SECOND DIVISION
|
BIENVENIDO GONZALUDO, Petitioner, - versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
G.R. No. 150910 Present: PUNO,
J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ.
Promulgated: February 6, 2006 |
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
Under consideration is this
petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to nullify and set aside the following issuances of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 22185,
to wit:
1.
Decision dated 19 July 2001,[1] dismissing the appeal thereto taken by the herein
petitioner from a judgment of conviction promulgated by the Regional Trial
Court of Bacolod City, Branch 50, in a criminal case for estafa thru
falsification of public document thereat commenced by the People against four
(4) accused, including the petitioner; and
2.
Resolution dated
The material facts may be briefly stated, as follows:
Before his death in 1992, one Ulysses Villaflor was a member
of the Bacolod City Police Office. On
Later, Ulysses was assigned to
Meanwhile, his wife Anita secured a teaching job in Catubig,
After less than a year in P1,500.00 a small house located near that of his mother at Purok 5,
Mansungay,
Then, in 1985, Ulysses took one Rosemarie Gelogo as his
mistress and brought her into the house. In time, improvements were made on the
house, the most substantial of which were those introduced sometime in March
1991. What used to be a small house, which
Ulysses bought for only P1,500.00, was thus transformed into a 2-storey structure
partially made of concrete hollow blocks and with galvanized iron roofing which
thereby enhanced its value to P200,000.00.
After Ulysses’s demise in January of 1992, his mistress Rosemarie
Gelogo offered to sell the 2-storey house for P80,000.00 to herein petitioner
Bienvenido Gonzaludo, a.k.a. Ben Gonzaludo, who lives just nearby. Initially, petitioner was not interested to
buy the house because he already had one, let alone the fact that he did not
have enough money for the purpose. Nonetheless, since the house was being sold
for a cheap price, petitioner convinced the spouses Gregg Canlas and Melba
Canlas, to whom he is related by affinity, to buy the same. Herein, petitioner introduced the Canlases to
Rosemarie Gelogo.
On
Later, upon complaint of Ulysses’s widow Anita Manlangit, an
Information dated
That
on or about the 20th day of January, 1993 in the City of Bacolod,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein
accused, conspiring, confederating and acting in concert, with intent to gain,
defrauded the herein offended party, Anita Manlangit Vda. de Villaflor, herein
represented by her mother-in-law and Attorney-in-Fact, Anastacia Tobongbanua,
in the following manner, to wit: that
accused Rosemarie Gelogo alias Rosemarie G. Villaflor being the occupant of a
house made of concrete materials with a floor area of 40 ft. by 24 ft., with
galvanized iron roofing, worth P200,000.00, owned by the deceased
Ulysses Villaflor, husband of the herein offended party, did, then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of falsification by then and there preparing and/or causing to
be prepared a public document denominated as a Deed of Sale dated January 20,
1993 entered as Doc. No. 402, Page No. 81, Book No. XVII, Series of 1993 of the
Notarial Register of Atty. Ramon B. Clapiz, to the effect that she is the
lawful owner of the said house and affixing or causing to be affixed thereon her name and signature,
Rosemarie G. Villaflor, purportedly as wife of the deceased Ulysses Villaflor,
thus making untruthful statement in the narration of facts as accused well know
that such was not the case for the deceased Ulysses Villaflor has a legal wife
in the person of the herein offended party, by reason of which accused was able
to effect the sale and eventual occupancy of the said house to the herein
accused Sps. Gregg Canlas and Melba Canlas who despite of their knowledge that
such house was not owned by Rosemarie Gelogo bought the same from her in the
amount of P80,000.00 and, herein accused Bienvenido Gonzaludo alias
“Ben”, despite of his knowledge that such house was not owned by Rosemarie
Gelogo, participated in the commission of the herein offense by causing his
name and signature to be affixed in the said Deed of Sale as witness to the
fraudulent sale entered into by the parties, to the damage and prejudice of the
herein offended party in the amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00),
Philippine Currency.
Act
contrary to law.
Docketed as Criminal Case No. 94-16532, the Information was
raffled to Branch 50 of the court.
Because accused Rosemarie Gelogo remained at large, only the
spouses Gregg Canlas and Melba Canlas and herein petitioner were arraigned, all
of whom entered a plea of “Not Guilty.”
