SECOND DIVISION
RICARDO ALCANTARA,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
147259
November 24, 2003
-versus-
HON. COURT OF
APPEALSAND
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
This is a petition
for review on certiorari of
the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 21068 affirming in toto
the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 62, in
Criminal Cases Nos. 90-5020 and 90-5023.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Carlita was intending
to sell a parcel of land she owned located in the Bel-Air Subdivision,
Barangay Merville, Makati, Metro Manila, covered by Transfer
Certificate
of Title No. 158630 and her house constructed thereon for P22,000,000.
Sometime during the first week of September 1990, Peter Dy Lee arrived
in her boutique (jewelry shop) located at the ABC Building, Guadalupe,
Makati City. Lee told Carlita that he was under the employ of Virgilio
Tulalian, the President of Junior Express, Inc., and Ricardo Alcantara,
the Vice-President for Operations of said corporation. As his employers
were in the import and export business, Lee proposed that garments made
by his employers be produced for her shop. In the course of the
conversation,
Carlita mentioned that she wanted to sell her property.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
About the second week
of September 1990, Alcantara and Tulalian arrived in the shop and told
Carlita that they wanted to order garments from her. Tulalian also told
her that his company, the Junior Express, Inc., was interested to buy
her
property. Tulalian then asked Carlita to lend to him P3,000,000 to
facilitate
the approval and release of his loan in Singapore in the amount of
US$2,000,000.[3]
Tulalian proposed to repay the loan and to pay for the property from
the
proceeds of the loan from Singapore, within a period of sixty days.
Tulalian
also offered to draw and deliver to Carlita a postdated check of
P3,000,000,
to guarantee the payment of the loan. Additionally, Tulalian and
Alcantara
also offered a parcel of land owned by Alcantara as collateral. The
property
was located in Binangonan, Rizal, covered by Original Certificate of
Title
(OCT) No. M-5410, issued on August 22, 1989 based on a free patent
executed
on December 21, 1988. Carlita replied that she would discuss their
proposals
with her lawyer.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the meantime, Carlita
inquired from Dr. Gorgonio Reyes, Alcantara's compadre, if the latter
was
a reliable person. Dr. Reyes told her that Alcantara was a former
schoolmate
of his, and assured her that he was a good person. Sgt. Honorato Glean,
a Makati policeman, Alcantara and Carlita inspected Alcantara's
property
and made inquiries from the Bureau of Lands/Register of Deeds as to its
ownership. Carlita and Sgt. Glean were able to confirm that indeed
Alcantara
and his wife Teresita were the registered owners of the property.[4]
Carlita finally agreed to lend P3,000,000 to Tulalian. She then
borrowed
the amount from Inocencio Carag and mortgaged her Bel-Air property to
guarantee
the payment thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 5, 1990,
Carlita, Tulalian and Alcantara executed a Contract of Conditional Deed
of Sale[5]
where they agreed that (a) Tulalian would purchase Carlita's property
for
P22,000,000; (b) until payment of the purchase price, Carlita would
remain
the owner of the property and would be entitled to its possession; (c)
Carlita and Tulalian shall then form a partnership after a deed of
absolute
sale shall have been executed in favor of Tulalian, and the property
shall
then be used for a garment factory; (d) Tulalian shall pay the purchase
price of the property with the proceeds of his approved loan from
abroad;
(e) the loan of P3,000,000 was granted to Tulalian with interest of 10%
per month; (f) the purchase price of the property as well as Tulalian's
P3,000,000 loan shall be paid within a period of sixty days from the
proceeds
of Tulalian's approved loan from Singapore; (g) to insure the payment
of
the said loan and purchase price of Carlita's property, Alcantara shall
execute a deed of assignment in her favor over his Binangonan property.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the same date, Alcantara,
with the marital consent of his wife Teresita, executed a deed of
assignment
of title of real estate property[7]
in favor of Carlita in which he mortgaged the Binangonan property
covered
by OCT No. M-5410 as collateral to guarantee the said transaction. It
was
also covenanted that upon Tulalian's failure to pay the P3,000,000 loan
within sixty days from the date thereof, Carlita shall have the right
to
"exercise the right and attributes of ownership over the property."
