THIRD DIVISION
|
RAMON L.
UY,
Petitioner, - versus - PEOPLE OF THE
Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 174899 Present: CARPIO MORALES,*
J., TINGA,**
CHICO-NAZARIO, Acting Chairperson, VELASCO,**and REYES,
JJ. Promulgated: September 11, 2008 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
which seeks to set aside the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 28581 dated 2 March 2006 which affirmed
with modification the Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 64, in Criminal Case No. 98-1065,
finding petitioner Ramon L. Uy guilty of Estafa as defined and penalized under Article
315, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, and its Resolution[3] dated
9 October 2006 denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
On
That
sometime in November 1995, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a
place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud Mr. Eugene Yu,
as follows, to wit: The said accused under false and fraudulent representations
which he made to said Eugene Yu convinced said Eugene Yu to invest in the said
low cost housing project in the amount of P3,500,000.00 and by means of
other similar deceit, which representations he well knew were false and
fraudulent and were only made to induce the aforementioned Eugene Yu to give
and deliver as in fact the said Eugene Yu gave and delivered the said amount of
P3,500,000.00 to the accused, to the damage and prejudice of said Mr.
Eugene Yu in the said amount of P3,500,000.00, Philippine Currency.[4]
On the same date, the case was
docketed as Criminal Case No. 98-1065 and raffled to Branch 64. Finding reasonable ground to believe that a
criminal act had been committed and that petitioner was probably guilty thereof,
the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest.[5] On
On
When arraigned on
For failure of petitioner to appear in the scheduled pre-trial on
On
On
On
The prosecution presented the following witnesses, namely: (1) private
complainant Eugene Yu;[13]
(2) Patricia L. Yu, spouse of private complainant;[14] and
(3) Atty. Wilfredo I. Imperial, Director, Executive Services Group, Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).[15]
The version of the prosecution is as follows:
Private complainant Eugene Yu first met petitioner Ramon L. Uy in
Thereafter, petitioner proposed to private complainant a plan to develop
low-cost housing in Cagayan de Oro.
Initially, petitioner attempted to convince private complainant to agree
to jointly develop the project, but the proposed scheme did not
materialize. Eventually, however,
petitioner was able to get private complainant to agree to an investment portfolio,
whereby private complainant was to give the amount of P3,500,000.00 to
petitioner who, in turn, would pay private complainant the amount of P4,500,000.00
by the end of May 1996. The additional P1,000,000.00
was the interest on his investment.
Petitioner proposed to come up with an investment agreement. Private complainant requested his lawyer,
Atty. Dennis Perez, to prepare an investment agreement containing the
suggestions of petitioner.[16] On
WHEREAS, FIRST PARTY is the registered owner and developer of parcel of land located at Agusan, Cagayan de Oro City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 61746 issued by the Register of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro and which is more particularly described as follows:
x x x x
WHEREAS, the FIRST PARTY wishes to develop the above parcel [of] land into a low-cost housing subdivision;
WHEREAS, the SECOND PARTY is willing to invest in the development of the above parcel of land;
WHEREAS, the parties desire to execute this Investment Agreement for the purpose of investing in the development of the above parcel of land;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants and stipulations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto have agreed, and as they hereby agree, as follows:
Section 1. The FIRST PARTY shall develop the above parcel of land in a low-cost housing subdivision;
Section 2. The SECOND PARTY agrees to invest the amount
of Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P3,500,000.00), Philippine
Currency, in the construction and development costs of the FIRST PARTY, which
amount shall be remitted to it immediately upon the signing of this Investment
Agreement;
Section 3. For and in consideration of the investment
referred to in Section 2, the FIRST PARTY shall pay the amount of Four Million
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P4,500,000.00), Philippine Currency to the
SECOND PARTY payable after six (6) months from the execution of this Investment
Agreement. For this purpose, the FIRST
PARTY shall issue post-dated check no. CD00371579951 drawn on Metrobank,
Cagayan de Oro Branch in favor of the SECOND PARTY;
In the event that the amount due the SECOND PARTY or any part thereof is unpaid, the FIRST PARTY shall pay compounded interest at the rate of six percent (6%) on such amount or balance. The SECOND PARTY shall also have the option to acquire a portion(s) of the low-cost housing subdivision in lieu of payment of any unpaid amount or balance. Should the SECOND PARTY choose this option, the FIRST PARTY shall convey to the SECOND PARTY that portion which he chooses.
Section 4. It is hereby understood by the parties that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 61746, the Site Development Plan, House Plans and the Special Power of Attorney executed by Patricio Quisumbing, copies of which are hereto attached as Annexes “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”, shall form integral parts of this Investment Agreement.
The signing was witnessed, among others, by Patricia Yu, wife of private
complainant, and Atty. Perez.
Simultaneous with the signing of the agreement, private complainant
issued Asiatrust Bank Check No. 087918 dated P3,500,000.00.[18] Petitioner, in turn, issued in favor of
private complainant Metrobank Check No. 0371579951 dated “P4,500,000.00.[19]
The amount of P3,500,000.00 covered by Asiatrust Bank Check No.
087918 was debited against the account of private complainant and credited to
the account of Trans-Builders Resources
and Development Corporation. When
private complainant deposited petitioner’s Metrobank check to his savings
account with Asiatrust Bank, the check was dishonored because it was “Drawn
Against Insufficient Funds (DAIF).”[20] It was at this time that private complainant
noticed that the check issued to him was dated
From that time on, petitioner could no longer be located, and he ignored
private complainant’s efforts to collect on his investment. On
Upon inquiry from the HLURB, private complainant learned that
Trans-Builders Resources and Development Corporation had no ongoing low-cost
housing project in Agusan, Cagayan de Oro City, as represented by petitioner
and contained in the Investment Agreement.
Atty. Wilfredo I. Imperial, Director, Executive Services Group of the
HLURB, said that Trans-Builders Resources and Development Corporation had only three
projects in Region 10, namely: (1) Transville Oroquieta 1-
Patricia Yu testified on the circumstances regarding the execution of the
Investment Agreement and the issuance of the checks by private complainant and
petitioner. She corroborated the
statements of private complainant on these matters. Atty. Wilfredo I. Imperial testified that
Trans-Builders Resources and Development Corporation did not have any ongoing
low-cost housing project in Agusan, Cagayan de Oro City.
On
For the defense, petitioner[27]
took the stand.
Petitioner testified that his first business transaction with private
complainant involved real property development in Parañaque in the middle of
1995, he being the developer and private complainant the exclusive
marketer. In the middle of the planning
of the Parañaque project, he, being in need of funds, offered private
complainant a joint-venture agreement for his project in Cagayan de Oro. Nothing came out of this proposal. Petitioner likewise sought rediscounting of
his check by private complainant, but the same did not materialize. Instead, private complainant made a counter-proposal
wherein he would finance the P3,500,000.00 petitioner needed, payable
within six to seven months with P1,000,000.00 interest.
Private complainant instructed his Makati-based lawyer to draft an
agreement whereby he was to give petitioner the amount of P3,500,000.00
in exchange for the check he had earlier received from petitioner in the amount
of P4,500,000.00, to be deposited at least six (6) months after
petitioner had already encashed the P3,500,000.00 check given to him by
private complainant on 28 October 2005.
Petitioner went to the law office of private complainant’s lawyer in
Six months after the delivery of private complainant’s Asiatrust check
for P3,500,000.00 to petitioner, private complainant deposited the
latter’s Metrobank check for P4,500,000.00, which he had received in exchange
for private complainant’s Asiatrust check.
The P4,500,000.00 Metrobank check deposited in private
complainant’s account was dishonored. Petitioner
denied having received a demand letter from private complainant’s lawyer.[30]
Petitioner declared that the contract between him and private complainant
was a simple loan to finance his project in
On
On
WHEREFORE,
judgment is rendered finding accused RAMON UY GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Estafa and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate imprisonment
of TEN (10) YEARS prision mayor medium, as minimum, to TWENTY (20) YEARS
of prision temporal, as maximum.
