THIRD DIVISION
|
flora Bautista,
Petitioner, - versus - felicidad
castillo MERCADO, Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 174405 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: August 26, 2008 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before Us is a Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court which assails the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 25426 which affirmed with modification the
Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 36, finding petitioner Flora Bautista
y Maniego (Flora) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under
Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
On
That sometime in the month of January, 1972, in the
City of Manila, Philippines, the accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud one Felicidad Castillo Mercado in the
following manner to wit: the said accused received in trust from the said
Felicidad Castillo Mercado Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4031 covering a
parcel of land located at Barrio Ulat, Silang, Cavite, containing an area of
29,234 sq. m. more or less, with the understanding and under express obligation
on the part of said accused of mortgaging the same as evidenced by Special
Power of Attorney executed by Felicidad Castillo Mercado in favor of said
accused and turning over the proceeds of the said loan, if mortgaged, or of
returning the said certificate of titles to said Felicidad Castillo Mercado, if
unable to do so, upon demand, but the said accused hence, having successfully
mortgaged the above described property and having thereby received the loan in
the amount of P100,000.00 far from applying with her aforesaid
obligation, despite repeated demands
made upon her to do so, with intent to defraud, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously misapplied, misappropriated and converted the proceeds of the said loan in the amount of P100,000.00
to her own personal use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of the said
Felicidad Castillo Mercado, in the aforesaid sum of P100,000.00,
Philippine Currency.[3]
When arraigned, petitioner pleaded not
guilty, whereupon trial was held.
At the trial, the prosecution
presented the following witnesses: (1) Technical Sergeant (T/SGT.) Romeo Cudia,
the Office of the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS), Camp Crame, Quezon
City, who investigated the complaint for Estafa filed by respondent Felicidad
Castillo Mercado against Flora; (2) Alicia Ignacio, representative of Feati
Bank and Trust Company (Feati Bank), who testified that Flora was able to
obtain P100,000.00 loan by means of a special power of attorney signed
by Felicidad with TCT No. 4031 as collateral, and that the said amount was
released to Flora; (3) Felicidad Castillo Mercado (Felicidad), the alleged victim
in this case, who testified that she and Flora agreed to enter into a piggery
business together and that pursuant thereto, she gave to the petitioner two
titles to her lands and executed a
special power of attorney in favor of petitioner to use the same as
collaterals for a loan, with the understanding that the latter would turn over
to her the proceeds thereof; (4) Francisca Mercado Abinante (Francisca), the
sister in-law of Felicidad, whose testimony corroborated that of the victim; (5)
Atty. Tomas Torneros Jr., the Acting Register of Deeds of Tagaytay City, whose
testimony confirmed that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4031 was mortgaged
to Feati Bank, that the mortgage was executed by Felicidad through her
attorney-in-fact Flora Bautista, and that said property was foreclosed and sold
at public auction to Feati Bank.
As documentary evidence, the
prosecution offered the following: Exhibit “A” – Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 4031; Exhibit “A-6” – the Special
Power of Attorney executed by Felicidad in favor of Flora; Exhibit “C” – the Real
Estate Mortgage executed between Flora, as attorney-in-fact, and Feati Bank;
Exhibit “D” - the Notice of Sale of the
land covered by TCT No. 4031; and Exhibit “E” - the Final Deed of Sale of the
mortgaged property covered by TCT NO. 4031 in favor of Feati Bank.
The collective evidence adduced by
the prosecution shows that in the afternoon of the last week of January 1972,
Felicidad, a resident of Silang, P73,000.00.
Upon verification, it was disclosed
that the other piece of land owned by Felicidad and covered by TCT No. 4031 was
used by Flora as a collateral for two loan applications dated 5 April 1972 and
14 June 1972 for the amounts of P30,000.00 and P70,000.00,
respectively, with Feati Bank. It was
also revealed that the proceeds of the two loans were released by the bank to
Flora.
Felicidad requested Francisca to look
for Flora. When Francisca finally
located Flora, she and Felicidad confronted Flora who admitted that she had already
spent the proceeds of the loans and promised to pay the loans with Feati. A year elapsed, and Felicidad received a
notice from the provincial sheriff of
The defense presented Flora, its lone
witness. Flora testified that she knows Felicidad and Francisca, the latter
being the aunt of her husband. She came
to know Felicidad because Francisca introduced Felicidad to her. Flora averred that she and Francisca were
engaged in the rice-dealing business, she being the supplier of Francisca. For every delivery, Francisca paid Flora on
installment. This transaction lasted for
two or three years until Francisca incurred obligations to Flora in the amount of
P30,000.00 for the rice deliveries.[4] In order to pay off her debts to Flora, Francisca
delivered to the former two titles to lands which were in the name of
Felicidad. In order to make use of the
titles, Flora asked Francisca to obtain an SPA from Felicidad authorizing her
to mortgage the two parcels of land. She,
however, stressed that the transaction was between her and Francisca only. After
Francisca delivered to her the titles and the SPA, Flora used the titles and
the SPA to obtain personal loans with the Feati Bank in the total amount of P100,000.00.
On
WHEREFORE,
the penalty that should be imposed upon accused Flora Bautista is the
indeterminate penalty of Three (3) Years, Two (2) Months and Eleven (11) Days
of prision correccional as minimum to
Twelve (12) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Accused Flora Bautista is also ordered to indemnify the complaining witness,
Felicidad Castillo Mercado the sum of P100,000.00 and to suffer the
accessory penalties provided for by law and to pay the costs.[6]
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the
RTC, Flora elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. In a decision dated
WHEREFORE, above premises considered, the Decision
appealed from convicting accused-appellant Flora Bautista y Maniego of the
crime of Estafa is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that accused-appellant shall
suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from THREE (3) YEARS,
TWO (2) MONTHS and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of prision correccional as minimum to
FIFTEEN (15) YEARS of reclusion temporal as maximum. All the other aspects of
the judgment STAND.[7]
On
Hence, the instant recourse.
Flora asserts that the RTC erred in
declaring that the P100,000.00 loan was granted by Feati Bank in favor
of Felicidad and not in her own. She also insists that she has no obligation to
account for the proceeds of the loan she obtained from the bank, since it was
contracted for her personal benefit. Absent such obligation to account for the
proceeds of the said loan, she could not have committed the crime of estafa
through misappropriation or conversion as charged. Stated otherwise, she maintains that the
first element of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 1(b) is lacking.
Flora’s arguments are not persuasive.
.
Flora is charged with committing the
crime of estafa under paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code,
which provides:
315. Swindling (estafa).- Any person who shall defraud
another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is
over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds
the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its
maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total
penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such
cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and
for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be
termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be;
2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the
amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos;
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if such amount is over
200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and
4th. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if such amount
does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud
be committed by any of the following means:
1. With unfaithfulness
or abuse of confidence, namely:
(a) By altering
the substance, quantity, or quality of anything of value which the offender shall
deliver by virtue of an obligation to do so, even though such obligation be
based on an immoral or illegal consideration;
(b) By misappropriating
or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal
property received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of, or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or
partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money,
goods, or other property;
The elements of estafa under
paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, are:
(1)
the offender receives the money, goods or other personal property in trust, or
on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving
the duty to deliver, or to return, the same;
(2)
the offender misappropriates or converts such money or property or denies
receiving such money or property;
(3)
the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another;
and
(4)
the offended party demands that the offender return the money or property.[8]
Petitioner wants this Court to weigh
the credibility of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis the defense witnesses. It has often been said, however, that the credibility
of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts.[9]
When the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate
court, the general rule applies.[10]
This Court will not consider factual issues and evidentiary matters already
passed upon. The petitioner raises the same issues she brought before the
appellate court, which gave credence to the findings and decision of the trial
court.
Factual findings of the trial court
are entitled to respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless some
facts or circumstances of weight and substance, having been overlooked or
misinterpreted, might materially affect the disposition of the case.[11] The assessment by the trial court of the
credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight. It is even conclusive and binding if not
tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight
and influence.
In the case under consideration, we
find that the trial court did not overlook, misapprehend, or misapply any fact
of value for us to overturn the findings of the trial court.