Tulalian
and Jose Bartolata signed the deed as witnesses. Alcantara turned over
the owner's duplicate of OCT No. M-5410 over the property. She had the
deed of assignment annotated, and delivered the same to Alcantara and
his
wife Teresita the amount of P3,000,000; P2,000,000 in cash, and
P1,000,000
in the form of a check. Tulalian and Bartolata drew and delivered to
Carlita
Check No. 07034049 in the amount of P3,000,000, postdated November 30,
1990 and drawn against the account of Junior Express, Inc. in the
International
Corporate Bank[8]
as guarantee for the payment of Tulalian's loan in the amount of
P3,000,000.[9]
When Carlita inquired from the drawee Bank if the depositor had
sufficient
funds in the said account to answer for the amount of the check, she
was
told that the check was drawn against insufficient funds but that the
drawee
was expecting some remittances from Singapore. Tulalian and Bartolata
also
drew Check No. 07034050 postdated November 30, 1990 in the amount of
P5,000,000,[10]
and Check No. 07034051 postdated December 20, 1990 in the amount of
P5,500,000,[11]
each drawn against Junior Express, Inc.'s account with the said bank in
favor of Carlita, in partial payment of the purchase price of her
property.cralaw:red
Subsequently, Tulalian
and Bartolata went to Singapore to follow up Tulalian's loan. Carlita
followed
suit. However, the transaction broke down and failed. Consequently,
Tulalian
failed to pay the loan as well as the purchase price of Carlita's
property.
Despite repeated demands by Carlita made in the company of Sgt. Glean
and
Dr. Reyes, Tulalian, Bartolata and Alcantara failed to pay. Alcantara
asked
Carlita to be more patient and not to deposit the checks, as he was
waiting
for Tulalian and Bartolata to return from Singapore.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When the obligations
remained unpaid, Carlita presented the checks to the drawee bank on
January
11, 1991. The checks were dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason
that the checks were drawn against insufficient funds. As of January
11,
1991, the balance in the account of Junior Express, Inc. was only
P205,100.15.[12]
Because of Tulalian and Alcantara's failure to pay the P3,000,000 loan,
Inocencio Carag charged Carlita with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22
in the RTC of Quezon City.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 4, 1991, Carlita
received a letter from Atty. Rafael Mateo, counsel of Jaime Alcantara.
She was informed that Jaime was a brother of Ricardo and Romulo
Alcantara,
and that the property covered by OCT No. M-5410 was owned not only by
Ricardo
Alcantara but also by Jaime Alcantara and their brother Romulo.
Furthermore,
Carlita was told that the property had already been the subject of a
partition
and approved Subdivision Plan No. Psa-229122 in the name of Juana
Aramil;
that the brothers Romulo and Jaime Alcantara never received a part of
Tulalian's
P3,000,000 loan; and that Ricardo Alcantara had no authority to assign
or mortgage the said property to Carlita. Finally, Jaime Alcantara
demanded
that she surrender the owner's duplicate of the said title within ten
days.[14]
Carlita failed to comply.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 15, 1991, Giovani
Diestro and Jaime Alcantara, represented by Romulo Alcantara, filed a
civil
complaint against Carlita and the Spouses Ricardo and Teresita B.
Alcantara
with the RTC of Binangonan, Rizal, for reconveyance and/or partition
with
damages and specific performance. The plaintiffs therein alleged inter
alia that the plaintiffs Jaime and Romulo Alcantara and the defendant
Ricardo
Alcantara were co-owners of the property: the plaintiff Jaime Alcantara
owned an undivided one-half of the property; the one-fourth undivided
portion
was owned by the defendant Ricardo Alcantara; and the other undivided
one-fourth
portion was owned by Romulo Alcantara. It was further alleged that
Ricardo
Alcantara, through fraud, was able to secure a free patent over the
entire
property in his name;[16]
and that the deed of conditional sale executed by Ricardo Alcantara in
Carlita's favor was null and void insofar as his undivided share was
concerned,
being contrary to Section 118 of Commonwealth Act 141, as amended.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The plaintiffs therein
prayed that, after due proceedings, judgment be rendered in their
favor,
thus:
1. As
against
defendant spouses, to reconvey to plaintiffs Giovani Diestro and Jaime
Alcantara their share, rights, interest and participation in the
property
covered by Original Certificate of Title No. M-5410 only to the extent
of ¼ and ½, respectively;
2. As against
defendant
Marcantonio, to deliver duplicate owner's copy of Original Certificate
of Title No. M-5410 to herein plaintiff, the assigned being null and
void;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. To pay actual
damages
of P100,000.00;
4. To pay
exemplary
damages of P100,000.00;
5. To pay moral
damages
of no less than P100,000.00;
6. To reimburse
plaintiff
attorney's fee of P300,000.00 plus P1,000.00 for every court
appearance;
and
7. To compensate
cost
of suit and other expenses of litigation.[18]
Appended to the
complaint
was a waiver executed by Ricardo and his wife Teresita on June 4, 1991.