The accused is ordered to pay
complainant Eugene Yu the sum of P4,500,000 and plus twelve percent
(12%) interest per annum from May 30, 1996 until payment is made, and to pay
the cost of suit.[34]
In convicting petitioner, the trial
court explained:
The fact remains that the complainant and the accused signed an agreement which they denominated as “Investment Agreement.” The Agreement, having been signed by complainant and the accused is evidence of what is contained therein (Exh. A). The document speaks for itself. x x x.
x x x x
Complainant Eugene Yu would not have agreed to part with his money or investment were it not for the representation of accused that Trans-Builders Resources and Development Corporation of which the accused is the President, has a low-cost housing project at Barrio Agusan, Cagayan de Oro City. The complainant’s investment is therefore for a specific purpose which is “to develop a low cost housing project in Barrio Agusan, Cagayan de Oro City over a property owned and registered in the name of Trans-Builders under Transfer Certificate of Title no. 61746 issued by the Register of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro City.”
The complainant gave to accused his
investment thru ASIATRUST Check no. 087918 P3,500,000. He received from the accused the latter’s
check, Metrobank check no. CDO0371579951 in the amount of P4,500,000. Simultaneously with the exchange of the checks,
the accused and complainant signed the Investment Agreement.
In sum, complainant Eugene Yu would not have agreed to part with his money or investment were it not for the following false pretenses and misrepresentations:
a) He represented that the 3.5 Million pesos will be invested in a low-cost housing project in Barrio Agusan, Cagayan de Oro.
b) He promised to pay the private complainant 4.5 Million pesos after six months from the execution of the investment agreement.
c) He promised that in the event that the 4.5. Million pesos is not paid, he shall pay the private complainant compounded interest at the rate of six percent (6%) on such amount. He also gave the private complainant the option to acquire a portion(s) of the low-cost housing in lieu of payment of any unpaid amount or balance.
d) He issued in favor of the private complainant Metrobank check no. CDO0371579951 worth 4.5 million pesos.
As the events would later on disclose, the accused or his company Trans Builders had no low cost housing project in Barrio Agusan Cagayan de Oro (Exhs. “G” and “H”). Likewise, at the appointed time, the accused failed to return the investment of complainant. Neither was the accused able to pay complainant the “compounded interest at the rate of six percent (6%) on such amount or balance,” nor did he allow complainant “to acquire a portion(s) of the low cost housing subdivision in lieu of payment of any unpaid amount or balance” . . . . (Sec. 3 Investment Agreement, Exhibit A).
The check which the accused issued to complainant turned out to be a bum check because it was dishonored when presented for payment for the reason drawn against insufficient fund (DAIF).
x x x x
From the foregoing, this court finds that the accused employed deceit upon complainant who relied upon said deceitful representations, and which deceitful acts occurred prior and/or simultaneous to the damage.
Thus, the accused Ramon Uy is GUILTY of ESTAFA as defined under Article 315 par. 2(a).[35]
On
The trial court approved the surety
bond posted by petitioner and directed the latter’s release from custody unless
further detention was warranted in any other case.[38]
On
On
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATION on the minimum of the indeterminate sentence imposed which is hereby reduced to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional.[40]
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the decision, but the
appellate court denied it in its resolution dated
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
As required by the Court, respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor
General, and private complainant filed their comments on
On
Petitioner raises the following issues:
I. Whether or not (the) Court of Appeals erred in finding the petitioner-appellant guilty of the crime of estafa punishable under Art. 315, Par 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code instead of violation of B.P. Blg. 22;
II. Whether or not the
Court of Appeals (erred) in not finding that the true nature of the Agreement
between petitioner-appellant and the private complainant was that of a simple
loan;
III. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the private complainant’s version of why the check issued by the petitioner-appellant was dated May 1995 instead of May 1996.
We first rule on the issue of whether
or not the contract between petitioner and private complainant was one of
loan. Private complainant maintains that
what they entered into was an Investment Agreement, while petitioner claims
that the contract between them was a contract of loan.
