108 OG No. 7, 739 (February 13, 2012)
"WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the guilt of the accused having been proven beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 11 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay the private complainant the amount of P50,000.00.The facts are:
SO ORDERED."'[2]
"That on or about the 25th day of September, 1997 and on several dates thereafter up to November 17, 1997, inclusive, in the Municipality of Sto. Domingo, Province of Nueva Ecija, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of false pretenses and fraudulent acts and pretended to have an auto repair shop at Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, was able to induce one JIMMY I. DOMINGO to deliver the latter’s two (2) funeral parlor cars to the accused for repair and to deliver to him to amount of P50.000.00 as expenses for the said repair, under an express obligation to repair the said two funeral parlor cars and deliver the same to Jimmy I. Domingo after the said repair, but the said accused, far from complying with his express obligation and with unfaithfulness and grave abuse of confidence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and felomiously (sic) fail and refuse to comply with his express obligation and despite demands, failed and refused to return the said money to the offended party, to the latter's damage and prejudice in the aforementioned amount.On March 8, 1999, accused-appellant dela Cruz pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.[4]
Contrary Law.[3]
"During the pre-trial, the prosecution proposed for admission the following which were admitted by the defense:During the trial, the prosecution presented private complainant Jimmy I. Domingo (Domingo for brevity) who testified that: he was then the incumbent mayor of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija and has a funeral parlor with (six) 6 cars being used as a conveyance for the deceased; he bought a Cadillac Chevy Malibu Station Wagon with Motor No. 10L154842-T1201CRE[6] from Federico Figueroa[7] and a Chevrolet Station Wagon Undertaker with Motor Number T-0919C[8] from Victor Santos; there cars are not yet registered in his name because accused-appellant dela Cruz approached him and offered his services to repair the same and immediately took the said cars; he paid accused-appellant dela Cruz the amount of P50,000.00 in installments, but the latter, after the lapse of one (1) year, did not comply with his obligation; he confronted accused-appellant dela Cruz regarding the matter but the latter did not oblige, instead, asked for more money, so he filed the case; their agreement for the total cost of repairs for the two (2) cars was P70,000.00; he did not give additional money; accused-appellant dela Cruz told him that upon payment of fifty (50%) percent of the agreed amount, he will begin the repairs but he did not do so; he has eight (8) functioning funeral cars but these are not enough to meet the demands of his business; each car earns P100,000.00 a year; and, he is familiar with accused-appellant dela Cruz for quite a long time.[9]Denied was that to date nothing has been done with such repair for the funeral cars.
- That accused has a shop at Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija involved in repair of vehicles;
- That sometime on September 25, 1997, accused received from one Jimmy Domingo two (2) funeral cars; and
- That in connection with the contract to repair such two (2) funeral cars owned by Jimmy Domingo, the latter had delivered the total amount of P50,000.00.
The proposals by the accused which were admitted by the prosecution were:Denied by the prosecution is that the accused is entitled for the remaining P20,000.00 for the repair of the said cars.
- That one of the cars before it was repaired was colored gray, it is now green; and
- That the private complainant and the accused entered into a contract for the repair of the two (2) cars.
* * * * * * *
Court: This is an ocular inspection which is a part of the pre-trial conference to determine the extent of the repair undertaken by the accused on the two (2) funeral cars belonging to the private complainant.The defense presented accused-appellant Jaime dela Cruz, and he testified that: he knows private complainant Domingo because he had a contract with him regarding the body repair and painting of two (2) funeral cars; he was able to repair the said cars; he was able to finish the painting of the white car while he was able to put the first and second coating only of the second car because private complainant Domingo did not give additional money; their agreement was for private complainant Domingo to provide the paint and to give P20.000.00; he has been engaged in this business since he was 15 years old and it is his livelihood; he had painted more or less 50 units; he can finish the contract if private complainant Domingo provided the paint as agreed upon; the steps in strip-to-metal car painting are: to remove the old paint with the use of a paint remover, polish it with sandpaper to expose the metal, then spray with a primer, and fill the parts with a body filler; it will be polished again with sandpaper and another primer will be applied; the paint job will be done in four coatings, and after painting, a retarder shall be applied to make the coat shiny and the final polishing will be done[12]; and, in 1992, he worked in Saudi Arabia as a painter.[13]
What are your observations, Fiscal?
Pros. Caballero: If the prosecution will give its observation, Your Honor, on the repairs to be made on these two (2) cars, evidently, the repair is on the initial stage because certain parts of the vehicles are already removed like the sets and some of the door handles. Another observation is that one of the cars rather both cars lack several of their glass windows. The green car lacks two (2) tires and there is no front bumper. The seats likewise are also removed. What I can admit is there is a first coating of green paint in one of the cars and at the end thereof there is a coating of the putty (masilya). Except the removal of those essential parts, there is no sign of activity, Your Honor.
Court: The Court notes that practically, nothing has been done in the matter of repair except the removal of spare parts form the body of the cars like door handles, glass windows, upholstery, both up and down, likewise, the bumpers. As the Court does not know the conditions of these two (2) cars before their delivery to the accused, it is now asking the private complainant the condition of the motors at the time of delivery.
To the private complainant:
Q: Mr. Domingo, when you delivered these two (2) cars to the accused, what was their condition? Mr. Domingo
A: They were running and complete in accessories but the starters are defective, Your Honor.
Court: May we know if the motors are still there?
Note: The hoods of the two cars were lifted to expose their motors which motors are now rusting and had accumulated bird's droppings as well as falling leaves. The two cars are exposed to weather there being no shed to protect them from the elements. It appears also that there is no repair machinery or tool inside or within the vicinity of the accused's yard except the removed parts of the two cars which had not been gone over one by one to determine if they are still complete.
To the accused:
Q: What repairs had you undertaken with respect to these two (2) cars?
Mr. Dela Cruz
A: The parts had been removed, Your Honor, preparatory to their repainting. The green one has already a primary coating with a putty on the left rear side.
Court: Are there any other observations, Fiscal?
Pros. Caballero: No more, Your Honor.[11]
The appeal is meritorious.I.
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT CONVICTED THE ACCUSED FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, A PURE CIVIL OBLIGATION (WHICH BREACH HAS NOT EVEN MEAN (SIC) SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED);II.
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCREDITION (SIC) IN JUSTIFYING THE DECISION BY MERE ASSUMPTION OF FRAUD MISREPRESENTATION OR FALSE PRETENSES AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE (AS IN TRUTH, NO EVIDENCE ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THE COURT CAN BE SEEN).
"Herein, the defense of the accused is that he had not done any fraudulent Act nor had he resorted to any fraudulent means as well as false pretenses for the repair of Domingo's cars because in fact he repaired the cars.On the other hand, the Solicitor General argues that: the elements of estafa are present in the case at bar; private complainant Domingo categorically declared that he entrusted to accused-appellant dela Cruz his two funeral cars for body repair at the same time paying P50.000.00 on the latter's representation that he possessed the power or qualification to cause the body repair of the vehicles; and, upon ocular inspection of the vehicles, the lower court observed that practically, no repairs were done on the cars.
* * *
* * *
The Court is not convinced. To the Court, his defense are dubious and doubtful and unworthy of belief, his delay and failure to repair the cars being very apparent indices of his lack of capacity to perform the repairs.
* * *
* * *
* * *
Herein, contrary to his defense, the accused, by telling Mayor Domingo that he will repair his cars and he has a car repair shop, have led Mayor Domingo to believe that he has the capacity to repair the cars which induced the latter part with his car (sic) and entrust them to the accused for repair, and also the sum of P2,000.00 as initial payment thereof on September 25, 1997. Mayor Domingo relied on his representation that he could repair the cars. The delivery of the two cars to the accused for repair and the payment of the P2,000.00 on September 25, 1997 were simultaneous, Mayor Domingo believing on the capacity of the accused to perform the repair of the cars within the time frame he had represented which is three to four months. By his failure to repair and deliver the cars as he had represented in 3 to 4 months he had deceived Mayor Domingo who thereby lost about a hundred thousand as annual income form each of the cars.
* * *
* * *
* * *
Clearly, the accused herein had falsely represented himself as a car painter/body repairer to the private complainant who relied on such false pretense by delivering to him on September 25, 1997 two cars for repair together with the initial amount of P2,000.00 and thereafter the full amount of P50,000.00 which resulted to his damage and prejudice because of accused's failure to do repairs. The elements of the crime of Estafa as defined under Art. 315, paragraph 2 (a) are thus herein present."[16]
"Moral damages are not recoverable simply because a contract has been breached. They are recoverable only if the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations. The breach must be wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad faith, and oppressive or abusive. Likewise, a breach of contract may give rise to exemplary damages only if the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner."In this case, accused-appellant dela Cruz, acted in bad faith when he failed to repair the cars within the period agreed upon. One year had already lapsed and yet the cars were still not completely repaired even if more than fifty percent (50%) or P50,000.00 was already paid by private complainant Domingo. Hence, he is liable to pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.
"However, the Court deems it proper to award interest in favor of Allegro. In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we gave the following guidelines in the award of interest:WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed decision dated July 18, 2002 in Criminal Case No. 498-SD(99) of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Talavera, Nueva Ecija is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and accused-appellant Jaime dela Cruz is ACQUITTED of the offense charged.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."
So ORDERED.
- 50,000.00 representing the amount paid by private complainant Jimmy Domingo to accused-appellant Jaime dela Cruz with interest of 12% per annum from the time of extraducial demand; and
- P50.000.00 as moral damages.