The waiver contained the following: that Juana Aramil executed a deed
of
absolute sale over three parcels of land covered by tax Declaration
Nos.
15-0179, 15-0180 and 15-0181 on June 26, 1979, in favor of his brothers
Romulo and Jaime Alcantara in the following proportions: Ricardo
Alcantara
— ¼ undivided portion; Jaime Alcantara — ¼ undivided
portion;
Romulo Alcantara — ¼ undivided portion; that he applied for a
free
patent over the parcel of land identified as Lot 10827, Cad-609-D
covered
by Tax Declaration No. 15-0179 in his name which was granted; that
based
on the said patent, OCT No. M-5410 was issued in his name; that he was
waiving his right over the said lot in favor of his brothers as
follows:
Jaime Alcantara — ½ undivided portion; Romulo Alcantara —
¼
undivided portion; and that Ricardo was ready, upon demand, to execute
a deed of conveyance over the said portions in favor of his brothers.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Carlita filed a cross-claim
against the defendant spouses Ricardo and Teresita alleging that the
deed
of assignment they executed in her favor was valid. In their answer to
the complaint, the defendant spouses alleged that Ricardo was merely a
co-owner of the property and that he had executed a waiver in favor of
his brothers Jaime and Romulo. Anent Carlita's cross-claim against
them,
the defendant spouses averred inter alia that the deed of assignment as
null and void because they were induced through insidious words and
machinations,
into executing the deed of assignment, and that the same was contrary
to
law, moral and public policy, being contrary to Section 118,
Commonwealth
Act 141, as amended.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For her part, Carlita
filed a criminal complaint against Alcantara, Tulalian and Bartolata
for
estafa and violations of B.P.
Blg. 22 docketed as I.S. 92-612. After the requisite preliminary
investigation,
an Information was filed with the RTC of Makati, charging Tulalian,
Ricardo
Alcantara and Jose Bartolata with estafa docketed as Criminal Case No.
92-5020, the accusatory Portion of which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or
about the 31st day of October 1990, in the Municipality of Makati,
Metro
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and all
of them mutually helping and aiding one another, did then and there
willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud one CARLITA MARC ANTONIO (sic) in
the
following manner, to wit: The said accused, by means of deceit and
false
pretenses to the effect that they have the necessary credit, were able
to induce the complainant Carlita Marc Antonio into delivering to them
the total sum of P3,000,000.00 as loan which they falsely promised to
pay
within the period of sixty (60) days upon their false manifestations
and
fraudulent representations that they will use the same in securing
US$2,000,000.00
abroad with which to pay off the said complainant for the
P22,000,000.00
value of her house and lot located in Bel-Air, Makati, subject of their
deed of conditional sale and upon their further false representation
that
the said loan and their obligation under said deed of conditional sale
were amply secured by three (3) postdated checks issued by Virgilio
Tulalian
and a deed of assignment executed by accused Ricardo Alcantara over a
parcel
of land which the said accused represented to be exclusively owned by
him,
the said accused fully knowing that their said representations were all
false and fraudulent as (1) they did not have any slightest intention
from
the start to pay said loan; (2) the three (3) checks issued by accused
Virgilio Tulalian were not covered by sufficient funds and were, in
fact,
all dishonored on said ground; and (3) the real property in Binangonan,
Rizal was not exclusively owned by accused Ricardo Alcantara but
co-owned
by him with other persons, to the damage and prejudice of the said
complainant
Carlita Marc Antonio in the aforestated amount of P3,000,000.00.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Three other
Informations
were filed against Tulalian and Bartolata with the RTC, docketed as
Criminal
Cases Nos. 92-5021, 92-5022 and 92-5023 for violation of B.P.
