FLORINDA V. ESTRADA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND NORBERTO LUNA, RESPONDENTS.
ELBINIAS, J.:
The salient facts are those as stated in the RTC’s Decision[7] dated March 25, 2010, as follows:
“On October 9, 1998, the accused Florinda Estrada (petitioner here) executed in favor of the private complainant Norberto Luna (private respondent here) a Deed of Absolute Sale over a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 8224-R of the Registry of Deeds of San Juan for a consideration of Php 1,800,000.00. On the same day, the private complainant Norberto Luna (private respondent) and his wife gave the accused (petitioner) the ‘Option to Buy’ said property for the same stated consideration plus interest for a period of one (1) year. It was agreed between the parties that the Deed of Absolute Sale will not be registered unless said ‘Option to Buy’ is not exercised within that one year period. Verily, their true intention was for the accused to borrow, Php 1,800,000.00 from the private complainant and the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed only to assure payment of the loan. Thus, the loan agreed upon was but a loan-mortgage agreement because of the so called sale under pacto de retro and the same was not registered, and the accused (petitioner) remained in possession of the property. There was stipulation on the payment of interest and the expenses of the sale was charged to the accused (petitioner).
After the expiration of [the] one year period to buy back the property elapsed, the accused (petitioner) asked for an extension of one (1) month which was granted. When the accused (petitioner) failed to repurchase the property, the private complainant (private respondent) went to the Register of Deeds of San Juan to register the sale. He (private respondent) was informed that an Adverse Claim dated October 28, 1999 filed and registered by one Perla Castor on the title subject of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 4, 1999 between him and the accused (petitioner). It came to his mind that the intention of the accused (petitioner) in requesting for a one month extension to redeem the property was just a ploy so she (petitioner) could have time to find ways to prevent the transfer of the property in his (private respondent’s) name. The strategy employed by the accused (petitioner) was a clear act of deceit that caused damage and injury to the private complainant (private respondent).”[8] (Emphasis Supplied)
On June 18, 2004, private respondent Norberto Luna (“private respondent” for brevity) filed a Complaint for Estafa against petitioner Florinda Estrada (“petitioner” for brevity) before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Caloocan[9].
The rest of the facts are continued in the RTC’s Decision[10] dated March 25, 2010, as follows:
“Accused Florinda Estrada (petitioner) xxx before she (petitioner) made the contract with Spouses Castor, she (petitioner) made known to them that the property was encumbered to herein private complainant (private respondent). It was the agreement between the accused (petitioner) and the Spouses Castor that the latter will redeem the property from herein private complainant (private respondent) but they did not comply with the agreement. Consequently, herein accused (petitioner) returned the amount of Php7,500,000.00 in (sic) August 2003 as evidenced by an Acknowledgment Receipt signed by Perla Castor. The payment was made ahead of the filing of the instant case in court on February 2005. xxx She (petitioner) argued that the alleged acts complained of do not constitute any of the offenses charged by the complainant (private respondent). She (petitioner) alleged further that [t]he private complainant (private respondent) is not the proper party and has no legal standing for any of the offenses charged in the complaint-affidavit. Since the transaction between herein complainant (private respondent) and the accused (petitioner) over the subject property is in reality a loan-mortgage agreement, the accused (petitioner) remained owner therefor after the mortgage and therefrom can still exercise the right of ownership over the property. Thus, the subsequent sale of the mortgaged property to Perla Castor did not in anyway diminish much less extinguished, the security of the loan which the accused (petitioner) obtained from the private complainant (private respondent). No damage or prejudice has been caused to the private complainant (private respondent) by subsequent sale of the property to Perla Castor.”[11] (Emphasis Supplied)
On August 28, 2009, the MeTC rendered a Decision[12] finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The dispositive portion of the MeTC Decision[13] read:
“WHEREFORE, accused FLORINDA ESTRADA y VALDERAMA is hereby declared GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Art. 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code and she is hereby sentenced to suffer two (2) months of imprisonment and to pay a fine of One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 1,800,000.00) or subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SO ORDERED.”[14] (Emphasis was made in the original)
Upon her judgment of conviction by the MeTC, petitioner appealed to the RTC. In turn, the RTC rendered the assailed Decision[15] of March 25, 2010 affirming in toto[16] the MeTC’s Decision[17].
After petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration[18] was denied by the RTC in its assailed Order[19] dated September 21, 2010, petitioner filed the Petition[20] at bench praying that:
“WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that:
1. The instant petition be given due course;
2. After deliberation on the merits of the instant petition as well as of the subsequent pleadings and other papers that the petitioner and the respondents may be required to file, judgment be rendered:
(a) REVERSING the following issuances of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 123, in Criminal Case No, C-82554, to wit:
(1) Decision dated March 25, 2010; and
(2) Order dated September 21, 2010;(b) ACQUITTING the petitioner of the crime charged, which is Estafa under Art. 316 (b) of the Revised Penal Code.
All other reliefs and remedies just and equitable in the premises are likewise prayed for.”[21] (Underlining was made in the original)
Petitioner raised this sole assignment of error:
“THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CALOOCAN CITY, BRANCH 123, COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERRORS, BOTH FACTUAL AND LEGAL, IN AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE ERRONEOUS DECISION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF CALOOCAN CITY, BRANCH 51.”[22] (Italics was made in the original)
Contrary to petitioner’s arguments in her sole assigned error, the RTC properly affirmed the findings of the MeTC.
Petitioner had argued as follows:
“Now, who is the offended party in the instant case for estafa insofar as the allegations in the Complaint-Affidavit xxx are concerned?
xxx the offended party is PERLA CASTOR because she is the person to whom the encumbered property was disposed of by the petitioner through the latter’s alleged express representation that the same was free from encumbrance. The private complainant, NORBERTO LUNA, who claims to have suffered damage or prejudice as a result of the subject transaction between Castor and the petitioner, is not the offended party but a third person upon whom ‘the alleged loss has fallen’ xxx
xxx
xxx deceit or fraud and its effects are personal to the person allegedly deceived or defrauded. Thus, it is only that person who can claim with competence that he has been deceived or defrauded by another. No other person can do that. In other words, it is only Castor, the offended party, who can prove that she was deceived or defrauded by the petitioner. xxx
xxx
In view of the prior knowledge of Castor that the subject real property was encumbered to private complainant Luna before she entered into the subject pacto de retro sale with petitioner, it is thus very clear that no fraud or deceit was employed by the petitioner in the transaction.
xxx
So clearly, the prosecution miserably failed to prove all the elements of the crime charged.
xxx
It is therefore clear that the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 51, erred in convicting the petitioner of the crime of [E]stafa under Article 316, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code. Needless to say, in affirming in toto the erroneous decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 123, committed a grave, reversible error.”[23] (Emphasis, Italics and Underlining were made in the original)
Overwhelming petitioner’s arguments however, is that as the records showed, the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crime of Estafa[24] under Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, as follows: 1.) That the thing disposed of be real property; 2.) That the offender knew that the real property was encumbered, whether the encumberance is recorded or not; 3.) That there must be express representation by the offender that the real property is free from encumberance; and, 4.) That the act of disposing of the real property be made to the damage of another.[25]
In Orlando P. Naya vs. Spouses Abraham and Guillerma Abing and People of the Philippines[26], the Supreme Court pronounced that the gravamen of Estafa under Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code is “the disposition of legally encumbered real property by the offender under the express representation that there is no encumbrance thereon. Hence, for one to be criminally liable for estafa under the law, the accused must make an express representation in the deed of conveyance that the property sold or disposed of is free from any encumbrance.”
Here, despite petitioner’s knowledge that the real property covered by TCT No. 8224-R (“subject property”) was already sold by petitioner to private respondent by virtue of a “Deed of Absolute Sale”[27] dated October 9, 1998, although petitioner and private respondent intended such contract to be a “loan-mortage agreement”[28]. Without such “loan-mortgage agreement”[29] having been extinguished, petitioner still made an express representation to another person, a certain Perla Castor (“Castor” for brevity), that the subject property was free from any encumbrance. This, petitioner did when she subsequently disposed of the property to Castor, through a “Deed of Sale under Pacto De Retro”[30] (“Deed of Sale” for brevity) dated October 4, 1999, which stated that, among others, “the above-described property with all buildings and improvements thereon, [was] free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever”[31].
The act of petitioner in disposing the property to Castor caused damage to private respondent when the latter was prevented from consolidating his title over the subject property. As the records revealed, after the lapse of the period for petitioner to exercise her “Option to Buy”[32] the property, private respondent was unable to register the “Deed of Absolute Sale”[33] dated October 9, 1998. This was because Castor had filed an Adverse Claim[34] dated October 28, 1999, which Adverse Claim was annotated on the Title of the subject property resulting from the “Deed of Sale” executed by petitioner in favor of Castor on October 4, 1999.[35]
Given that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of Estafa under Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, then the guilt of petitioner was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
No cogent or compelling reason was therefore shown to warrant any deviation from the following conclusions of the MeTC, which were affirmed by the RTC:
“The prosecution had established the existence of all the elements for the commission of the Estafa under Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code by the accused, to wit:
(1) The thing disposed of by the accused is a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 8224-R;
(2) That the accused knew that the said real property was encumbered as evidences by a Deed of Sale between Florinda Estrada and Norberto Luna over a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 8224-R with an Option to Buy marked as Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘C’, respectively, for the prosecution, although the encumbrance was not recorded with the Registry of Deeds of San Juan and the intention of the parties is only for a loan-mortgage agreement;
(3) There was an express representation by the accused that the said real property is free from encumbrance as evidenced by the Deed of Sale under Pacto de Retro executed by the accused in favor of Perla Castor and the phrase ‘the above-described property with all buildings and improvements thereon, free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever‘ on the page 3 thereof which were marked as Exhibits ‘E’ and ‘E-1’ for the prosecution. This Deed of Sale under Pacto de Retro was notarized in Caloocan City;
(4) The act of the accused of disposing the real property caused damage or injury to the private complainant Norberto Luna.
xxx
The act of the accused in selling the subject property to Perla Castor in October, 1999 caused damaged (sic) or injury to the private complainant Norberto Luna for her failure to disclose that the said property was encumbered, instead, it was declared free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever as evidences by the Deed of Sale under Pacto de Retro executed by the accused in favor of Perla Castor. Norberto Luna has a vested interest on the subject real property despite the fact that the transaction is only a loan-mortgage agreement and the same should have been made known by the accused to Perla Castor and reflected in the Deed of Sale under Pacto de Retro executed by the accused in favor of Perla Castor which was notarized in Caloocan City and appended to the Affidavit of Adverse Claim which was annotated to TCT No. 8224-R.
The Court cannot give credence to the accused (sic) testimony that the private complainant knew that she was selling the said real property to Perla Castor and that Perla Castor knew that the said real property was encumbered for want of evidence to bolster such claims. The best evidence to disprove such claim is the Deed of Sale under Pacto de Retro executed by the accused in favor of Perla Castor and the phrase ‘the above-described property with all buildings and improvements thereon, free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever‘ on the page 3 thereof.”[36] (Emphasis Supplied; Italics was made in the original)
Indeed, the findings of the MeTC, especially when affirmed by the RTC as is the case here, are conclusive and should be given great weight.[37]
After careful consideration of all the facts, arguments, and issues appearing on the records, as well as of the pertinent laws and jurisprudence, and, in accordance with what is best determined to be proper under the circumstances, the following disposition is therefore made on these matters.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dicdican (Chairman) and Paredes, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 6-31
[2] Rollo, pp. 32-35
[3] Rollo, pp. 38-43
[4] Rollo, p. 38
[5] Rollo, pp. 36-37
[6] Rollo, pp. 44-53
[7] Rollo, pp. 32-35
[8] Rollo, p. 33
[9] Rollo, pp. 60-64
[10] Rollo, pp. 32-35
[11] Rollo, pp. 33-34
[12] Rollo, pp. 38-43
[13] Rollo, pp. 38-43
[14] Rollo, p. 43
[15] Rollo, pp. 32-35
[16] Rollo, p. 35
[17] Rollo, pp. 38-43
[18] Rollo, pp. 44-53
[19] Rollo, pp. 36-37
[20] Rollo, pp. 6-31
[21] Rollo, pp. 30-31
[22] Rollo, p. 9
[23] Rollo, pp. 15-25
[24] ART. 316. Other forms of swindling. – The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value, shall be imposed upon:
xxx
2. Any person who, knowing that real property is encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although such encumbrance be not recorded;
[25] Francisco R. Llamas and Carmelita C. Llamas vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et. al, G.R. No. 149588, August 16, 2010
[26] G.R. No. 146770, February 27, 2003
[27] Rollo, pp. 57-58
[28] Rollo, p. 41
[29] Rollo, p. 41
[30] Rollo, pp. 65-66
[31] Rollo, pp. 41 – 42; pp. 146 – 147
[32] Rollo, p. 59
[33] Rollo, pp. 57-58
[34] Rollo, p. 33; p. 39
[35] Rollo, p. 42
[36] Rollo, pp. 41 – 42
[37] Materrco, Inc. vs. First Landlink Asia Development Corporation, G.R. No. 175687, November 28, 2007; Erlinda de la Cruz vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 105213 December 4, 1996