|
REYNALDO QUEZON, Petitioner, -versus- PEOPLE OF THE Respondents. |
G.R. No. 169109 Present: pUNO, J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
This is
a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the Decision of the
Court of Appeals dated
Clarita
Ramos, respondent, charged Reynaldo Quezon, petitioner,
his daughter Teresita, and Arcadio
Dumdum with estafa for defrauding her of the amount
of P500,000.00 she paid for a gold bar which turned out to be fake.
The
Information reads:
That sometime for on the
first week of July 1995 at Balanga, Bataan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring, confederating together and
mutually aiding one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously defraud Clarita Ramos in the following manner, to wit: the said
accused by means of false pretenses and fraudulent representations which were
made to the said Clarita Ramos to the effect that they were selling a bar of
gold and by means of other deceits of similar import induced and succeeded in
inducing the said private offended party to give and deliver as in fact the
latter gave and delivered to the said accused the sum of P500,000.00 on
the strength of manifestations and representations, the said accused knowing
fully well that the same were false and fraudulent and that were made only to
obtain, as in fact they obtained the sum of P500,000.00 but this amount
once in possession, with the intent to defraud, misapplied, misappropriated and
converted the same to their own personal use or benefit, to the damage and
prejudice of the said Clarita Ramos in the aforementioned amount of P500,000.00,
Philippine Currency.
Accused Arcadio Dumdum was never arrested and has remained at
large.
Upon
arraignment, petitioner and Teresita, assisted by
counsel, pleaded not guilty.
Thereafter, trial ensued.
Evidence
for the prosecution shows that sometime in the first week of July 1995, petitioner
offered to sell gold bars and a Buddha to respondent Clarita Ramos, who is
engaged in jewelry business. Clarita
refused the offer as she was not interested and that she had no money to pay
for the gold bars. Sometime later, petitioner
introduced accused Arcadio Dumdum to Clarita as his
relative and companion in selling gold bars.
Petitioner and Dumdum were persistent in convincing Clarita to buy the
gold bars, assuring her they were 100% genuine because they came from P600,000.00,
but after some haggling and bargaining, it was reduced to P500,000.00.
On
Petitioner
and Teresita filed a motion for reconsideration but
it was denied.
Both petitioner
and Teresita interposed an appeal to the Court of
Appeals.
On
In the case at bench, the
record shows that the acts of accused-appellent
Reynaldo Quezon were evidently aimed at achieving a
common design and purpose, that is, to defraud the private complainant Clarita
Ramos. Thus, he told her that he was
engaged in the “bote at bakal”
business (Accused-Appellant’s Brief, p. 5); however, in his testimony, he
introduced himself to private complainant as seller of forty (40) gold bars and
a Buddha. In another time, Reynaldo
said he was only a mere agent of gold bars.
Thereafter, every time he would meet the private complainant, Reynaldo
would persuade private complainant to buy the gold bars, notwithstanding the
latter’s repeated refusal to do so as she was not interested. He also assured the private complainant that
the gold bars he was offering for sale were 100% genuine, for they came from Mt. Pinatubo, and that the Aetas were in a hurry looking for buyers because they badly
needed money for their food. When
private complainant was finally persuaded to buy the gold bars, Reynaldo,
together with his daughter and Arcadio Dumdum,
accompanied private complainant twice in going to Bamban,
Tarlac where the gold bars were allegedly kept. When private complainant asked for the sawn
gold bar and the Aetas refused, private complainant
asked her companions that they better leave.
Reynaldo and Dumdum convinced her to wait for little time and when
private complainant asked for the sawn dust of the gold bar later, Reynaldo
said that the same was thrown away by the Aetas but
when private complainant persisted, Reynaldo gave her approximately 3 grams of
sawn dust of gold. Reynaldo and Dumdum
actively haggled with the private complainant on the purchase price of the gold
bars. They initially offered to her the
price of P600,000.00, but after some haggling and bargaining, they
agreed at the price of P500,000.00.
After the price money was handed to the Aetas
who immediately left, both Reynaldo and Arcadio
Dumdum ran after them to get their share.
From the chain of events above-narrated, it is evident that accused-appellant Reynaldo performed overt acts in furtherance of a common plan to commit a felony. His acts before, during and after the commission of the crime, taken together, clearly demonstrated a community of criminal design (People v. Pacificador, 376 SCRA 180). Verily, without Reynaldo’s active participation and persistent persuasion for private complainant to buy the gold bars, which turned out to be counterfeit, she would not have thought of buying the same. Hence, relying also on his (mis)representations, she parted with her money and gave it to them. Once conspiracy is established, the act of one becomes the act of all regardless of the degree of individual participation (People v. Sumalpong, 284 SCRA 464). Consequently, accused-appellant Reynaldo Quezon should be meted the appropriate penalty.
In
assailing the Court of Appeals’ Decision, petitioner contends that the evidence
for the prosecution failed to establish conspiracy. He maintains that his participation in the
transaction is not sufficient to conclude that he and Dumdum have a common
design. At most, he merely acted as an
agent of Dumdum not knowing that the gold bars he was selling as agent were
fake.
It is a
well-established principle that in an appeal via petition for review on certiorari, only questions of law may be
raised. The issues posed by petitioner
undoubtedly require us to weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the Court
of Appeals. It is basic that this Court
is not a trier of facts. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals
may not be reviewed by this Court, except (a) when its factual findings and
those of the trial court are contradictory; (b) when its inference is
manifestly mistaken or absurd; (c) when its judgment is premised on its
misapprehension of the facts; and, (d) when it failed to resolve relevant facts
which, if properly considered, would justify a modification or reversal of the
decision of the appellate court.[1]
Petitioner
failed to show that his petition falls under any of these exceptions.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM
the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 25649. With costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
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.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
Chief Justice
From the evidence, the guilt of Arcadio Dumdum was clearly proved by the evidence. But he is not concerned with this judgment, as he has not been arraigned and is still at large. He knew the Aetas and only he could contact them, and he has been trying to sell the alleged gold bars of the Aetas thru different agents. As a clincher, he took flight, a clear indication of guilt under the circumstances. So the other accused are heaping the blame on him, on the belief that this would exculpate them.
But the evidence clearly
points out that Reynaldo Quezon is part of the
scam. There is unrebutted
testimony that he has been trying to interest Clarita Ramos not only with a
gold bar but with forty (40) gold bars and a Buddha. He has been persistent in convincing Clarita
Ramos to buy gold bars. He even told her
the gold bars are genuine because they surfaced from
[1] Fuentes
v. Court of Appeals¸ G.R. No. 109849,