Blg. 22. The accusatory portion of the three uniformly worded
Informations
is as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or
about the 31st day of October 1990, in the Municipality of Makati,
Metro
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,
the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously
make or draw and issue to CARLITA MARC ANTONIO to apply on account or
for
value the check described below:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Check
No.:
07034049
Drawn Against:
The International
Corporate Bank
In the amount
of: P3,000,000.00
Dated/Posted:
November
30, 1990
Payable to:
Carlita
Marc Antonio
said accused well
knowing
that at the time of issue they did not have sufficient funds in or
credit
with the drawee bank for the payment in full of the face amount of such
check upon its presentment, which check when presented for payment
within
ninety (90) days from the date thereof was subsequently dishonored by
the
drawee bank for the reason "DRAWN AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS," and
despite
receipt of notice of such dishonor, the accused failed to pay said
payee
the face amount of said check or to make arrangement for full payment
thereof
within five (5) banking days after receiving notice.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Alcantara and Tulalian
were arraigned with the assistance of counsel and entered their
respective
pleas of not guilty to all the charges. However, Jose Bartolata
remained
at large. A joint trial thereafter ensued.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Evidence for the
Accused
Alcantara, a retired
government dentist, testified that it was only Tulalian and Bartolata
who
secured the loan in the amount of only P2,000,000 from Carlita.[23]
He assured Carlita before she delivered the P2,000,000 that he was the
owner of the property covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
M-5410.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Tulalian testified that,
in 1991, Carlita showed him samples of garments to be sold by her to a
foreign buyer. He then decided to purchase the garments and sell the
same
himself. He later purchased garments from Carlita.[24]
She, thereafter, proposed that the two of them forge a joint venture
and
he had agreed. He asked Carlita for a P2,000,000 loan for the
procurement
of equipment and other things from Singapore, and the latter agreed, on
the condition that he put up collateral for the loan.[25]
Alcantara agreed to use his Binangonan property as collateral for the
loan.
Tulalian received the said amount from Carlita and gave the same to
Alcantara
and Bartolata who, in turn, deposited the same in their account in the
International Corporate Bank.[26]
Alcantara executed a deed of assignment of real estate property in
favor
of Carlita, and was also made to sign the deed of conditional sale.
Alcantara
and his wife, along with Bartolata, went to Singapore for their
respective
business conferences.[27]
Tulalian was supposed to receive US$900,000,000 from investors in
Singapore.
However, two weeks after their arrival, Bartolata suffered a stroke and
was brought to a hospital. When Bartolata recovered, he returned to the
Philippines while Tulalian remained in Singapore. He received word from
the investors to proceed to Hongkong on January 27, 1992. But because
he
was arrested by policemen in the Philippines on January 24, 1992,
Tulalian
was unable to go to Hongkong as scheduled, to consummate his
transactions
with the investors and to receive the proceeds of his US$900,000,000
loan.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Tulalian admitted that
he drew and delivered the three checks to Carlita to enable her to show
the same to her American husband and to convince the latter that there
was a prospective buyer of their property.[29]
The checks were drawn against the account of Junior Express, Inc.,
where
he served as the president, Alcantara as the vice-president, and Jose
Bartolata
as the executive vice-president.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the meantime, the
RTC rendered judgment on February 26, 1997 in Civil Case No. 549-B
ordering
the dismissal of the complaint.[31]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court rendered
judgment convicting Tulalian and Alcantara of estafa in Criminal Case
No.
92-5020; and Tulalian of violation of B.P.
Blg. 22 in Criminal Case No. 92-5021; and 'acquitting them in
Criminal
Cases Nos. 92-5022 and 92-5023. The decretal portion of the decision
reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
in Criminal Case No. 92-5020, this Court finds accused Virgilio
Tulalian
and Ricardo Alcantara guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principals of
Violation of Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code and
sentence them to an indeterminate penalty from Seventeen (17) years,
four
(4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to Twenty
(20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify
complainant
Carlita Marc Antonio the sum of Three Million (P3,000,000.00) Pesos,
without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, with costs. The
information
in Criminal Case No. 92-5020, insofar as accused Jose Bartolata is
concerned,
is ordered archived, pending his arrest. Issue alias warrant of arrest
against accused, Jose Bartolata, in Criminal Case No. 92-5020.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Criminal Case
No.
