G.R. No. 58831. July 31, 1987
ALFREDO R. CORNEJO, SR., PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENT.
FERNAN, J.:
Petitioner Alfredo R. Cornejo, Sr. seeks a review on certiorari
of the decision dated September 9, 1981 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case
No. 2495 entitled “People of the
Philippines, Plaintiff, vs. Alfredo Cornejo, Sr. and Rogelio Alzate Cornejo*,
Accused”, finding him “guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of
the crime of Estafa [Swindling] as defined and penalized under Article 315,
paragraph 4th, sub-paragraph 2-(a), in relation to Article 214, both of the
Revised Penal Code; and, appreciating against him the aggravating circumstance
of advantage of public position, without any mitigating circumstance in offset;
x x x [and] sentencing him to
Four (4) months and Twenty-One (21)
Days of arresto mayor, with the accessories provided by law; to suffer perpetual special
disqualification, to indemnify
the complainant, Beth Chua, in the amount of One Hundred Pesos [P100.00], and to pay his proportionate
share of the costs.”[1]
The facts of the
case, as found by the trial court,
are as follows:
“For already
more than 14 years, complainant Beth Chua had been renting the premises at 105
Moana Street, Pasay City, owned by one Crisanto Bautista, which she devoted as
a residence and a sari–sari store. In the morning of
December 11, 1979, accused
Alfredo R. Cornejo, Sr. [hereinafter
referred to as accused
Engineer], then a City Public Works Supervisor in Pasay City, called at the store of complainant looking for a woman who supposedly called him up from there. In the course of his conversations with complainant, during which he introduced himself to be connected
with the City Engineer’s Office,
accused Engineer represented
to complainant that he was
empowered to inspect private buildings and that, pursuant to the
Building Code, the Metro Manila
Commission requires that
the floor area of all houses be measured, a service for which a fee of P3.00 per square meter is charged, but that, if said service is undertaken by
him, the charge would be only P0.50
per square meter. In addition, said accused assured complainant that, while her premises were under investigation, she could not be
ejected despite the pending ejectment suit against her.
Although she
initially entertained doubts about the personality of accused Engineer, complainant eventually believed him
not only because he talked
nicely but also because he
warned her that unless she complies with said requirements, she could be liable for
the penal sanctions under
the Building Code. Complainant was thus prevailed upon to agree that the
required service be undertaken by accused Engineer for which she would pay from P300.00 to
P400.00 and, since the entire procedure
had to be done step by step, she would have to initially pay P150.00 for the measurement and the preparation
of the Floor plan of the
house. As agreed with accused Engineer, at
3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of
that day, accused Rogelio Alzate
Cornjeo [hereinafter referred
to as accused Draftsman],
nephew of accused Engineer, together with one Conrado Ocampo, showed up at Complainant’s place and made
measurements therein. However, because
complainant was short of funds, she was able to deliver to accused Draftsman only P100.00 out of the
P150.00 agreed upon with accused Engineer.
For that amount,
accused Draftsman issued complainant a receipt [Exh. A] and at the same time
asked her to sign a bunch of blank forms and other papers which he took back.
“The following morning, December 12, 1979, because
complainant saw accused Engineer go to the house of her neighbor, a Mrs.
Dalisay Bernal, complainant asked the latter what said accused was there for
and she was told that he went there also for the same purpose. Since Mrs. Bernal shared the doubts
previously entertained by her, the two of them decided to see Barangay Captain
Carmen Robles about the matter. With the
Barangay Captain, complainant and
Mrs. Bernal then went to the Pasay City Hall where they saw City Engineer Jesus I. Reyna who
told them that accused Engineer was
not authorized to conduct inspection and investigation of
privately-owned buildings – a fact later confirmed by a certification issued to
that effect by said City Engineer [Exhibit B].
With this discovery, the matter was reported to the Intelligence and
Special Operations Group, Pasay City Police.
It developed that in the morning of December 14, 1979, Conrado Ocampo called on complainant at the
instance of accused
Engineer to collect the balance of
P50.00 but complainant did not then pay him. Instead, she asked that accused Engineer be
the one to pick up the money that afternoon because she wanted to ask him
something. This was brought to the
attention of Captain Manuel Malonzo
of the ISOG who caused the statement of complainant to
be taken by then Police
Sergeant Nicanor del Rosario
[Exhibit C] and an entrapment
was planned.
“With money consisting
of two 20-pesos bill and one 10 peso bill previously xerox-copied
to be used by complainant as pay-off
money [Exhibits E and E-1], an??? ISOG team composed of Sgt.
Del Rosario, Sgt. Pablo Canlas
and Pfc. Anacleto Lacad and
Pascual de la Cruz,
repaired to the vicinity of complainant’s store. At about 1:00 o’clock that afternoon, accused
Engineer showed up at complainant’s store and, there, complainant handed to him
an envelope containing the pay-off money which he received. As said accused was in the act of placing the
envelope in his attache case, the police accosted him and took the money from
him. Thereafter, said accused was taken
to the Police Headquarters, together with complainant whose supplementary
statement [Exhibit D] was taken. In due
course, with the evidence gathered, as well as the statements of accused
Engineer, the police officers and other witnesses, the case was referred to the
City Fiscal of Pasay City. [Exhibit
F]”[2]
The judgment of
conviction was based on the findings of the trial court that petitioner Cornejo
employed criminal deceit in falsely holding himself out as duly authorized by
reason of his office to inspect and investigate privately-owned buildings, by
which misrepresentation he was able to inveigle complainant to agree to have
the floor area of her house and store measured and to have a plan thereof drawn
by the petitioner for a fee less than that supposedly officially charged for
said service.
In his main petition,
petitioner contends that the respondent court committed grave abuse of
discretion in:
a]
considering only that
part of the testimony of
the private complainant which favored
the prosecution and ignoring completely
those which exculpated the
petitioner;
b]
admitting in evidence Exhibit B [Certification of Pasay City Engineer Jesus Reyna]
without the author thereof taking the witness stand and thereby depriving the petitioner of his constitution right of confrontation;
c]
finding that petitioner
had no authority to conduct inspection
and investigation
privately-owned buildings and in concluding that the element of deceit was
sufficiently proved to make the latter liable estafa; and,
d] in holding that the arrest of petitioner in the afternoon
December 14, 1979 was the result
of an entrapment when the prosecution
evidence clearly showed that the latter was set up by the complainant and the police.
Petitioner likewise filed a supplemental petition with a special
prayer for the remand of the case to the court a quo on
the ground that he was deprived of his constitutional right to due process as
1] there was no preliminary investigation actually conducted by the Tanodbayan
Special Prosecutor; 2] the Sandiganbayan should have granted his motion for
reconsideration which is allegedly highly meritorious; 3] the Information is
utterly defective; 4] the prosecution is politically-motivated and
stage-managed to ease him out as a possible mayoralty candidate against the
son of then Pasay City Mayor Pablo Cuneta; and, 5] the pendency of Civil Case
No. 6302-P before the CFI of Rizal, Pasay City, a petition filed by petitioner
to have his duties as City Public Works Supervisor defined, constitutes a
prejudicial question to the case at bar.[3]
In support of his first contention, petitioner points to certain
portions of the testimony of the complainant Beth Chua as containing exculpatory
evidence, thus:
“Q:
All these 14 years, did you receive any notice from the Metro Manila
Commission requiring you to have those measurements?
A: Never.
Q: You
were never approached by any person from the Metro Manila
Commission telling you that your premises needed measuring?
A: None,
sir.
Q:
And this is the first time
there is such a thing as a Metro Manila Commission
requirement as you explained now as told to you by Engr.
Cornejo?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: So it
was not for that purpose that you gave that P150.00;
it was for the services for Rogelio Alzate Cornejo
who prepared for you a plan which you testified
is
still in their possession, is this not correct?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: So
that money was for the services of Rogelio Cornejo, as a
matter of fact, you even signed that sketch that Rogelio prepared,
is this not correct?
A: Yes,
sir.”[4]
and,
“Justice Kallos:
Q:
But you admitted to Atty. Villa in his
question that you agreed to pay the sum of
P150.00 for
the preparation of a plan and sketch to this
other accused, Rogelio Alzate y Cornejo.
In other words, the P/150.00 which you agreed to pay was in payment of
Rogelio Alzate’s work in preparing the plan?
A: I do not know whether the amount of
P/150.00 would go to Rogelio Alzate because we agreed to the entire amount.
Q: But the fact of the matter is that
the P/150.00 which you agree to pay first was intended as payment for the
preparation of the plan?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: And in fact, you admitted to Atty. Villa that
you even signed the sketch?
A: Yes, sir.”[5]
From the above testimony of complainant Beth Chua, petitioner
would conclude that the gravamen of the charge was not proved because the
person sought to be defrauded did not fall prey to the alleged fraudulent acts
or misrepresentations and that the money was in fact paid for services rendered
by Rogelio Alzate Cornejo.
This conclusion drawn by petitioner is unwarranted. The testimony of complainant Beth Chua should
be taken in its entirety. Not to be overlooked
is her categorical statement that although she initially entertained doubts as
to the personality of the petitioner and the veracity of his representations,
she finally believed him because he talked nicely and also because he warned
her that unless she complied with the purported requirements of the Metro
Manila Commission, she could be liable for the penal sanctions under the
Building Code. She further stated that
she believed petitioner’s statement that having her store measured and a plan
thereof made would prevent her eviction from the subject premises.[6]
This portion of the testimony of Beth Chua was accorded full weight and
credence by the trial court and We find no cogent reason to disturb such
assessment, particularly where the veracity of said statements was demonstrated
by complainant’s own act of agreeing to have her store measured and a plan
thereof sketched as per advice of petitioner.
Complainant had no reason to have such work undertaken and in the
process, incur expenses, other than her belief in and reliance on petitioner’s
misrepresentations. Otherwise stated, if
complainant did not believe petitioner’s misrepresentations, she would not have
agreed to said advice. Thus, it was
precisely petitioner’s misrepresentations that induced complainant to part with
her money. That actual services were
performed cannot exculpate petitioner because said services rendered were an
integral part of the modus operandi, without which petitioner would have no
reason to obtain money from the complainant.
These services likewise served as a smokescreen to prevent the
complainant from realizing that she was being swindled.
Anent petitioner’s objection to the admissibility of Exhibit B,
the certification issued by Pasay City Engineer Jesus Reyna to the effect that
petitioner was not authorized to inspect and investigate privately-owned
buildings, We find no reversible error, much less grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the trial court in admitting the same. It must be noted that Exhibit B was not
presented as an independent evidence to prove the want of authority of
petitioner to inspect and investigate privately-owned buildings, but merely as
part of the testimony of the complainant that such certification was issued in
her presence and the declaration of Assistant Pasay City Engineer Ceasar
Contreras that the signature appearing thereon was that of Engineer
Reyna. Where the statement or writings
attributed to a person who is not on the witness stand are being offered not to
prove the truth of the facts stated therein but only to prove that such
statements were actually made or such writings were executed, such evidence is
not covered by the hearsay rule.[7]
Besides, the finding of the trial court that petitioner had no
authority to conduct inspections and investigations of privately-owned
buildings was reached, not solely on the basis of Exhibit B, but principally
from a consideration and study of Section 18 of R.A. No. 5185, the law which
first allowed the city governments to create the position of City Public Works
Supervisor, in relation to P.D. No. 549, which placed the city public works
supervisors under the supervision of the city engineers.
Of course, petitioner would likewise find fault in this
conclusion [third assignment of error].
However, rather than overturn the trial court in this regard as
petitioner would pray of Us, We find ourselves in complete agreement with the
trial court’s observations and
conclusion that:
“x x x Easily,
the authority claimed should
be a matter of law or regulation. To begin
with, the position of City Public Works Supervisor, which is
admittedly the position held
by accused Engineer, was first
allowed to be created by
City Governments pursuant
to Section 18 of Republic Act No.
5185, which expressly confined
the functions thereof to ‘public
works and public highways projects
financed out of local funds’. Nowhere in that statute was
any authority granted to city public works supervisors relative to privately-owned
buildings. Later, with the advent of Presidential Decree No. 549, on September 5, 1974, city public works supervisors were placed under the direct supervision of
the City Engineer, although,
by virtue of Letter of Instruction
No. 789, dated December 26, 1978, as further implemented by Ministry of Order No. 3-79, Ministry of Finance, dated January 23, 1979, the
officials therein mentioned were?
” ‘x x x enjoined to abolish the Office of the City Public Works Supervisor, return all personnel to the Department
of Engineering and Public Works of
the City without
reduction in salaries, place City Public Works Supervisors under the direct control and
supervision of City Engineers and for City Engineers to carry out all public works constructions, repairs and improvements of the City financed by
City Funds, pursuant to the respective
charters of the Cities.’
“Clearly, then as
of December, 1979,
when the offense here
charged is alleged to have
been perpetrated, accused
Engineer’s position as City Public Works Supervisor could
not have subsisted and, although
he remained in office, he was then placed under the direct control and supervision of the City Engineer, performing functions confined to
‘public works and public
highways projects financed out
of local funds’, As such, he had no authority to conduct inspection or investigation of privately-owned buildings – a fact duly certifified by Pasay City Engineer Jesus L. Reyna [Exhibit B] and confirmed on the witness stand by Pasay City Assistant City Engineer Ceasar C.
Contreras. In this posture, the basic representation of accused Engineer that he was
authorized to conduct inspection
and investigation of privately-owned
buildings was an outright falsehood.
“Accused Engineer’s insistent claim that he had that
authority is futile. As
aforesaid, the pertinent law is explicit that the functions of a city
public works supervisor, as the title of the office clearly suggests, refer
only to the supervision of public works and, for this purpose, this means
‘public works and public highways projects financed out of local funds’. This statutory specification of duties can
not be varied by the mere
certification presented by said
accused that he ‘is a duly
accredited employee of this Office [of the City Engineer] and is entitled to all assistance and
courtesies in the performance of his duties’ [Exhibit 10]. Much less could the notation under the column
‘Remarks’ in his Daily Time Records [Exhibits 11, 11-A to 11-C], to wit, ‘Overseeing PW-BUILDING INVESTIGATION’ or ‘Bldg.
Investigations’, be accorded the force of an investiture of authority for that
purpose. At best, said notations are
only self-serving statements made by said accused and the mere fact that the
daily time records aforesaid are approved by the City Engineer cannot add an
iota of probative force thereto as proof of any authority to inspect and
investigate privately-owned buildings.”[8]
Petitioner further attempts to convince Us that he was induced
and instigated by complainant and the police to commit the crime charged. The facts of the case do not support such
assertion. When petitioner returned to
complainant’s house on the day he was arrested, he had already committed the
deceit punished by law and had effectively defrauded complainant of her
money. His act of going to complainant’s
house was a mere continuation of the unlawful scheme, already consummated
within the contemplation of the law, so that the strategy employed by the
police in affecting his arrest was a clear case of entrapment, which is
recognized as a lawful means of law enforcement.[9]
Worthy of note is the
fact that except for a fleeting reference to the pendency of Civil Case No.
6302-P of the then CFI of Rizal, Pasay City as constituting a prejudicial
question to the present prosecution, the other grounds cited
in petitioner’s supplemental petition were neither discussed nor
elaborated on in his brief. Suffice it
to say then that the other grounds cited by petitioner in his supplemental
petition deserve scant consideration for they either do not have any relevance
to the petition at bar [such as petitioner’s allegation that the prosecution
is politically-motivated] or could not alter the result of the case, such as
petitioner’s bare allegation of lack of preliminary investigation, which cannot
overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties
[Sec. 5(m), Rule 131, Rules of Court]; the complaint about the Information* which We do not find defective; and the matter of
prejudicial question which must be raised after the Information has been filed
in the trial court, but not at this late stage.[10]
Finding no reversible error nor grave abuse of discretion to have
been committed by the trial court, and convinced beyond reasonable doubt that
petitioner is guilty of the offense charged, the decision of the trial court is
affirmed.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
denied for lack of merit. The decision
of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 2495 is affirmed en toto. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez,
Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, and Cortes, JJ., concur.
* Petitioner’s co-accused Rogelio
Alzate Cornejo was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
[1]
p. 43, Rollo
[2]
pp. 25-29, Rollo
[3]
pp. 75-79, Rollo
[4]
TSN, pp. 47-48, June 1, 1981
[5]
TSN, pp. 50-51, June 1, 1981
[6]
TSN, pp. 3-4, 5-9, 12-13, 15-16, June 1, 1981
[7]
People v. Cusi, 14 SCRA 944
[8]
Decision, pp. 33-35, Rollo
[9]
People v. Luz Chua, et al., 56 Phil. 53
* The Information in
Criminal Case No. 2495 reads:
“That on or about the 11th day
of December, 1979, in Pasay City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Engr. Alfredo Cornejo, Sr., a
public officer being then a City Public Works Supervisor of the Pasay City
Engineer’s Office, and Rogelio Alzate Cornejo, a private individual, by means
of deceit, false pretenses and fraudulent manifestations, the former taking advantage of his position and
committing said offense in relation to his office, conspiring and confederating
and mutually helping and aiding one another,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously inform and misrepresent to Beth Chua that as per instruction
of the Metro Manila Commission, the
floor area of the apartment occupied by Beth Chua has to be measured, inspected
and investigated and that at the same time, sstructural plan of the said
apartment must be prepared, for which the latter would allegedly pay P3.00 per
square meter to the Metro Manila Commission if said work would be done by the
latter office, but if they would be the one to do the job, it would only cost
P0.50 per sq. meter, when in truth and in fact, accused Engr. Alfredo R.
Cornejo, Sr., as per certification issued by the Pasay City Engineer’s Office,
has no authority to conduct inspection and investigation of privately-owned
houses or buildings and accused
Rogelio Alzate Cornejo is not even connected with the Local City Engineer’s
Office, that complainant Beth Chua, believing the representations of the said
accused to be true, did in fact give and deliver to the accused the total
amount of P150.00 which amount accused misappropriated and misapplied to their own
use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said Beth Chua in the
aforesaid amount of P150.00.” [pp. 24-25, Rollo]
[10]
Estrella v. Orendain, et al., 37 SCRA 640; Isip, et al. v. Gonzales 39 SCRA 255.