Republic of the SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
ADELA
B. DELGADO, Petitioner, -
versus - PEOPLE
OF THE Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 161178 Present: CARPIO,* VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, PERALTA,
JJ. Promulgated: February
5, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for
Review on Certiorari contesting the September 30, 2003 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 23701, which affirmed the July 15,
1999 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 54 in Manila, in Crim.
Case No. 95-142409, entitled People of
the
The Facts
Proceeding from a complaint filed by
private respondent Emmanuel Ang Jaranilla, petitioner was charged with estafa
in an information that reads:
That
on or about July 9, 1993, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud EMMANUEL ANG
JARANILLA, in the following manner, to wit: the said accused by means of false
manifestations and fraudulent representations which she made to the said
EMMANUEL ANG JARANILLA to the effect that she is in possession of $74,000.00
that she needs Philippine peso and asked him to change her dollars and by means
of other similar deceits, induced and succeeded in inducing the said EMMANUEL
ANG JARANILLA to give and deliver as in fact he gave and delivered to said
accused the amount of P 2,029,820.00 on the strength of said manifestations and
representations said accused knowing fully well that same were false and
fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in fact he did obtain the said
amount P2,029,820.00 which amount once in her possession with intent to defraud
absconded herself with the same and misappropriated, misapplied and converted
the said amount of P2,029,820.00 to her own personal use and benefit, to the
damage and prejudice of said EMMANUEL ANG JARANILLA in the aforesaid amount of
P2,029,820.00 Philippine currency.
Contrary
to law.[2]
The facts of the case, as determined by the trial court,
are as follows:
Private
respondent Jaranilla was engaged in the money changing business, and had
previous transactions with petitioner Delgado.
On July
9, 1993, Delgado proposed exchanging USD 74,000 with Jaranilla for Philippine
pesos at the rate of PhP 27.43 to the dollar.
After consulting with his father, Manuel Ang, Jaranilla agreed to the
proposal. Manuel drew Metrobank Check
No. 061224813 in the amount of PhP 2,029,820, payable to cash.
Jaranilla
entrusted the check to his secretary, Fely Aquino (also known as Lily
Ang). Aquino then met with Delgado on
July 9, 1993, at the Binondo Metrobank branch to encash the check. They both endorsed and affixed their
signatures on the check, Aquino using the name Lily Ang, the name by which Metrobank
knew her. Delgado then received the
amount of PhP 2,029,820 from the bank teller.
She then claimed not to have the dollars with her, and had Aquino wait
while she got the money from her car.
Delgado left and did not return.
Jaranilla
contacted Delgado, but she failed to deliver the USD 74,000, despite repeated
demands for it, prompting him to file a criminal complaint against her.
In her
defense, Delgado claimed to have met Aquino only on that afternoon of July 9,
1993, and that another person, Carina Alabado, who was presented as a witness,
delivered the subject dollars to Aquino.
This was denied by Aquino.
The
trial court found the witnesses for the prosecution more credible, and rendered
its decision convicting Delgado, the dispositive portion of which reads:
JUDGMENT is hereby rendered adjudging the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa punishable under Art. 315
involving the amount of P2,029,820, considering the provisions of Art. 315, the
accused is therefore sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20)
years of reclusion temporal and to pay as indemnity the amount of
P2,029,820 to the aggrieved party Manuel Ang Jaranilla, with interest thereon
at a legal rate, compounded annually, until the entire amount is paid.
SO ORDERED.[3]
Both
Jaranilla and Delgado raised the matter to the CA on appeal. Jaranilla prayed for interest on the amount
of PhP 2,029,820.00 from the date of extra-judicial demand; moral and exemplary
damages; and attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. The essence of Delgado’s appeal was that the
trial court erred in finding the prosecution witnesses more credible and
convicting her.
The Ruling of the CA
The CA affirmed the conviction of Delgado, but found application
for the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and that Delgado may be sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal.
The CA also set the reckoning period from when to compute
the interest that would accrue on the amount of PhP 2,029,820 from July 9,
1993, the date when Delgado absconded with the money. The CA also awarded Jaranilla with PhP
250,000 as moral damages, PhP 250,000 as exemplary damages, and PhP 100,000 as
attorney’s fees, plus costs of litigation.
The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
the appelaed decision is AFFIRMED
with the modifications to the effect that accused appellant is hereby ordered
to pay the complainant the following:
1.
P2,029,820.00
with legal interest compounded annually from July 9, 1993;
2.
P250,000.00 in
concept of moral damages;
3.
P250,000.00 as
exemplary damages;
4.
P100,000 for
attorneys fees plus cost of the litigation.
The penalty against the accused-appellant should be
modified in accord with the penultimate paragraph of this decision.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Delgado now brings the matter
before this Court.
Assignment of Errors
In support of her petition, Delgado alleges that the RTC
and the CA erred in failing to find: that the injured party and, thus, the
proper private complainant was Manuel Ang, father of Jaranilla; that she was in
the business of money changing and had the capacity to possess the USD 74,000
subject of the transaction; and that Alabado’s testimony was more credible than
that of Aquino.
Our Ruling
The petition is without merit.
As to the allegation that the injured party was Manuel Ang,
and not private respondent Jaranilla, to show that there was no damage to private
respondent, this is a novel argument, but one that has already been disposed
of. Delgado claims that the source of
the funds was Manuel Ang, that the check was issued by Manuel Ang, so if there
were any damage, it would have been to Manuel Ang, not Jaranilla.
The
argument is merely an attempt by Delgado to distract the court from the proven
facts. Manuel Ang was not the one with
whom Delgado transacted, but his son, private respondent Jaranilla. This is not contested by Delgado, nor does
she dispute having received PhP 2,029,820 as a result of said transaction with
Jaranilla. The source of the funds is of
no moment for determining Delgado’s criminal liability.
Ownership is not a necessary element of the crime of
estafa.[5] In a string of cases, it has been held that
the person prejudiced or the immediate victim of the fraud need not be the
owner of the goods.[6] Thus, the allegation of Delgado that the
injured party was Manuel Ang has no bearing in the resolution of this
case. It was proved that in the
transaction between Jaranilla and Delgado, Delgado would deliver USD 74,000 in
exchange for PhP 2,029,820, and though Jaranilla lived up to his end of the
bargain, Delgado failed to live up to hers.
The allegation of Delgado that the PhP 2,029,820 did not belong to
Jaranilla, had it been proved, would not matter.
Next, the argument of Delgado that she was engaged in the
business of money-changing and, thus, had the capacity to possess the USD
74,000 subject of the transaction is of no moment. As found by the trial court, she failed to
deliver the dollars in exchange for the PhP 2,029,820 to Jaranilla’s secretary
at the Binondo branch of Metrobank, and she failed to deliver it despite
repeated demands from private respondent.
This belatedly alleged capacity of hers to possess the USD 74,000 cannot
in any way excuse her failure. The most
eloquent refutation to this argument is the plain fact that she has not
delivered what was promised till this day, without explanation or restitution. Delgado cannot rely on past transactions to
argue that there was no deceit involved when she cannot give a reason for her
failure to deliver the promised dollars at the time agreed upon. The only conclusion that can be reached,
barring any explanation from Delgado, is that she did not possess the said
dollars when the transaction was made; thus, deceit attended the deal.
Lastly, Delgado argues that her witness, Alabado, who
testified giving the dollars to Aquino, should be accorded more credibility than
Aquino.
This last-ditch effort at convincing the Court must fail.
Delgado presents no reason for us to take the word of
Alabado over that of Aquino. When it
comes to weighing the credibility of the witnesses, this Court must bow to the
trial court. In this regard, we
reiterate the rule that appellate courts will generally not disturb factual
findings of the trial court since the latter has the unique opportunity to
weigh conflicting testimonies, having heard the witnesses themselves and
observed their deportment and manner of testifying.[7] The well-entrenched rule is that findings of
fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses
and the probative weight of the evidence on record affirmed, on appeal, by the
CA are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the Court and in absence
of any justifiable reason to deviate from the said findings.[8] Petitioner has failed to present
justification for this Court to disregard the factual findings of the trial
court.
The elements of the crime of estafa, under Article 315(2)
of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the accused made false pretenses or
fraudulent representations as to his or her power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions; (2) such false
pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or simultaneous with
the commission of the fraud; (3) such false pretenses or fraudulent
representations constitute the very cause which induced the offended party to part
with his or her money or property; and (4) as a result of those acts, the
offended party suffered damage.[9] As all the elements have been duly proved, as
found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, the conviction of petitioner must be
upheld.
WHEREFORE, the
September 30, 2003 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 23701 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T
A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I
C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been 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 Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a member of this Court) and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente.