TERESA AJUSAN AND NIER TRINIDAD, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

This is an appeal by way of a petition for review to set aside
and reverse the decision dated October 27, 1992 of the 15th Division of the
Court of Appeals^[1]
in CA-G.R. No. 08608 affirming with modification the decision dated December
22, 1989 of the Regional Trial Court of Mambusao, Capiz, Branch 20^[2]
in Criminal Case No. 1167.

On June 15, 1982, an Information charging herein defendants with
the crime of estafa through false pretenses was filed before the Regional Trial
Court of Mambusao, Capiz, Branch 20. The indictment reads:

“The undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal accuses TERESITA
AJUSAN, and NIER TRINIDAD of the crime
of ESTAFA through false pretenses committed as follows:

‘That on or about the periods of 20 January 1982 and 5 February
1982 at Brgy. Burias, Mambusao, Capiz, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously defraud one VIRGINIA BAUTISTA through false pretenses, to wit:

‘That on January 1982 accused TERESITA AJUSAN and NIER TRINIDAD
called on Virginia Bautista at her residence in Brgy. Burias, Mambusao, Capiz,
Philippines, under the pretext that they could ward off the evil spirit causing
bodily ill to her son and guarding the gold bars buried under her house by
posting to them P15,000.00 cash as bond, which she did on 5 February 1982, to
guarantee clean bill of health to the members of the family and an assurance to
retrieve the buried treasures of gold bars; but such supernatural and mystic powers
they claim to have duping the innocent and poor VIRGINIA BAUTISTA, they never
had; they never accomplished, thus causing damage to her to the sum of
P15,000.00.’

“CONTRARY TO Article 315, No. 2, (a), Revised Penal
Code.”^[3]

On arraignment, the defendants pleaded “not guilty” to
the charge.

Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. On December 22, 1989, the trial court rendered judgment, the
decretal portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, in the light of the above foregoing and finding
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, this Court imposes upon the
accused, Teresita Ajusan and Nier Trinidad an INDETERMINATE SENTENCE OF SIX (6)
YEARS OF PRISION CORRECCIONAL IN THE MAXIMUM PERIOD AS MINIMUM to EIGHT (8)
YEARS OF PRISION MAYOR MINIMUM AS ITS MAXIMUM and to pay the offended party,
Virginia Bautista the amount of P15,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages
plus 12% interest from February 5, 1982 until the amount is fully paid and the
litigation expenses of P5,000.00 and to pay the cost of this suit, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

“SO ORDERED.”^[4]

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the above-quoted judgment was
affirmed but modified with respect to the penalty imposed. Consequently, defendants were each sentenced
to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day as minimum to six
(6) years, eight (8) months and twenty (20) days as maximum, there being
neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attending the commission of
the crime.

Aggrieved by the ruling, defendants interposed the present
petition and assigned the following grounds for review, to wit:

“A. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
DECLARING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH LED TO THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONERS
BY THE LOWER COURT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE
PETITIONERS TO DUE PROCESS, AND FOR A FAIR, AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL;

“B.   RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF THE PETITIONERS BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.”^[5]

The relevant antecedents, as correctly narrated in the decision
of the Court of Appeals, are as follows:

“The prosecution’s evidence tend to establish that sometime in
January, 1982, while private complainant Virginia Bautista was at the Roxas
Memorial General Hospital at Roxas City attending to her sick son Mamerto, she
was approached by a certain woman named Caning who, in the ensuing
conversation, induced Virginia to see a quack doctor who could allegedly cure
Virginia’s son and husband Jaime Bautista who was then likewise sick and
confined at the Mambusao District Hospital. Thereafter, Caning accompanied Virginia to the house of appellant
Teresita Ajusan at Punta Tabuc, Roxas City. Thereat, Virginia was introduced to Teresita and appellant Nier
Trinidad. After being invited inside
the house, Caning told Teresita the purpose of their visit. Teresita then went to an adjoining room and
looked at her crystal ball after which she told Virginia that her husband and
son have only three (3) days to live. Emotionally depressed, Virginia wanted to leave but was prevailed upon
to stay a little longer because, according to Teresita, a spirit called ‘Auntie
Nene’ will arrive to help them. Afterwards, Teresita put up curtains in the room and went behind the
curtains where she could not be seen. Moments later, Nier informed Virginia that ‘Auntie Nene’ has arrived and
that they have to go near Teresita. Thus, Virginia sat near the curtains covering Teresita, with Nier and
Caning at Virginia’s left and right sides, respectively. Suddenly, a high-pitched voice emanated from
behind the curtains asking for grace money in the amount of P67.50. The voice also asked Virginia to pay for
three (3) pieces of diamond worth P6,000.00 each to be embedded in the body of
Virginia’s husband and son in order to cure them. Virginia told Nier that she could not raise P18,000.00, hence the
amount was reduced to P15,000.00. In
addition, the voice told Virginia that the P15,000.00 will serve as bond for
the excavation of sixteen (16) gold bars buried under their old house at
Barangay Burias, Mambusao, Capiz.

“On January 20, 1982, Virginia’s son was released from the
Roxas Memorial General Hospital and was brought by Virginia to their house at
Barangay Burias. At around 11:30
o’clock in the morning of the same day, Virginia accompanied Teresita and Nier
to the house of Virginia’s daughter Rosela Olmo at Agsilab, Sapian, Capiz. Thereat, Teresita asked for a room whereat
she placed a mat curtain by nailing mats together in such a way that she could
not be seen while behind it. Later in
the evening, Virginia was awakened by Nier who told her that ‘Auntie Nene’ has
arrived. Immediately thereafter,
Virginia heard a high-pitched voice telling her to hurry in securing the
aforementioned P15,000.00 even if she has to mortgage her land, carabao and
other properties because the health of her family would be endangered if the 16
gold bars under Virginia’s house in a Barangay Burias are not recovered. Afraid of what might happen should she fail
to raise the P15,000.00 demanded by the spirit, Virginia gave P7,000.00 of her
own savings to appellants and persuaded her daughter Rosela to come up with
P18,000.00 balance.

“On February 5, 1982, Rosela, in her house, gave to her mother
Virginia the said P8,000.00 which they counted in the presence of Nier and a
certain Libertad Bautista while Teresita was behind the mat curtain. After the money was counted, Teresita asked
that the same be handed to her on the pretext that ‘Auntie Nene’ wanted to
check the serial numbers. Hence, the
money which was contained in an envelope was handed by Virginia to Teresita who
was still behind the mat curtain. Then,
Virginia heard the sound of something being stapled. Afterwards, Teresita went outside of the mat curtain carrying a
stapled envelope, which, according to her, contained the money. She placed the envelope inside a black cloth
belt and tied it around Virginia’s waist, warning the latter not to open the
belt otherwise a fire-blowing snake will come out of the same and kill
them. After a while, Teresita asked
Virginia and Rosela to put up another P8,000.00 allegedly because the spirits
under the house where the gold bars were buried were complaining that the
amount already given was inadequate. In
addition, Teresita told Virginia and Rosela that she needed a black pig worth
P500.00 and a black cloth which will both be used for the ceremonial offering
to the spirits. Apprehensively, Rosela
raised an additional P8,000.00 which she subsequently showed to
appellants. However, instead of handing
the money to appellants, Rosela personally placed the money, then contained in
an envelope, in a black cloth belt and tied it around her waist.

“On February 12, 1982, while appellants were still at Rosela’s
house, a black pig was slaughtered for the purpose of getting its blood which
appellants said must be brought and sprinkled on Virginia’s old house in
Barangay Burias. At that time, Teresita
wanted to see Rosela because, according to Teresita, the spirit ‘Auntie Nene’
also wanted to check the serial numbers of the money contained in the belt tied
around the waist of Rosela. It so
happened, however, that Rosela was not around. Thus, Teresita proceeded to the national road allegedly on her way to
the house of Virginia. Upon seeing that
appellants were also carrying their traveling bags containing their personal
belongings, Virginia requested them to leave their luggage behind and come back
later after the ceremonial offering. Appellants refused.

“Alarmed by such refusal, Virginia told Rosela’s husband to go
to Sapian, Capiz to get policemen. Then, arming herself with a bolo
just in case a fire-breathing snake might really come out of the black
belt earlier tied around her waist, Virginia cautiously opened the belt. To her surprise, the envelope inside
contained nothing but newspapers cut in the size of money bills. Without losing any time, Virginia summoned
her relatives within the vicinity and pursued the appellants whom they brought
to the Mambusao Police Station whereat the incident was entered in the police
blotter (Exh. ‘A’, Records, p. 292). Two days later or on February 14, 1982, Virginia and Rosela executed
their respective sworn statements relative to what had happened. The next day, a criminal complaint for
estafa was filed against appellants.

“Appellants have their own version of the incident. Denying that they swindled Virginia Bautista
of the amount of P15,000.00, appellants sought to establish that sometime in
January, 1982, Teresita Ajusan met Virginia at the public market of Roxas
City. At that time, Teresita was buying
orchids while Virginia was buying medicines for her son who was confined in the
hospital. Noticing that Teresita was
interested in orchids, Virginia approached Teresita and told the latter that
she knows a place in Barangay Burias, Mambusao, Capiz where there are plenty of
orchids, adding that in the said place, there are also shiny stones which might
be of value. Teresita replied that she
was only interested in orchids but added that she has a relative by the name of
Nier Trinidad who has some experience in mining and might be able to give
opinion regarding the shiny stones. Interested to meet Nier, Virginia took down the address of Teresita.

“Several days later, Virginia went to Teresita’s residence at
Punta Tabuc, Roxas City where she met Nier. That very day, Virginia invited appellants to visit her place at
Barangay Burias. At about past 2:00
o’clock in the afternoon of February 12, 1982, both appellants arrived at the
house of Virginia in Barangay Burias. Early the following morning, appellants together with Virginia proceeded
to the mountains area of the said barangay. Along the way, they passed the house of Virginia’s relative where a
celebration was apparently going on as the place was filled with people and a
pig slaughtered for the occasion. After
walking a short distance therefrom, appellants and Virginia reached an area in
the mountain where the latter showed to appellants the orchids and shiny
stones. Teresita took a few samples of
the orchids while Nier reserved giving his opinion regarding the value of the
shiny stones, albeit he then thought that the stones may be a variety of black
gold. Thereafter, the trio proceeded
back to the house of Virginia, where, to appellants’ surprise, they saw several
persons armed with pointed bamboo poles who, for unexplained reasons, prevented
appellants from leaving Virginia’s house. A short while later, Virginia’s daughter Rosela Olmo arrived and
demanded appellants to sign a blank sheet of yellow paper. At first, appellants refused but after being
threatened with decapitation, the two placed their respective signatures on the
piece of paper, after which they asked for the barangay captain who, upon
arriving, tried to pacify the crowd by explaining that the appellants were not
bad persons. Shortly thereafter, five
policemen from Sapian, Capiz arrived and were subsequently joined by several
other police officers from Mambusao, Capiz. Afterwards, the Mambusao policemen brought appellants to the Mambusao
police headquarters whereat they were detained for two (2) days. When released, they were not apprised of the
case against them but were merely told to answer the same in court.”^[6]

Petitioners contend that the actuations of the trial judge during
the trial of the instant case showed his apparent bias in favor of the
prosecution and prejudice against them. Petitioners claim that the judge “practically took the cudgels for
the prosecution” and “actively asked questions during the direct
examination and cross-examination” of prosecution witnesses Rosela Olmo
and Virginia Bautista, thereby strengthening the case of the prosecution. They further contend that the actuations of
the judge “rendered inutile the rights of the petitioners for
cross-examination.” Thus, it is claimed, that by arrogating unto himself
the role of the prosecutor, the trial judge who established the case for the
prosecution violated petitioners’ constitutional right to a fair and impartial
trial.

These arguments deserve scant consideration.

Records bear out that the trial judge did not commit the
improprieties alleged by petitioners. There is nothing on record to indicate that the judge attempted to help
the prosecution. The questions
propounded by the judge, though numerous they may be, did not intend to
prejudice petitioners’ substantial rights nor did they amount to an
interference for or in behalf of the private respondents. The questions, reproduced in petitioners’
brief, were intended to elicit relevant facts relating to the motive of
complainant in giving money to petitioners, as well as to test the credibility
of complainant and her witnesses. The
questions were never intended to build up the case for the prosecution, as
petitioners speciously assert. We
reiterate the dictum that the trial judge should be accorded reasonable leeway
in putting questions to witnesses as may be essential to elicit relevant facts
and to make the record speak the truth. In such effort, the judge may examine and cross-examine a witness to
draw out relevant and material testimony though that testimony may tend to
support or rebut the position taken by one or the other party.^[7]
In the recent case of People vs. Hattan,^[8] this
Court citing People vs. Ibasan, Sr.,^[9] and
Ventura vs. Yatco,^[10] had
the occasion to state:

“x x x. It is not
denied that the court had at certain points conducted its own questioning
during the proceedings. The records,
however, show that the court’s questions did not amount to interference as to
make the case for the prosecution and deprive the accused of their
defense. The questions of the judge
addressed to the witnesses and the accused were merely to clarify certain points
and confirm certain statements. The number
of times that a judge intervenes is not necessarily an indication of bias. It cannot be taken against a judge if the
clarificatory questions he propounds happen to reveal certain truths which tend
to destroy the theory of one party.

“As held in the case of Ventura v. Yatco (105 Phil. 287)
‘Judges are not mere referees like those of a boxing bout, only to watch and
decide the results of a game; they should have as much interest as counsel in
the orderly and expeditious presentation of evidence, calling attention of
counsel to points at issue that are overlooked, directing them to ask questions
that would elicit the facts on the issues involved, clarifying ambiguous
remarks by witnesses, etc.’

“A judge may properly
intervene in the trial of a case to promote expedition and avoid unnecessary
waste of time or to clear up some obscurity (People v. Catindihan, 97 SCRA 196;
Par. 14 Canons of Judicial Ethics; Administrative Order No. 162 dated August 1,
1946, 42 O.G. 1803). In
this respect, the record shows no irregularity in the conduct of the trial
judge.”^[11]

The version of petitioners, on the other hand, strains human
credulity. If we are to believe
petitioners, Virginia approached Teresita Ajusan offering to sell orchids and
shiny stones. Sometime later, Virginia
allegedly went to Teresita’s house where she met Nier Trinidad. Upon the invitation of Virginia, petitioners
supposedly went to the residence of Virginia in Barangay Burias from where they
all proceeded to the mountains to see the orchids and shiny stones. However, according to petitioners, they were
prevented from leaving the place by a crowd armed with bamboo sticks and who
threatened to cut off their heads. Soon
after, Rosela Olmo allegedly arrived and demanded that petitioners sign a blank
sheet of paper. Next to arrive at the
scene were the Barangay Captain, some Barangay Councilmen and several
policemen. It was at this juncture
that, as petitioners relate, they were forced by Rosela and policemen to sign
the paper. It was after they were brought
to the municipal hall when, according to petitioners, they were informed that
the paper they signed was an acknowledgment that they owed Virginia the sum of
P150,000.00.^[12]

Perusing petitioners’ story, we find it exceedingly strange why
the barangay and police authorities and armed local people would suddenly
gather at Virginia’s place when their presence was not called for as nothing
untoward had taken place there.

Moreover, if it is true, as petitioners claim, that they escaped
injury from the angry crowd because the local Barangay Captain was sympathetic
to them and even pleaded with the unruly crowd to let petitioners go because
they are not bad characters, why would petitioners sign under duress the piece
of paper acknowledging their indebtedness to Virginia, when they could have
complained to the barangay officials and asked for their protection? At the very least, petitioners should have
placed on the witness stand to testify in their behalf the local barangay
captain, who was their relative and who was supposedly present at Virginia’s
house when they were allegedly discussing the orchids and shiny stones.^[13]

Again, if petitioners were made to sign against their will the
paper acknowledging their debt, why did they not complain about this after they
were brought to the police station?

Going carefully over the established facts, we cannot give
credence to petitioners’ stance that it was Virginia and her daughter Rosela
who tried to swindle them by forcing them to affix their signatures on the
piece of paper; more so when we come to consider that, as brought out during
the trial, petitioner Teresita Ajusan had a previous record of conviction for
estafa.^[14]

Lastly, as correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, the
main issue raised by petitioners centers on the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses. Well-entrenched is the rule
that the findings of trial courts on the issue of credibility of witnesses and
appreciation of their testimonies are entitled to great weight and respect and
are accorded the highest consideration by appellate courts,^[15]
and should not be disturbed except for strong and cogent reasons because the
trial court is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as observe the demeanor of witnesses
while testifying.^[16] In
the case at bar, we find no reason to depart from the said rule.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED
and the instant petition DISMISSED. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Quiason, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
Per Associate Justice Cancio C. Garcia, concurred in by Associate Justices
Serafin E. Camilon and Jorge S. Imperial.

^[2]
Penned by Judge Ramon B. Berjamin.

^[3]
Original Records, p. 37; Rollo, p. 63.

^[4]
Ibid., p. 457; Rollo, p. 70.

^[5]
Petition for Review, p. 9, Rollo, p. 17.

^[6]
Decision of the Court of Appeals, pp. 1-5; Rollo, pp. 53-57.

^[7]
People vs. Manalo, 148 SCRA 98.

^[8]
210 SCRA 7.

^[9]
129 SCRA 695.

^[10]
105 Phil. 287.

^[11]
Ibid., pp. 7-8.

^[12]
TSN, August 25, 1989, pp. 6-14.

^[13]
Ibid., p. 9.

^[14]
Ibid., p. 18.

^[15]
Gelos vs. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 608; People vs. Honrada, 304
SCRA 858.

^[16]
People vs. Sarino, G.R. Nos. 94992, April 7, 1993.