PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARINO BABAO Y TORRES AND FELIPE MENDOZA Y CAGADAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Babao

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Marino Babao and Felipe Mendoza, a criminal appeal in which two men were convicted of Estafa for luring a woman into a fictitious business called Double Your Money, promising that a chemical applied to blank paper would multiply her cash. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold onto. First, it fixes the elements of Estafa by deceit. Second, and more importantly for the bar, it explains why the defense of spontaneous desistance collapses when the accused were present at, and central to, the execution of the fraud, and why conspiracy makes every participant liable as a principal.

Procedural History

The case began in the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256, where an Information charged Babao and Mendoza with Estafa. On arraignment, both pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision on the twenty eighth of February 2001, finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals, sentencing them to a minimum of four years and two months of prision correccional to a maximum of twenty years of reclusion temporal, ordering them to restore one hundred fifty thousand pesos to the complainant, and to pay the costs.

The accused moved for reconsideration and filed a notice of appeal, which the trial court gave due course. Their motions were later denied. The appeal went up to the Supreme Court, which resolved it by affirming the conviction.

Facts

On the ninth of September 1996, Babao and Mendoza went to a bakery in Muntinlupa City to meet the private complainant, Lovelyn Baja, and urged her to invest in a business called Double Your Money. Babao, her uncle in law, explained that money could be made through a chemical process by which a bill of any denomination could be multiplied by injecting a chemical on blank pieces of paper, which would miraculously turn into money. To join, she had to put in one hundred fifty thousand pesos. The two men met her again to persuade her, each even offering to invest his own smaller amount.

On the fifteenth of October 1996, the two returned with three companions, Rommel, Al, and a man called Engineer, who demonstrated the process by supposedly doubling a ten peso bill, a twenty peso bill, and a one hundred peso bill. Convinced, Baja agreed to invest her one hundred fifty thousand pesos. On the twenty first of October 1996, the group came back and she handed the money to Babao and Mendoza, who began the process inside a room of her house, cleaning the bills, sealing them in glasses, and covering them with masking tape.

While the men were eating breakfast, Rommel claimed his necklace was missing and went back to the room, followed by the others. Baja rushed in and saw Al injecting chemicals and wrapping the money in a towel. Babao handed her the towel and told her to put it in her bag before the chemical evaporated. The men then left for Manila, saying they would fetch a money dryer and return by ten in the morning. They never came back. When Baja opened the bag, she found only blank pieces of paper, and her money was gone. In their defense, the accused blamed Rommel, claimed they had withdrawn because they lacked funds, and set up alibi.

Issues

• Whether or not the defense of spontaneous desistance may prosper where the accused were present at and played a crucial role in the execution of the crime.
• Whether or not conspiracy was established, making the accused liable as principals.
• Whether or not the elements of Estafa were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the definition of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code, which provides:

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

This definition is the basis for holding both accused liable as principals for the common design to defraud the complainant.

The decision also applies the elements of Estafa by deceit, which it states as follows:

The elements of Estafa are as follows: (1) that the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third party.

These elements frame the Court's finding that the false promise of doubling money, followed by the loss of the investment, constitutes the crime charged.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal was without merit. There was no true desistance, because if there was any at all, it was merely desistance in making monetary investments, since the accused did not have enough money to contribute. The accused could not have desisted from the crime because they were present during its execution and played a crucial role in convincing the complainant to part with her money. The Court adopted the trial court's finding that the accused played a pivotal part in persuading her, and that as her uncle, Babao repeatedly assured her he would not fool her.

On the second issue, the Court found conspiracy proven. The accused visited the complainant not once but several times, introduced Rommel, Al, and Engineer to her, were present when the process was conducted on her money, personally received the one hundred fifty thousand pesos because she wanted to give it only to people she knew, and left together carrying the money and leaving only blank paper. These acts, taken together, manifested a unity of purpose and a common design to deceive her. Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators are liable as principals.

On the third issue, the Court held that all the elements of Estafa were present. The accused made the complainant believe her money would be doubled, and since it did not double but was taken away instead, she suffered damage equivalent to her investment of one hundred fifty thousand pesos. The Court also reiterated that findings of fact of the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal absent overlooked circumstances of weight and significance.

Doctrine

Spontaneous desistance, to be a valid defense, requires that the accused withdrew from the crime before its execution, by their own act, and that the withdrawal actually prevented the crime from being committed. It cannot prosper where the accused were present at the execution and played a crucial role in it. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, and where their acts collectively and individually demonstrate a common design towards the same unlawful purpose, all the perpetrators are liable as principals. Estafa by deceit is committed when the accused defrauds another by means of deceit and damage capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting Babao and Mendoza of Estafa and ordering them to restore the one hundred fifty thousand pesos to the complainant.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that desistance in making an investment is not desistance in committing the crime, and one who stays present and pivotal in the fraud is liable as a principal in conspiracy. Examiners like to use this case to test the requisites of spontaneous desistance and the rule that the acts of conspirators, taken together, establish a common design.