After going over the records and
testimonies of the witnesses, we are convinced that the transaction that was
entered into was an Investment Agreement and not a simple loan.
It is very clear from the document[45]
signed by both petitioner and private complainant that private complainant shall
invest P3,500,000.00 in the development of parcel of land (owned by
petitioner and located at Agusan, Cagayan de Oro City covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 61746) into a low-cost housing subdivision to be
undertaken by petitioner. It is apparent
from the face of the document that the land to be developed is located in
Agusan, Cagayan de Oro.
Petitioner tries to alter or
contradict their agreement by claiming that their true intention was to have a
simple loan agreement. He alleged that
before signing the document, he even told private complainant: “Pare utang
lang ito, I issued a check,
bakit kailangan pa natin itong investment agreement.”[46] Private complainant then replied that the
document was just a formality.
We do not give credence to petitioner’s
allegations. He is thus denying entering
into an investment agreement. His denial
will not prevail over the clear and unequivocal provisions of the investment
contract. As testified to by private
complainant, it was petitioner who had proposed the investment agreement and
the document contained the latter’s suggestions. Because they have reduced their agreement
into writing, whatever previous or contemporaneous agreements they had, whether
verbal or in writing, are merged in said written agreement.
Petitioner argues that the appellate
court erred in convicting him of estafa, punishable under Article 315, par.
2(a), instead of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.[47] He claims that only the fourth element of the
crime charged – damage – may have been established.
Estafa, under Article 315, par. 2, of
the Revised Penal Code, is committed by any person who defrauds another by
using a fictitious name; or falsely pretends to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;
or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of fraud.[48] Under this class of estafa, the element of
deceit is indispensable.[49]
The elements of Estafa by means of
deceit as defined under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code are as
follows: (1) there must be false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;
(2) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the
offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means, that is, he must have been induced to part with his money or
property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and
(4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[50]
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 another is unduly
and unconscientiously taken advantage 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 forms of surprise, trick, cunning,
dissembling and any other unfair way by which another is cheated. Deceit is a species of fraud.[51] 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, it being essential that such false statement or representation
constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the offended party
to part with his money.[52] In the absence of such requisite, any
subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent and suspicious it might
appear, cannot serve as basis for prosecution for estafa under the said
provision.[53]
The prosecution has established the presence of all the elements of the
offense. Petitioner falsely represented
to private complainant that he had an on going low-cost housing project in
Agusan, Cagayan de Oro. Relying on
petitioner’s fraudulent misrepresentations, private complainant invested P3,500,000.00
in said project. Said amount was given
by means of a check and handed over to petitioner simultaneously with the
signing of the Investment Agreement. As
it turned out, per certification from the HLURB, petitioner did not have any
low-cost housing project in Agusan, Cagayan de Oro. Private complainant indeed suffered damage. He did not get his return of investment
because the check he received from petitioner in the amount of P4,500,000.00
was dishonored. Moreover, petitioner neither
paid private complainant the 6% compounded interest on said amount or balance
thereon, nor did he allow private complainant to acquire a portion or portions
of the low-cost housing subdivision in lieu of the payment of any unpaid amount
or balance. To date, the amount private
complainant invested in said low-cost housing has not been returned. Without a doubt, petitioner is guilty of estafa.
Petitioner contends he was denied due process of law when he was
convicted of estafa instead of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. An examination of the private complainant’s
demand letter, he said, indicates that the demand was for alleged violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
We find his contention untenable.
Under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the
prosecutor. In the case before us, the
prosecutor, after going over the complaint found probable cause to charge him
with estafa. This was the prosecutor’s prerogative,
considering that he was the one who would prosecute the case. The prosecuting attorney cannot be compelled
to file a particular criminal information.[54] The fact that the demand letter may suggest a
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cannot control his action as to what charge
he will file, if he sees evidence showing probable cause to charge an accused
for another crime. It is the prosecutor’s
assessment of the evidence before him which will prevail, and not what is
contained in a demand letter.
Moreover, there can be no denial of due process because petitioner was
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him when he was
arraigned. He was charged with estafa,
and he pleaded not guilty thereto. He
was given the opportunity to disprove the evidence against him. The fact that he was arraigned and was tried
according to the rules of court undeniably shows he was accorded due process.
Petitioner asserts that the Investment
Agreement upon which his conviction seemed to have been anchored should not
have been considered because said document is a contract of adhesion.
Such assertion will not exonerate him.
A contract of adhesion is so-called because its terms are prepared by only one party,
while the other party merely affixes his signature signifying his adhesion
thereto.[55] A contract of adhesion is just as binding as ordinary contracts.
It is true that we have, on occasion,
struck down such contracts as void when the weaker party is imposed upon in
dealing with the dominant bargaining party and is reduced to the alternative of
taking it or leaving it, completely deprived of the opportunity to bargain on
equal footing. Nevertheless, contracts of adhesion are not invalid per se; they
are not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to the contract is in reality
free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent.[56]
In the case at bar, we find the Investment Agreement entered
into by petitioner and private complainant valid. Although the Investment Agreement was
prepared by private complainant’s lawyer, this circumstance will not invalidate
it. The document was prepared with the
suggestions of petitioner being considered.
We find it far-fetched to presume that petitioner did not know anything about
the preparation of said document considering that the details contained therein
are informations known only to the owner of the property to be developed. Furthermore, as a businessman who is engaged
in real estate development, we have no doubt that he knew what he was doing
when he signed the Investment Agreement.
Petitioner argues that his Metrobank check was dated May 1995
instead of 1996, because the same was not issued in relation to the Investment
Agreement.
His argument does not persuade. It is clear from the document itself that the
check was issued in consideration of the investment made by private
complainant. Section 3 of said document
provides:
Section 3. For and in
consideration of the investment referred to in Section 2, the FIRST PARTY shall
pay the amount of Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P4,500,000.00),
Philippine Currency to the SECOND PARTY payable after six (6) months from the
execution of this Investment Agreement.
For this purpose, the FIRST PARTY shall issue post-dated check no.
CD00371579951 drawn on Metrobank, Cagayan de Oro Branch in favor of the SECOND
PARTY.[57]
Moreover, we agree with the trial court’s reasoning why petitioner’s
check was dated
It could not have been the intention of the parties in the Investment Agreement (Exh. “A”) that the repayment of the investment, which was made on October 30, 1995 and payable with interest after six (6) months from date of execution of the Agreement as stipulated in the agreement be done by way of a check drawn five (5) months earlier. Obviously, the intention is to postdate the check. This circumstance should not adversely affect the cause of action of complainant because as regard the complainant, the check he received from the accused in exchange [for] the check he gave the latter, is due six months from the signing of the Investment Agreement.[58]
Finally, petitioner claims private complainant committed a
violation of the provisions of the Anti-Usury Law.
We do not agree.
First, petitioner failed to specify which provision of said law was
violated by private complainant. Second, the effectivity of the Usury Law has
been suspended by Central Bank Circular No. 905, s. 1982 effective
We now go to the penalty.
The trial court sentenced petitioner to suffer the indeterminate penalty “of
ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years as prision
(sic) temporal, as maximum.”[60] It also ordered petitioner to pay the private
complainant the amount of P4,500,000.00 plus twelve percent (12%)
interest per annum from
The penalty for estafa by
means of deceit is provided in Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code:
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 case, 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.
Under this paragraph, the
penalty of prision correccional in
its maximum period to prision mayor in
its minimum period is the imposable penalty if the amount defrauded is over P12,000.00
but not over P22,000.00. If the
amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty provided shall be
imposed in its maximum period, with one year added for each additional P10,000.00. The total penalty, however, shall
not exceed twenty years.
Under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the maximum term of the penalty shall be “that which in view of
the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed” under the Revised Penal
Code and the minimum shall be “within the range of the penalty next lower to
that prescribed” for the offense.
The range of the penalty
provided for in Article 315 is composed of only two periods, thus, to get the
maximum period of the indeterminate sentence, the total number of years
included in the two periods should be divided into three. Article 65 of the same code requires the
division of the time included in the prescribed penalty into three equal
periods of time, forming one period for each of the three portions. The maximum, medium and minimum periods of
the prescribed penalty are therefore:
Minimum period - 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 5 years, 5 months and 10
days
Medium period - 5 years, 5 months and 11 days to 6 years, 8 months and
20 days
Maximum period - 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years
The amount defrauded being
in excess of P22,000.00, the penalty imposable should be the maximum
period of six years, eight months, and twenty-one days to eight years of prision mayor. However, Art. 315
also provides that an additional one year shall be imposed for each additional P10,000.00.
The penalty should be termed as prision
mayor or reclusion temporal, as
the case may be. Here, considering that the
total amount of the fraud is P3,500,000.00, the corresponding penalty obviously reaches the twenty-year limit. Thus,
the correct imposable maximum penalty is twenty years of reclusion temporal.
The minimum period of the
indeterminate sentence, on the other hand, should be within the range of the
penalty next lower than that prescribed by Article 315(2)(a), Revised Penal
Code, for the crime committed. The
penalty next lower than prision
correccional maximum to prision mayor
minimum is prision correccional minimum
(six months and one day to two years and four months) to prision correccional medium (two years, four months and one day to
four years and two months).
The Court of Appeals thus correctly
reduced the minimum of the indeterminate penalty imposed on petitioner.
We agree with both lower
courts that petitioner should be ordered to pay private complainant the amount
of P4,500,000.00
as actual damages representing private complainant’s investment and unrealized
profit pursuant to the Investment Agreement.
The 12 % interest per annum on said amount as imposed by the lower
courts from
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
the decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 28581 dated 2 March 2006 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the interest on the amount of P4,500,000.00 shall be 6% per annum computed from 30 May
1996. Upon the finality of this
decision, the interest on said amount shall be 12% per annum.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice Acting
Chairperson |
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
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.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
Acting
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
*
Justice Conchita Carpio
Morales was designated to sit as additional member replacing Justice Antonio
Eduardo B. Nachura per Raffle dated
**
Per Special Order No. 517,
dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios with Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Santiago Javier Ranada, concurring. CA rollo, pp. 119-127.
[2] Records, pp. 350-358.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 197-199.
[4] Records, p. 1.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN, 24 May 2001.
[15] TSN,
[16] TSN,
[17] Exh. “A”; records, pp. 217-220.
[18] Exh. “B”; id. at 221.
[19] Exh. “C”; id. at 222.
[20] Exhs. “D” and “E”; id. at 223-224.
[21] Exh. “F”; id. at 225.
[22] Exhs. “G” and “H”; id. at 226 and 233.
[23] Records, pp. 210-216.
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] TSN,
[28] Exh. “A”; Records, pp. 217-220.
[29] TSN,
[30] TSN,
[31] TSN,
[32] Records, pp. 281-282.
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40] CA rollo, p. 127.
[41] Rollo, pp. 152-169, 170-191.
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45] Exh. “A.”
[46] TSN,
[47] Bouncing Checks Law.
[48] R.R.
Paredes v. Calilung, G.R. No. 156055,
[49] People v. Billaber, 465 Phil. 726, 744 (2004).
[50] Cosme,
Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 149753,
[51] Sim, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159280, 18 May 2004, 428 SCRA 459, 468.
[52] Alcantara v. Court of Appeals, 462 Phil. 72, 89 (2003).
[53] Preferred
Home Specialties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163593,
[54] People v. Pineda, 127 Phil. 150, 156-157 (1967).
[55] Ermitaño v.
Court of Appeals, 365 Phil. 671, 678-679 (1999).
[56] Rizal
Commercial Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 364 Phil. 947, 953-954 (1999).
[57] Records, p. 218.
[58]
[59] Ruiz v. Court of Appeals, 449 Phil. 419, 434 (2003).
[60] CA rollo, p. 75.