After due proceedings, the trial court, in a decision dated February 17, 1998,[5] acquitted
the Canlas spouses but convicted petitioner of the complex crime of Estafa Thru
Falsification of Public Document and sentenced him accordingly. Dispositively, the decision reads:
FOR
ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused Bienvenido Gonzaludo GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt as a principal and co-conspirator of the complex Crime
of Estafa Thru Falsification of a Public Document and there being no
extenuating circumstances and pursuant to the provision of Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Temporal. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the accused is sentenced to a prison term of Eight (8) years of
Prision Mayor to Twenty (20) years of Reclusion Temporal. By way of Civil Liability, the accused is
sentenced to pay the offended party the sum of P200,000.00, representing
the value of the house and the sum of P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
The
case with respect to the accused-Spouses Gregg and Melba Canlas is ordered
dismissed as their guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefrom, petitioner went to the CA via ordinary appeal in CA-G.R. CR No. 22185.
As
stated at the outset hereof, the appellate court, in its decision dated
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the appeal is hereby ordered DISMISSED, having no merit in fact and in law, and the decision of the trial court AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
With his motion for reconsideration having been denied by
the CA in its resolution of
I – xxx
sustained the decision of the trial court convicting the petitioner of the
crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document as defined and punished
under Paragraph 2(a), Article 315, Revised Penal Code EVEN IF not any of the
statutory elements of the crime herein charged is present or has been proved
and/or not all of the statutory elements of the offense thus charged are
present or have been proved beyond reasonable doubt;
II – xxx
sustained the conviction of your petitioner ALTHOUGH the material allegations
in the information filed below have not been proved at all beyond reasonable
doubt;
III – xxx
sustained the conviction of herein petitioner of a crime not properly charged
in the information;
IV – xxx
grossly misappreciated the facts and misapplied the law and jurisprudence
concerning the status of the house subject of this case as to whether the same
is totally a conjugal property of Ulysses and Anita or the house wholly or
substantially belongs to Rosemarie Gelogo a.k.a. Rosemarie G. Villaflor.
The petition is partly impressed with merit.
Basic in this jurisdiction is the doctrine that in criminal
cases, an appeal throws the whole case wide open for review. Issues, whether raised or not by the parties,
may be resolved by the appellate court.[6] The Court is duty-bound to look into the
validity of the factual and legal basis relied upon by the two (2) courts below
in convicting petitioner in this case.
It is worthy to note that petitioner was convicted by the
trial court of the complex crime charged in the Information for allegedly
having conspired with Rosemarie Gelogo, who used the fictitious surname “Villaflor” for the purpose of giving her
a semblance of authority to sell the house purportedly owned by her paramour,
Ulysses Villaflor, who was legally married to private complainant, Anita
Villaflor.
First and foremost, therefore, it is incumbent upon the
prosecution to establish Rosemarie Gelogo’s criminal liability for the complex
crime of estafa through falsification of public document, and thereafter, establish
by proof beyond reasonable doubt that herein petitioner conspired with
Rosemarie in the commission of the same complex crime. In other words, if Rosemarie cannot be held
liable for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document under
the Information filed in this case, with all the more reason should it be for
petitioner, as alleged co-conspirator.
For an accused to be convicted of the complex crime of
estafa through falsification of public document, all the elements of the two
crimes of estafa and falsification of public document must exist.
To secure conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph
2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the Court has time and again ruled that the
following requisites must concur:
(1)
that
the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions;
(2)
that
such false pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or
simultaneous with the commission of the fraud;
(3)
that such false
pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause which induced
the offended party to part with his money or property; and
(4)
that
as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage[7] (Emphasis supplied).
There is no question that the first, second and fourth
elements are present: there was false or fraudulent misrepresentation by
Rosemarie Gelogo when she used the fictitious surname “Villaflor”; the
misrepresentation or false pretense was made prior to or simultaneous with the
commission of the fraud; and private complainant Anita Manlangit’s right to the
subject 2-storey house was lost or at the very least prejudiced when Rosemarie
sold it to the Canlases.
It is petitioner’s thesis, however, that there is here an
absence of the third element, i.e., “that such false pretenses or fraudulent
representations constitute the very cause which induced the offended party to part with his money or property,”
contending that private complainant Anita Manlangit, who was the offended party
in this case, was never induced to part with any money or property by means of
fraud, committed simultaneously with the false pretense or fraudulent
representation by Rosemarie.
We find merit in petitioner’s submission.
As early as in the 1903 case of U.S. vs. Mendezona,[8]
we held that therein accused may be convicted for estafa only when the
deceit or false pretenses, committed simultaneously with the fraud, were the efficient cause or primary consideration which induced the offended party to part with his
money or property.
Thirty (30) years thereafter, the rule remains the
same. In the 1933 case of People vs. Lilius,[9]
the Court, through then Chief
Justice Ramon Avanceña, acquitted the accused of estafa because the deceit did
not precede the defraudation, which means that the deceit was not the cause
which could have induced the damage or prejudice to or loss of property
suffered by the injured party.
