shown to you was still in the name of Isidro Dulay and Virginia Dulay? A Yes, sir. Q Is it not Madam Witness that one of the conditions why that P150,000.00 was paid is for the accused to transfer the title in the name of Isidro Dulay and Elena Dulay? A They said it was lost title so they have to secure another title sir. Q But there was an agreement to that effect Madam am I correct that they will transfer the property in the name of Isidro Dulay and Elena Dulay, am I correct? COURT: Do not mislead the witness. xxx COURT: The witness answered that it was a lost title and the next question is there an agreement to transfer. So reform. Be attentive and object if there is need to object. Proceed. ATTY. HIDALGO: Yes, Your Honor. Q Madam Witness, when the title was shown to you, it was still in the name of Isidro Dulay and Virginia Dulay am I correct? PROSECUTOR LACHICA: Already Answered. COURT QUESTION: Q Madam Witness, when you saw the title in the name of Isidro Dulay and Virginia Dulay, who is this Isidro Dulay? A That one sir. (The witness is pointing a person inside the court room wearing yellow shirt and when asked he identified himself as Isidro Dulay.) Q How about this Virginia? A They claimed before Your Honor that Virginia and Elena are the same person. x x x x ATTY. HIDALGO: Q Madam Witness, and since they claim that Virginia and Elena is the same person, is it not that they made a condition that they will transfer the title in the name of Isidro and Elena Dulay. ATTY. ARCHOG: That would be misleading Your Honor. COURT: Sustained. x x x x COURT: There is a testimony that Elena and Virginia are one and the same person. That is a representation. So don't talk about the transfer. ATTY. HIDALGO: Yes, Your Honor. Q Madam Witness, have you met Isidro Dulay before January 1999? A It was only Elena, sir. Q Whom you met? A Yes, sir. Q And when you transacted that you buy a lot at Baguio City (sic), Madam Witness, that was only the time that you met Isidro Dulay? A Yes, sir. Q And they showed you a title which was marked as Exhibit "G and F" for the prosecution? A Yes, sir. Q Madam Witness, when they showed that title to you in the name of [Isidro Dulay and Virginia Dulay], did you not ask them that it should be in the name of Isidro Dulay and Elena Dulay? ATTY ARCHOG: We object Your Honor. It was already stated by the witness that Elena and Virginia referred to one and the same person? COURT: Sustained. ATTY. HIDALGO: Q Madam Witness, before the sale... COURT: Excuse me Atty. Hidalgo x x x x COURT QUESTION: Q You said that it was Isidro Dulay who transacted [with] you? A Yes, Your Honor. Q Was Isidro Dulay alone when he transacted [with] you? A He was with Madam Elena Your Honor. x x x x ATTY. HIDALGO: Q Madam Witness, is it not that when you paid that more than Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P450,000.00) already, you went to Baguio City to verify the title? A Yes, sir. Q When in fact that verification that was by reason of the statement made by the accused that they are processing the title? A Yes sir. Q And that is also the very reason why you made the initial payment of One Hundred Fifty Thousand (P150,000.00) Pesos, am I correct? ATTY. ARCHOG: Objection Your Honor. The counsel is misleading the witness. He is already asking on the reason of the verification after payment of P450,000.00. He is going back again to P150,000.00. ATTY. HIDALGO: They just went back to Baguio. ATTY. ACHOG: Confusing Your Honor. He is confusing the witness Your Honor. ATTY. HIDALGO: I am not confusing Your Honor. I am asking Your Honor the reason for the payment of P150,000.00. ATTY. ARCHOG: That was already answered Your Honor P150,000.00. COURT: Atty. Hidalgo, you do your questioning in a manner that is clear. ATTY. HIDALGO: I will Your Honor. Only one last question Your Honor. Q Is it not a fact Madam Witness that before you parted P150,000.00, it was promised to you by the accused that they will transfer the title in their names before you will make the full payment am I correct? ATTY. ARCHOG: We object again Your Honor. How can they transfer. The persons already indicated in the title are fee accused, referring to the accused Your Honor. COURT: Sustained. COURT QUESTION: Q Madam Witness, what was that P150,000.00 for? A Down payment for the lot they are selling to us Your Honor. Q You testified a while ago that there was an agreement about the transfer? A Only the title Your Honor. Q What was the agreement about the transfer? A Upon paying theP450,000.00 Your Honor of the said lot, they will deliver [to] us the title and a conditional deed of sale but they did not give us [the title]. Q So, what was the transfer. Transfer from whom and to whom? A Because the title was lost, they provide the title Your Honor. Q That's why the question is: To whom that the property should be transferred. That's my question. A To my parents-in-law Your Honor. (Emphasis supplied)
[T]he gravamen of the [crime of Estafa] is the employment of fraud or deceit to the damage or prejudice of another. When fraud pertains to the means of committing a crime or the classes of crimes under Chapter Three, Title Four, , Book Two and Chapter Three, Title Seven, Book Two of the RPC, criminal liability may arise; otherwise, if fraud merely causes loss or injury to another, without being an element of a crime, then it may only be classified as civil fraud from which an action for damages may arise.As demonstrated herein, petitioners committed estafa by deceit under Article 315 paragraph 2(a) of the RPC.
ART. 316. Other forms of swindling. – The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value, shall be imposed upon:We have applied the doctrine of pro reo and the correlative rule on lenity when there is doubt as to the applicability of various penalties under different amended or repealed laws.39
1. Any person, who, pretending to be the owner of any real property, shall convey, sell, encumber, or mortgage the same;
The machinery remains classified as immovable while it stays installed for the purpose of the industry or work. But once the property is removed from its installation, as was to be inspected in the case at bar if the sale was to be made, it ceases to be a real property but returns to its original classification as personal property. By this, we do not mean, however, that Art. 315 par. 2(a) covers only cases where the property involved is real property. Both personal and real properly may be the subject of the crime under the law. But although Art. 316, par. 1 refers only to real property, its violation is confined to certain instances not common with those of Art. 315, par. 2 (a). As we see it, Art. 316, par. 1 covers a specific situation where the offended exercises or executes, as part of the false representation, some act of dominion or ownership over the property to the damage and prejudice of the real owner of the thing. Ob the other hand, this circumstance need not be present for a crime to be committed under Art. 315, par. 2 (a). In the case at bar, the evidence does not disclose that the appellant had exercised certain acts of ownership or dominion beyond his mere pointing of the property to the offender party and his claim that he was the owner thereof. This is, therefore, a proper case for the application of Art. 315, par. 2 (a). (Emphasis supplied)Here, petitioners did not exercise acts of dominion or ownership over the property other than their false pretense and claim that they owned it. Petitioners proffered a nominal claim of ownership by showing a copy of TCT No. T-2135 and pretending to be the same persons indicated therein as registered, owners of the subject property. The fraudulent acts of petitioners in pretending to own the real property and selling it is not equivalent to an exercise of an act of dominion or ownership which damaged and prejudiced the real owner of the thing, Carmencita, the daughter of Isidro and Virginia Dulay.45
SECTION 85. Article 315 of the same Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, Presidential Decree No, 1689, and Presidential Decree No. 818, is hereby further amended to read as follows:In this case, the defrauded amount is P707,000,00 and thus the RTC initially imposed the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The appellate court affirmed the ruling but further ordered petitioners to pay interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the award of actual damages from the finality of this Decision until full payment thereof.
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa)– Any person who shall defraud another by any means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:
x x x
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisiÓn correctional in its minimum period, if such amount is over Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000).
x x x x
Endnotes:
* Also referred to as Isidro Dulay in some parts of the records.
** Designated as additional Member per Raffle dated July 12, 2021 vice J. Inting who recused; his sister, J. Socorro B. Inting, had participation in the Court of Appeals.
*** Designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.
1Rollo, pp. 12-20.
2 Id. at 34-47; penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in by Associate Justices Florito S. Macalino and Socorro B. Inting.
3 Id. at 49.
4 Id. at 52-61; penned by Judge Jennifer Pilar.
5 Id. at 34-35; Records p. 51.
6 Records, pp. 128-129.
7 Id. at 90.
8 Id. at 95-96.
9Rollo, p. 35.
10 Id. at 35-36.
11 TSN, March 24,2008, pp. 19-26.
12 Records, p. 246; Formal Offer of Exhibits, Exhibit "A".
13 TSN, May 22, 2008, pp, 41-44.
14 TSN, September 22, 2008, pp. 182-186.
15 TSN, October 8, 2009, pp. 6-17; see also TSN, February 23, 2010, pp. 3-25.
16 Id.; id.
17 Records, pp. 109-112.
18Rollo, pp. 60-61.
19 Records, pp. 355-359.
20 Id. at 363-364.
21Rollo, p. 46.
22 Id. at 37-46.
23 Id. at 20.
24 Id. at 20-23.
25 Id. at 23-25.
26Arriola v. People, G.R. No. 199975, February 24, 2020, People v. Aquino G.R. No. 234818, November 5, 2018; Gabionza v. Court of Appeals, 586 Phil. 606 (2008),
27 TSN, March 17, 2009, pp. 11-19.
28Alberto v. Court of Appeals, 711 Phil. 530, 557-558 (2013).
29Cancio v. Performance Foreign Exchange Corporation, 832 Phil. 212, 229-230 (2018).
30Alcantara v. Court of Appeals, 462 Phil. 72, 89 (2003).
31 TSN, September 22, 2008, pp. 182-186.
32 Entitled An Act Providing A Special Procedure For The Reconstitution Of Torrens Certificates Of Title Lost Or Destroyed.
33 Republic Act No. 26, Sections 2 and 3.
34Lee v. Republic, 418 Phil. 793, 803 (2001).
35 TSN, Octobers, 2008, pp. 6-15.
36Galvez v. Court of Appeals, 686 Phil. 924, 936 (2012).
37 813 Phil. 252, 355 (2017).
38 G.R. No. 234818, November 5, 2018.
39 See Ient v. Tullet Prebon, 803 Phil. 163, 186 (2017).
40Rollo, pp. 34-35. Records, 61. See also Sections 4 and 8 Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.
41 See Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.
42Rollo, pp. 37-46.
43Estrellado-Mainar v. People, 765 Phil. 21, 33-34 (2015).
44 C.A., 62 O.G. 1963 cited in Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law. 14th Edition, 1998, p. 798.
45 Putative heir under Article 799 of the Civil Code and had executed an affidavit stating her relationship to the registered owners of the subject property covered by TCT No. 2315.
46 AN ACT ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT OR THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AND DAMAGE ON WHICH A PENALTY IS BASED, AND THE FINES IMPOSED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "THE REVISED PENAL, CODE," AS AMENDED Enacted on August 29, 2017.
47Arriola v People of the Philippines, supra note 26, citing Seguritan v. People, G.R. No. 236499, April 10, 2019 and People v. Dejolde, Jr., G.R. No. 219238, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 554, 563-564.
48Rollo, pp. 34-35; Records, p. 51.
49 See Rivera v. Spouses Chua, 750 Phil 663, 682 (2015); Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013).cralawredlibrary