Contrary to Flora’s claim, the
prosecution was able to establish the first element of estafa under paragraph
1(b) of Article 315. Flora received in trust Transfer Certificate
of Title Nos. 4030 and 4031 from Felicidad for the specific purpose of using
the same as collateral and with the obligation to turn over the proceeds of the
mortgage to Felicidad. Hence, a
fiduciary relationship between Flora and Felicidad existed. Flora, who was admittedly a business-minded
person, came up with the idea of establishing a piggery business. Lacking necessary funds to raise such
project, and knowing that respondent had titled lands in her name, petitioner
convinced respondent to be her partner in the piggery business. Petitioner focused on respondent because she
was aware that the DBP had a loan accommodation program for individuals
interested in piggery business, and that DBP would grant such loan conditioned
upon the applicant’s capacity to offer titled land as collateral. Having been swayed by the bright prospect of
the project, respondent acceded to be a part of the business venture. Respondent then entrusted her transfer
certificates of title covering two parcels of land to petitioner. Flora lost no time in securing a special
power of attorney from respondent authorizing her to secure a mortgage loan
with the DBP. Persuaded by the promises of Flora that she would have the loan approved
and that she would turn over the proceeds of the loan to respondent, the latter
parted with titles to her two properties and the SPA and handed them to Flora,
thus:
Q: Now, do
you know the accused Flora Bautista y Maniego?
A: Yes,
sir because I have a business transaction with her.
Q: And
what is that business transaction you had with her?
A: That
happened in the last week of January 1972 when this woman Flora Bautista in the
house of my sister-in-law and during that time they were talking about the
piggery business. When she knew that I
had a piece of land she tried to convince me to be her partner in the piggery
project.
x x x x
Q: What
was your participation supposed to be in the business?
Q: When
she learned that I had a piece of land, she told me if we could be partners and
I told her that I had no time to expedite the papers for the loan.
x x x x
A: With
all her assurances, she told me that she will expedite the loan, the papers for
the loan in the DBP.
Q: When
she told you and with her assurance, what steps were taken towards the
procurement of the loan?
A: She
requested for a special power of attorney made in her favor.
Q: For
what was that special power of attorney?
A: To
mortgage my two parcels of land as security for the loan.
Fiscal
Q: Did you
agree to that proposition?
A: At
first I did not sign the special power of attorney but because I had trust and
confidence in her and with all the assurances she is going to give to me the
proceeds of the loan, and I will be the one to deposit the money for said
business, so I signed the special power of attorney.[12]
Witness Francisca corroborated
Felicidad in this wise:
Fiscal
Q: And
what topic if any was taken up among the three of you?
A: We
three talked about piggery business where Flora Bautista said that if Fely had
any title it would be easy to secure an application for loan with the DBP.
Q: And how
did Felicidad Castillo react to that suggestion?
A: Felicidad
Castillo was very much interested because it was a business.
Q: So,
being interested in the piggery business, what did she do if any?
A: Both
of them agreed that Fely will give Flora Bautista her title, sir.
Q: And
what was the agreement about the giving of title to Flora Bautista?
A: It was
agreed that if they could get the loan the amount would be given to Felicidad
Castillo.[13]
It is ineluctably clear that Flora
has the responsibility of turning over the proceeds of the loan obtained
through the land covered by TCT No. 4031. However, Flora failed to turn over the
proceeds to Felicidad since she used the same for her own benefit.
With the overwhelming evidence
adduced by the prosecution against Flora, her contention that she used
Felicidad’s title as collateral to obtain a loan because the latter’s
sister-in-law, Francisca, owed her money, is just a desperate attempt to
exculpate herself from the wrongdoing she knowingly committed.
Petitioner likewise makes much of the fact that the prosecution did not
adduce written evidence that Flora and Felicidad had formally agreed and entered
into a piggery business. She states that
in a business partnership, no matter how small, there are certain aspects that
have to be delineated, such as the amount of the capital, the contribution of
each partner and the percentage of dividend to be received.
This contention is not well-taken. Although there was no written evidence to
prove that Flora and Felicidad agreed to engage in a piggery business as
partners, the prosecution was able to present credible testimonies to establish
such fact.
The Court of Appeals imposed upon
Flora an indeterminate penalty ranging from 3 years, 2 months and 11 days of prision correccional as minimum, to 15
years of reclusion temporal as
maximum.
Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised
Penal Code provides for the penalty in estafa
cases where the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00, as in the present
case, to wit:
ART.
315. Swindling (estafa).–Any person
who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished
by:
1st. The penalty
of prision correccional in its
maximum period to prision mayor in
its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does
not exceed 22,000.00 pesos; and if such
amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be
imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000
pesos; but the total penalty which may
be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the
accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other
provisions of this Code, the penalty
shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
The
penalty prescribed in the aforementioned provision is composed of two, not
three, periods, in which case, Article 65[14]
of the same code requires the division of the time included in the penalty into
three equal portions of time included in the penalty
imposed forming one period of each of the three portions.[15] Applying the latter provision, the minimum,
medium and maximum periods of the penalty given are:
Minimum – 4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 5
years, 5 months, 10 days
Medium – 5 years, 5 months, 11 days
to 6 years, 8 months, 20 days
Maximum – 6 years, 8 months, 21 days
to 8 years
In
this case, since the amount involved is P100,000.00, which amount
exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty imposable should be within the maximum
period of 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of prision mayor. Article 315
further states that a period of one year shall be added to the penalty for
every additional P10,000.00 defrauded in excess of P22,000.00,
but in no case shall the total penalty which may be imposed exceed 20 years.[16]
Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, since the penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge against Flora is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next
lower would then be prision correccional
in its minimum and medium periods. Thus,
the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere from 6 months
and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months.[17]
The amount defrauded by Flora was P100,000.00. Hence, the penalty prescribed above should be
imposed in its maximum period. The
maximum period thereof following the rule prescribed in the last paragraph of
Article 77 of the Revised Penal Code ranges from six (6) years, eight (8)
months and twenty one (21) days to eight (8) years.
Inasmuch
as the amount of P100,000.00 is P78,000.00 more than the above-mentioned
benchmark of P22,000.00, then, adding one year for each additional P10,000.00,
the maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of prision mayor minimum would be increased
by 7 years. Taking the maximum of the prescribed penalty, which is 8 years,
plus an additional 7 years, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty is 15
years. Finding no error in the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals, the
Court sustains the same.
Also affirmed is the Court of Appeals
decision ordering Flora to indemnify Felicidad in the sum of P100,000.00
as actual damages, because the said amount represents the money that was not
yet paid by Flora in favor of Felicidad.
WHEREFORE, the
Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 30 January 2006 in CA-G.R. CR. No. 25426
finding Flora Bautista y Maniego GUILTY of Estafa under paragraph 1(b)
of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing her to suffer the
prison term ranging from 3 years, 2 months and 11 days of prision correccional as minimum, to 15 years of reclusion temporal as maximum, and
ordering her to indemnify Felicidad Castillo Mercado in the amount of P100,000.00
as actual damages, is hereby AFFIRMED
in toto.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate
Justice
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’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’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Edgardo F. Sundiam with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Japar B. Dimaampao, concurring. Rollo, pp. 60-70.
[2] Penned by Judge Wilfredo D. Reyes,
rollo, pp. 19-34.
[3] Records, p. 3.
[4] TSN,
[5] The disposition of this case
suffered a long delay because the records were destroyed by fire that gutted
the 4th floor of the
[6] CA rollo, p. 94.
[7] Rollo, pp. 97-98.
[8] Salazar v. People, G.R. No. 149472,
[9] People v. Matito, 468 Phil. 14, 24 (2004).
[10] People v. Gallego, 453 Phil. 825, 849 (2003).
[11] People v. Piedad, 441 Phil. 818, 838-839 (2002).
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14] ART. 65. Rule in cases in which the penalty is not composed of three periods. – In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions the time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of the three portions.
[15] People v. Gabres, 335 Phil. 242, 257 (1997); Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 333 Phil. 126, 140-141 (1996).
[16]
[17]