In
the cases of People vs. Quesada,[10]
People vs. Fortuno,[11]
and People vs. Sabio,[12]
which span more than another forty-five (45) years after Lilius, the Court continued to apply the
same principle in determining criminal liability for estafa, i.e., that the
deceit must have been committed prior to or simultaneous with the fraudulent
act because this was the only way that said deceit could become the efficient
cause or primary consideration which could have induced the offended party to
part with his money or property.
The doctrine remains the same a hundred (100) years after
the 1903 case of Mendezona. Thus, in
the 2003 case of Alcantara vs. Court of
Appeals,[13]
this Court acquitted the therein accused of the crime of estafa explaining,
through Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., that the false pretense or fraudulent act must
be committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, thus:
xxx 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.
We find no cogent reason to depart from this settled
principle that the deceit, which must be prior to or simultaneously committed
with the act of defraudation, must be the efficient
cause or primary consideration which
induced the offended party to part with his money or property and rule differently
in the present case.
While it may be said that there was fraud or deceit
committed by Rosemarie in this case, when she used the surname “Villaflor” to
give her semblance of authority to sell the subject 2-storey house, such fraud
or deceit was employed upon the Canlas
spouses who were the ones who parted with their money when they bought the
house. However, the Information charging Rosemarie of estafa in the present
case, alleged damage or injury not upon the Canlas spouses, but upon private
complainant, Anita Manlangit. Since the deceit or fraud was not the efficient
cause and did not induce Anita Manlangit to part with her property in this
case, Rosemarie cannot be held liable for estafa. With all the more reason must this be for
herein petitioner.
The lack of criminal liability for estafa, however, will not
necessarily absolve petitioner from criminal liability arising from the charge
of falsification of public document
under the same Information charging the complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public document. It is
settled doctrine that –
When a
complex crime has been charged in an information and the evidence fails to
support the charge on one of the component offenses, can the defendant still be
separately convicted of the other offense?
The question has long been answered in the affirmative. In United
States vs. Lahoylahoy and Madanlog (38 Phil. 330), the
Court has ruled to be legally feasible the conviction of an accused on one of
the offenses included in a complex crime charged, when properly established,
despite the failure of evidence to hold the accused of the other charge.[14]
Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code punishes any private
individual who shall commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in
Article 171 in any public or official document or letter of
exchange or any other kind of commercial document. In turn, Article 171 of the
same Code provides:
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or
notary or ecclesiastic minister.- The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos [sic]
shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking
advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any
of the following acts:
1.
Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing
it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not in fact so participate;
3.
Attributing to persons who have participated in any act or proceeding
statements other than those in fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration
of facts;
5. Altering
true dates;
6. Making
any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its
meaning;
7. Issuing
in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original
document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement
contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or
8.
Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a
protocol, registry, or official book.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons. (Emphasis supplied)
As correctly found by the trial court, petitioner conspired
with Rosemarie to falsify, that is, by making untruthful statement in the
narration of facts in the deed of sale, by declaring Rosemarie to be the owner
of the house subject of such sale and signing as “Rosemarie Villaflor” instead
of her real name, Rosemarie Gelogo, in order to sell the same to the Canlas
spouses. It is established by evidence
beyond reasonable doubt that Rosemarie committed the crime of falsification of
public document. Likewise, proof beyond
reasonable doubt has been duly adduced to establish conspiracy between
Rosemarie and petitioner who is the brother-in-law of Melba Canlas, one of the
buyers of the house in this case.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby MODIFIED. Petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED of the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of
Public Document, but found GUILTY of
the crime of Falsification of Public Document and is accordingly imposed an
indeterminate sentence of 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as maximum, and to
pay a fine of P5,000.00.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO
C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
A
T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. with Associate Justices Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (now a member of this Court) and Hilarion L. Aquino (ret.), concurring; Rollo, pp. 138-147.
[2] Rollo, p. 186.
[3] Rollo, pp. 81-82.
[4] Rollo, pp. 78-79.
[5] Rollo, pp. 83-97.
[6] Calderon vs. People, G.R. No. 158495,
[7] Fernandez vs. People, 341 SCRA 277 (2000).
[8] 2 Phil. 353 (1903).
[9] 59 Phil. 339 (1933).
[10] 60 Phil. 515 (1934).
[11] 73 Phil. 407 (1941).
[12] 86 SCRA 568 (1978).
[13] 416 SCRA 418 (2003).
[14] People
vs. Santiano, 299 SCRA 583 (1998).