92-5021, this Court finds accused Virgilio Tulalian guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt, as principal of Violation of Section 1 of B.P. 22 and sentences
him to suffer straight penalty of One (1) Year, together with all the
accessory
penalties provided by law, and to pay the costs.
The information in
Criminal
Case No. 92-5021 against Jose Bartolata is ordered archived pending his
arrest. Issue a warrant for his arrest in Criminal Case No. 92-5021.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Criminal Cases
Nos.
92-5022 and 92-5023, for Violation of B.P. 22, accused Virgilio
Tulalian
is acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. There being no probable
cause
exists against Jose Bartolata, the Informations against him in Criminal
Cases Nos. 92-5022 and 92-5023 are dismissed; and the warrant of arrest
issued against him in said Crim. Cases Nos. 92 5022 and 92-5023 are
cancelled
and recalled.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[32]
On appeal, the Office
of
the Solicitor General posited in its consolidated brief for the
appellee
that the appellants' appeal from the decision of the trial court
convicting
them of estafa was meritorious. The Court of Appeals, however, rendered
judgment affirming in toto the decision of the trial court. The CA
found
that appellant Alcantara deceived Carlita into granting a P3,000,000
loan
to Tulalian payable in sixty (60) days, on the appellant's false
representation
that he was the owner of the property. The CA also stated that although
the private complainant had the opportunity to check on the
petitioner's
and Tulalian's background, the same was a part of a ploy to deceive
her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Alcantara,
now petitioner, filed a petition for review on certiorari of the
decision
of the CA, with the following assignment of errors:
THE
RESPONDENT
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THE PETITIONER GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF
ESTAFA PUNISHABLE UNDER ARTICLE 315, PAR. 2(A) OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE.[33]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Office of the
Solicitor
General manifested that it was adopting its Consolidated Appellee's
Brief
filed in the CA as its comment on the petition; and recommended that
the
decision of the RTC be reversed and that the petitioner be acquitted of
estafa.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner avers
that he never deceived the private complainant into believing that he
had
credit and business. She even had his and Tulalian's background checked
and she was satisfied that they were good persons. He never deceived
the
private complainant into believing that he was the owner of the
Binangonan
property. He is, in fact, the registered owner of the property as
evidenced
by OCT No. M-5410, and even turned over the owner's duplicate of the
title
to Carlita. She even inspected the property, verified the title in the
Office of the Register of Deeds, and confirmed that indeed the
petitioner
was the owner of the property. The private complainant was a
businesswoman
in her own right and would not have parted with her P3,000,000 unless
she
was certain that he was the owner of the property. The petitioner
further
alleged that the three checks[34]
issued to the that he mere private complainant were drawn by Tulalian
and
Bartolata, and that he merely guaranteed the payment of the said loan
with
his property.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For its part, the Office
of the Solicitor General contends that Tulalian and the petitioner
never
deceived the private complainant into parting with the P3,000,000,
ratiocinating,
thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the
contrary,
the complainant herself testified that she made inquiries about the
business
standings of the appellants and was satisfied therewith.
To the same effect
was
her testimony in Civil Case No. 349-B. In fact, she even went to
Singapore
upon learning that the appellants were going there to follow up their
loan.
Unfortunately, the deal collapsed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is crystal
clear
then that there was no pretense involved. There was no deceit. Neither
was there evidence adduced that appellants were not reputable
businessmen.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is especially
true
in regard to Alcantara. He was merely a guarantor and in fact offered
his
real estate as a collateral to secure the P3,000 000.00 loan extended
to
Tulalian. What is more, he was not even a signatory in the check issued
to secure the loan. The check was signed by Tulalian and Bartolata.[35]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petition is
meritorious.
Article 315, paragraph
2(a) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 7659 reads:
Art. 315.
Swindling
(estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned
hereinbelow shall be punished by: x
x
x
x x
x
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:
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The elements of
the
felony are as follows:
1. That
there
must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means.
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.
4. That as a
result
thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[36]
In People v. Balasa,[37]
this Court explained that fraud in its general sense is deemed to
comprise
anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and
concealment
involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence
justly
reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and
unconscientious
advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term embracing all
multifarious
means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by
one
individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or
by suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick, cunning,
dissembling
and. any unfair way by which another is cheated. And deceit is the
false
representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by
false
or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have
been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that
he shall act upon it to his legal injury. The false pretense or
fraudulent
act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud.[38]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The prosecution is burdened
to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the essential elements of the
felony
and that the petitioner, Tulalian and Bartolata conspired to commit the
crime charged. Reasonable doubt is that doubt engendered by an
investigation
of the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let
the
mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. Absolute certainty of guilt
is not required by the law to convict of any crime charged but moral
certainty
is required and this certainty is required to every proposition of
proof
requisite to constitute the offense.[39]
The reasonable doubt should necessarily pertain to the facts
constituted
by the crime charged. Surmises and conjectures have no place in a
judicial
inquiry and thus are shunned in criminal prosecution. For the accused
to
be acquitted on reasonable doubt, it must arise from the evidence
adduced
or from lack of evidence. Reasonable doubt is not such a doubt as any
man
may start questioning for the sake of a doubt; nor a doubt suggested or
surmised without foundation in facts, for it is always possible to
question
any conclusion derived from the evidence on record. Reasonable doubt is
the state of the case which after a calibration and assessment of the
totality
of the evidence of the prosecution leaves the mind of the judge in that
condition that he cannot say that there is a moral certainty of the
truth
of the charge.[40]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Conspiracy exists when
two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a felony and decide
to commit it. Conspiracy may be proved by direct evidence or by
circumstantial
evidence as shown by the acts of the accused before, during and after
the
commission of the felony. An accepted badge of conspiracy is when the
accused,
by their collective acts aimed at the same object, one performing one
part
and another performing another so as to complete it with a view to the
attainment of the same objective, and their acts, though apparently
independent,
were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of
personal
association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.[41]
Mere knowledge, acquiescence to or approval of the act without
cooperation
or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one party to a
conspiracy
absent the intentional participation in the act with a view to the
furtherance
of the common design and purpose.[42]
Conspiracy must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[43]
Where conspiracy is shown, the precise modality or extent of
participation
of each individual becomes secondary. The act of one becomes the act of
all.[44]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, the prosecution
was burdened to prove the charge of estafa in Criminal Case No.
92-5020.
The prosecution was burdened to prove that:
(a) the
petitioner
in concert with Tulalian deceived the private complainant into granting
them a loan of P3,000,000 and delivering to them the said amount on
their
representations and assurances that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) they
would
use the said amount to secure the US$2,000,000 loan from abroad, and
this,
in turn, would be used to pay the loan as well as the purchase price of
P22,000,00 for the Bel-Air property;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) the petitioner
was the exclusive owner of the Binangonan property which they mortgaged
to the private complainant to secure the payment of the said loan; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) the three
checks
drawn and issued by Tulalian and Bartolata to the private complainant
to
secure the obligations were drawn against insufficient funds in the
drawee
bank when presented for payment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) the private
complainant
later discovered that:
(1) they
did
not have the slightest intention of paying the said loan of P3,000,000;
(2) the three
checks
were not covered by sufficient funds and were in fact all dishonored by
the drawee bank on the said ground when presented for payment; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) the petitioner
was not the exclusive owner of the Binangonan property but was merely a
co-owner with his brothers Romulo and Jaime Alcantara.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
prosecution
failed to discharge its burden.chanrobles virtual law library
First.
As gleaned from the deed of conditional sale,[45]
Tulalian alone received the proceeds of the P3,000,000 loan from
Carlita.
He then obliged himself to pay the said loan within sixty days from
date
thereof, to purchase Carlita's Bel-Air property for P22,000,000, and to
pay for the same from the proceeds of Tulalian's US$2,000,000 loan from
abroad:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. That
the
Sales price agreed upon between the parties, VENDOR and VENDEE, is
TWENTY-TWO
MILLION PESOS (P22,000,000.00).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
6. That Party of
the
Second Part shall proceed with his mission abroad to release his
approved
loans within a period of sixty days and that the Party of the First
Part
to facilitate and enable the Party of the Second Part to obtain and
secure
the release of loan from abroad, the proceeds of which shall be applied
for the payment of the total cost of sale of the property, shall grant
him a loan in the amount of THREE MILLION PESOS (P3,000,000.00) with
interest
of 10% per month which shall be added to the total cost of sale to
defray
his expenses;[46]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second.
Under
the deed of assignment of title of real property, the petitioner merely
guaranteed the payment of Tulalian's loan and used his Binangonan
property
as collateral to answer for the loan. The private complainant executed
the deed of conditional sale with Tulalian and the petitioner. Thus,
she
knew that it was Tulalian who had an approved loan from Singapore, and
that it was he who needed P3,000,000 for expenses to cause the release
of the US$2,000,000 loan from Singapore.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner had
nothing
to do with Tulalian's prospective loan transaction in Singapore. In
fact,
only Tulalian and Bartolata went to Singapore to follow up the release
of the proceeds of the approved loan, while the petitioner remained in
the Philippines.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third.
Only Tulalian and Bartolata drew and issued ICB Check Nos. 07034049 to
07034051.[47]
There is no evidence on record that the petitioner assured the Private
complainant that the three checks would be honored by the drawee bank
when
presented by her for payment.
Fourth.
The petitioner did assure the private complainant and represent to her
that he was the sole owner of the property covered by OCT No. M-5410.
The
correctness and validity of the representation is evidenced by the said
title, where it appears that the petitioner is the sole owner of the
property.
The names of the brothers of the petitioner, Jaime and Romulo
Alcantara,
do not appear in the said title as co-owners thereof. Parenthetically,
the private complainant has only herself to blame when she agreed to
the
arrangement that the petitioner use his property as collateral to
guarantee
the payment of Tulalian's loan. She should have rejected the proposal
outright.
This is so because as gleaned on the face of OCT No. M-5410, the said
title
was issued based on a free patent granted on December 21, 1988. Thus,
the
said property could not be encumbered within a period of five years
from
the date of the said patent except in favor of the government, its
branches,
units or institutions:
To All
Whom
These Presents Shall Come, Greetings:
RICARDO
A.
ALCANTARA, Filipino, of legal age, married to TERESITA BARRETTO and a
resident
of 155 Haeg Street, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila possessing all the
qualifications
and having fully complied with all the conditions and requirements of
Republic
Acts Nos. 782 and 3872, Chapter VII of Commonwealth Act No. 141 as
amended,
and Batas Pambansa Blg. 223 is hereby granted this Free Patent for the
land situated in Macamot, Binangonan, Rizal with an area of FIFTY
THOUSAND
THREE HUNDRED sq.m., more particularly bounded and described at the
back
hereof subject, however, to the provisions of Sections 118 which
provide,
among others, that except in favor of the Government or any of its
branches,
units, or institutions, the land hereby acquired shall be inalienable
and
shall not be subject to encumbrance for a period of five (5) years from
date of this patent, 119, 121 as amended by P.D. No. 763, 122 and 124
of
Commonwealth Act No. 141, is amended, and P.D. No. 1198; to all public
easements and servitudes prescribed in Sections 109, 110, 111, 112 as
amended
by P.D. No. 1361, 113 and 114 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended;
and to the right of government to administer and protect the timber
found
thereon for a term of five (5) years from the date of issuance of the
patent,
provided, however, that the grantee or his heirs may cut and utilize
such
timber as may be needed for his or their personal use.[48]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As such, the deed of
assignment
of title of real property executed by the petitioner in favor of the
private
complainant as collateral for Tulalian's loan is null and void.[49]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fifth.
The allegations of the petitioner in his answer in Civil Case No. 549-B
and in his waiver dated June 4, 1991 appended to the complaint in the
said
case, that he and his brothers Jaime and Romulo Alcantara were
co-owners
of the property, are false. His claims are belied by the decision of
the
RTC in Civil Case No. 549-B that the sole vendee and owner under the
deed
of absolute sale executed by Juana Aramil over the said property was
the
petitioner, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
Court,
likewise, finds that the complaint of Giovani Diestro which alleged
that
the portion of the land covered by OCT No. 5430, containing an area of
15,326 square meters belongs to him by virtue of a deed of sale in his
favor and now under Tax Declaration No. 15-0716 is baseless. The
records
show that the Deed of Absolute Sale by Juana Aramil in favor of Ricardo
Alcantara, Romulo Alcantara and Jaime Alcantara consists of three
parcels
of land — the first parcel containing an area of 20,576 square meters
located
at Macamot, Binangonan, Rizal and covered by Tax Declaration No.
15-0179.
In Tax Declaration No. 15-0719, it is shown that the area in Tax
Declaration
No. 15-0570 is 20,576 less the area of 5,144 square meters sold to
Diestro
and the remaining portion is 15,432 square meters. At the back, it is
stated
that this tax declaration, (15-0719) cancels Tax No. 15-0569 and begins
with the year 1988. The tax declaration in the name of Giovani Diestro
with regard to the 5,144 square-meter land sold to him by Romulo
Alcantara,
his father-in-law is in Tax Declaration No. 15-0718. So the land with
an
area of 5,144 sold to Giovani Diestro is separate and distinct from the
land covered by OCT No. 5410 in the name of Ricardo Alcantara, married
to Teresita Barretto. Plaintiff is liable for damages.[50]
The Court is
convinced
that the petitioner made the said allegations in his Answer in Civil
Case
No. 549-B dated October 1, 1991 and in his Waiver dated June 4, 1991
long
after he executed the deed of assignment of title of real property in
favor
of the private complainant on November 5, 1990. This was done to fend
off
the prospective foreclosure of the said mortgage by the private
complainant
upon Tulalian's failure to pay the loan. In fine, the petitioner's
false
allegations in his answer to the complaint in Civil Case No. 549-B and
in his waiver were not used to induce the private complainant to grant
the P3,000,000 loan to Tulalian. The petitioner made the allegations
long
after the private complainant had parted with her P3,000,000 and had
given
the same to Tulalian.
Sixth.
The
mere fact that the petitioner was an officer of Junior Express, Inc.,
that
he agreed to use his property as collateral to guarantee Tulalian's
loan,
and that he was in the company of Tulalian when they transacted with
the
private complainant in her boutique do not prove the existence of
conspiracy
to commit estafa against her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING,
the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
convicting
the petitioner of estafa under Criminal Case No. 92-5020 is REVERSED
AND
SET ASIDE. Petitioner Ricardo Alcantara is acquitted of the said
charge.
No costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez
and Tinga, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis with Associate
Justices
Godardo A. Jacinto and Rebecca De Guia-Salvador concurring.
[2]
Penned by Judge Roberto C. Diokno.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
TSN, 23 November 1992, pp. 4–5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 4–6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Exhibit "A."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Exhibit "A," Records, pp. 157–160.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Exhibit "B," id. at 161.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
TSN, 5 July 1993, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Exhibit "C."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Exhibit "E."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Exhibit "D."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, 5 July 1993, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
TSN, 23 November 1992, p. 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Exhibit "H."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Exhibit "F."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Records, pp. 164–171.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id. at 171.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Exhibit "K," pp. 181-182.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Id. at 174–180.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id. at 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Id. at 26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
TSN, 25 May 1994, pp. 5–8.
[24]
TSN, 17 August 1994, pp. 3–4.
[25]
Id. at 5–7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Id. at 7–8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Id. at 10–11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Id. at 14–15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Id. at 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Id. at 18–19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Rollo, pp. 53–59.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
footnote text not found in the original.
[33]
Rollo, p. 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Exhibits "D" to "F".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
Rollo, pp. 47–48.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
Erquiaga v. Court of Appeals, 367 SCRA 357 (2001).
[37]
295 SCRA 49 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
People v. Chua, 315 SCRA 326 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
People v. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59 (1971).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
People v. Calma, 295 SCRA 629 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
People v. Medina, 292 SCRA 436 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
People v. Bragaes, 203 SCRA 555 (1991).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
Fernandez v. People, 341 SCRA 277 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
People v. Llanes, 340 SCRA 564 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
Exhibit "A."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
Exhibit "A-2."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
Exhibits "C" to "E".chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[48]
Exhibit "F."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
Republic v. Director of Lands, 281 SCRA 639 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
Rollo, p. 58.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |