538 Phil. 52
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
That in [sic] or about and during the period comprised between September 12, 1994 and October 13, 1994, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully [sic] unlawfully and feloniously defraud Paul P.A. Bunda in the following manner, to wit: the said accused received in trust from the said Paul P.A. Bunda the sum of P1,800,000.00, under the express obligation on the part of the said accused to settle and clear the accrued real estate taxes of 231,707 square meters of land covered by PSU-20888 located at Almanza, Las Pinas, Metro Manila, but said accused once in possession of the said amount, far from complying with his aforesaid obligation, failed and refused and still fails and refuses to settle and clear the accrued real estate taxes of the aforesaid lot despite repeated demands made upon him to that effect, and with intent to defraud and with grave abuse of confidence, he thereafter misappropriated, misapplied and converted the same to his own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said Paul P.A. Bunda in the aforesaid amount of P1,800,000.00, Philippine currency.On June 3, 1997, upon being arraigned, petitioner with the assistance of a counsel de oficio pleaded not guilty.[3] Thereafter, trial ensued, after which, the RTC rendered its Decision with the following findings and disposition:
Contrary to law.[2]
Records disclose that on April 9, 1993, Judith Rodriguez and the private complainant, Paul Bunda, entered into a Memorandum Agreement concerning lots nos. 1 and 2, PSU-208888, with an aggregate area of 231,907 sq.m., situated at Barrio Almanza, Las Pinas, Metro Manila, Exhibit "G". Under the agreement, Judith agreed to assign and convey 40% of the aforementioned lots in favor of the complainant as consideration for the payment by the latter of the accrued real estate taxes on the property.Petitioner appealed the case to the CA.
Sometime in August, 1994, the complainant visited the property and, for the first time, met the accused who represented himself as the overseer of the property where he also resided.
Sometime in September 1994, the complainant and the accused met at the Aurelio Hotel on Roxas Blvd., Manila. It was in this meeting that accused succeeded in convincing the complainant to entrust to him Two Million (P2,000,000.00) Pesos for the payment of the accrued real estate taxes on the property, telling the complainant that he was a nephew of the then incumbent mayor of Las Pinas and had good connections with the Mayor's Office as well as with the Offices of the Treasurer and of the Assessor of Las Pinas.
On September 12, 1994, the complainant again met the accused at the same hotel and gave to the latter an initial amount of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos for the payment of the accrued real estate taxes on the property. Another One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos in cash was given to the accused by the complainant on September 14, 1994. Both payments were unreceipted because the accused told the complainant that it was no longer necessary.
Again, on two separate occasions thereafter, complainant handed to the accused two checks both payable to cash, dated September 28 and October 13, 1994, in the respective sums of One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos and Six Hundred Thousand (P600,000.00) Pesos, Exhibits "B" and "C", which checks were later encashed by the accused, Exhibits "B-3", "B-4", "C-3" and "C-4". Accused, however, did not use the money for the payment of the accrued real estate taxes on the property in question, but instead misappropriated it for his own use and benefit.
The court has judiciously examined the evidence on record and finds that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed estafa under Article 315 (b) of the Revised Penal Code x x x.
x x x x
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused, Miguel Cosme, Jr., guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa and, as a consequence, sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum and to pay the costs.
Further, accused is ordered to pay the complainant actual damages in the total amount of P1,800,000.00 with interest thereon at the legal rate from date of filing of this action until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.[4]
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the appealed Decision dated October 20, 1998 is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the amount of actual damages be reduced to P1,600,000.00 with legal rate of interest from the date of filing of the action until fully paid.[5]Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied by the CA in its Resolution of September 10, 2001.
In his first assigned error, petitioner argues that the private complainant's testimony is full of improbabilities, falsehoods and half-truths, to wit: (1) that it is highly improbable that the private complainant entrusted to him the amount of P200,000.00 cash which was allegedly given on two separate occasions; (2) it is irrational and improbable for private complainant, who is an experienced real estate dealer, to delegate and commission the petitioner, a mere overseer and security guard whom he hardly knows, to undertake the payment of real estate taxes with the Treasurer's Office considering that with his knowledge and experience he can do it himself; (3) it boggles the mind why private complainant could not care less even if petitioner allegedly had not told him the exact amount to be paid for the accrued real estate taxes and that notwithstanding the alleged lack of computation, he freely gave in to petitioner's demand and paid him P1,800,000.00 without demanding any receipt or written agreement as evidence to prove why he paid such amount; (4) it is difficult to believe that as an experienced real estate dealer private complainant does not know that real estate taxes cannot be paid on staggered or installment basis; (5) if indeed the check payments in the amount of P1,600,000.00 were intended as payment for accrued real estate taxes how come the checks were paid to cash and not made specifically payable to the Municipal Treasurer's Office; (6) if it were true that petitioner told private complainant to prepare P2,000,000.00 as payment for the real estate taxes, how come the latter only paid P1,800,000.00; (7) if private complainant has indeed entered into an agreement with the owner of the property that the former shall be given 40% of the subject property in exchange for his payment of the accrued real estate taxes, he should have been aware of the actual real estate taxes due and that the amount of P1 ,800,000.00 would not suffice to cover the said taxes.I
THE COURT OF APPEALS LIKE THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE SOLE, UNCORROBORATED, VARIABLE AND INCOHERENT TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.II
THE COURT OF APPEALS LIKE THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ALLEGED DEMAND LETTER WAS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.III
THE COURT OF APPEALS LIKE THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FAILING TO GIVE CREDENCE TO THE DEFENSE OF THE PETITIONER.[6]
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:On the other hand, the CA found petitioner guilty of Estafa as defined under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:x x x x
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
x x x xx x x x
(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;
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:As correctly enumerated by the CA, the elements of Estafa by means of deceit as defined under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) that such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) that the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and (d) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[11] The CA ruled that the deceit employed by petitioner consisted in his act of pretending "that he had the authority and capability to cover the payment of the realty taxes for he is influential in Las Pinas and has connections with the Assessor's & Treasurer's Offices being an alleged nephew of then incumbent Mayor Casimiro of Las Pinas City."
(a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits.
x x x x
Sec. 9. Cause of accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense must be stated in ordinary and concise language without repetition, not necessarily in the. terms of the statute defining the offense, but in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged and enable the court to pronounce judgment.[12]In People v. Almendral,[13] the Court held thus:
The information filed against an accused is intended to inform him of the accusations against him in order that he could adequately prepare his defense. It is thus textbook doctrine that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. To ensure that the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him is not violated, the information must state the name of the accused, the designation given to the offense by the statute, a statement of the acts or omissions so complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time and date of the commission of the offense, and the place where the offense has been committed. It must embody the essential elements of the crime charged by setting forth the facts and circumstances that have a bearing on the culpability and liability of the accused so that he can properly prepare for and undertake his defense.[14]In the present case, the Information filed against petitioner did not specify the alleged fraudulent acts or false pretenses that supposedly induced private complainant to part with his money. Hence, petitioner may not be convicted of Estafa as defined under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code since the prosecution failed to allege the essential elements of this kind of offense.
Q | You said that Mr. Bunda offered to you a proposal, did he immediately tell you that he would give you 1.6 million as payment for your services? |
A | No sir. In fact I was the one who asked for such amount because I told him that I would be needing the money for more security guards as well as expenses for fencing and for the processing of the title of the property. |
Q | Did you hire security guards? |
A | Yes sir. |
Q | How many security guards did you hire? |
A | Ten (10). |
Q | What security agency did you hire for the security guards? |
A | I did not hire from any agency, I just hired from private persons because if I would hire security guards from the agency there will be more paper works. |
Q | What proof do you have to show that you hired security guards? |
A | None sir, because I hired private persons. |
Q | For how long did you hire these security guards? |
A | From the time Paul Bunda gave me 1.6 million, I immediately hired ten security guards and that was until December 1994. |
Q | But all this time you did not maintain any payroll for the security guards? |
A | None sir, I did not maintain any payroll. I just paid them in cash every 15th and 30th of the month. |
Q | Everytime you paid them you did not also prepare any receipt or any document signed by the security guards? |
A | None sir. |
Q | You did not also maintain or keep any list of the names of the security guards? You did not have any logbook? |
A | None sir, because I know all of them. |
x x x x | |
Q | I would say that you don't have any proof also that you spent for the fencing as you obliged to perform for the private complainant, is that correct? |
A | No sir, I don't have any proof. |
Q | What kind of fence was that which you installed? |
A | Steel fence. |
Q | That would require concrete posts? |
A | No sir. What were used were just steel posts with barbed wire. |
Q | How much did you spend for this fence? |
A | I cannot recall. |
Q | You did not keep any receipt for the materials? |
A | I did not keep copies of the receipts.[21] |
The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to substantiate its claim that aside from the P1.6 Million shelled out by private complainant to appellant in the form of checks, private complainant had earlier given appellant P200,000.00 in cash.[33]Petitioner makes much of the fact that the CA gave credence to his defense that he did not receive the amount of P200,000.00 in cash from private complainant. On this premise, petitioner concludes that, in effect, private complainant's testimony should not be given credence because it is full of falsehoods, half-truths and improbabilities.
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 correctional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 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.
The penalty prescribed by Article 315 is composed of only two, not three, periods, in which case, Article 65 of the same Code requires the division of the time included in the penalty into three equal portions of time included in the penalty prescribed, forming one period of each of the three portions.[35] Applying the latter provisions, the maximum, medium and minimum periods of the penalty prescribed are:Maximum - 6 years, 8 months, 21 days to 8 years Medium - 5 years, 5 months, 11 days to 6 years, 8 months, 20 days Minimum - 4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 5 years, 5 months, 10 days[36]In the present case, since the amount involved is P1,600,000.00, exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty to be imposed should be 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. The amount swindled from private complainant greatly exceeds the amount of P22,000.00, which when translated to the additional penalty of one year for every P10,000.00 defrauded goes beyond 20 years. Under the law, the maximum penalty to be imposed in the present case should be 20 years of reclusion temporal.
As regards the imposition of the minimum penalty, the leading case of People v. Gabres[37] is instructive:The fact that the amounts involved in the instant case exceed P22,000.00 should not be considered in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalty; instead, the matter should be so taken as analogous to modifying circumstances in the imposition of the maximum term of the full indeterminate sentence. This interpretation of the law accords with the rule that penal laws should be construed in favor of the accused. Since the penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge against accused-appellant is prision correctional maximum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next lower would then be prision correctional minimum to medium. Thus, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months while the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should at least be six (6) years and one (1) day because the amounts involved exceeded P22,000.00, plus an additional one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00.[38]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that petitioner is found guilty of Estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correctional as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Petitioner is held civilly liable to return to private complainant Paul P.A. Bunda the amount of P1,600,000.00 with legal interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the action until finality of the judgment. After the judgment becomes final and executory, the amount due shall further earn interest at 12% per year until the obligation is fully satisfied.
- When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for damages. The provisions under Tile XVIII on "Damages" of the Civil Code govern in determining the measure of recoverable damages.
- With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows:
- When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.
- When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged.
- When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.[40] (emphasis supplied).