DEMETRIA MERCADO, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

Review of the decision of the Court of Appeals convicting Demetria Mercado of the crime of estafa. According to such decision.

“Sometime
in 1950, the complainant Miguela San Angel, who was then receiving a
pension from the Philippine Veterans Board as beneficiary of her
deceased husband, a member of the “guerilla” during the Japanese
occupation, was accosted by appellant Demetria Mercado in the public
market of Dinalupihan, Bataan, where the latter was selling meat and
pork. On said occasion, appellant made mention of the complainant’s
being a pensioner, told her that they were relatives, and as a sign of
good will gave her a kilo of pork. After that first meeting, appellant
tried to be friendly to Miguela. At one time, she lent the latter
P200.00 without a receipt, and at another, one cavan of rice. Appellant
also accompanied the complainant when she cashed her pension checks at
the post office.”

“On May 22, 1952, Miguela San Angel, as
beneficiary of her deceased husband, also received from the United
States Veterans Administration a check in the amount of P10,000.00. She
deposited P2,000.00 thereof with the Philippine Postal Savings Bank
(Exh. “B”) and also paid her debts to appellant.”

“In that
same month of May, 1952, after Miguela received the aforementioned sum
of P10,000.00 a certain Martina Nebre de Candelaria, or simply Martina
Nebre, who owed money to appellant and others told the appellant that
she was selling her house, together with the lot, on Mabini Street,
Dinalupihan, Bataan, for P3,000.00 in order to pay her indebtedness to
the latter. Appellant volunteered to find a buyer therefor, saying that
her relative Miguela San Angel, would buy the property. Appellant then
urged the complainant to buy the property of Martina. The complainant
said she did not have enough money for that purpose but appellant
offered to furnish her P1,000.00 of the selling price provided she was
paid back in installments by the complainant out of her monthly
pensions, plus an additional amount of P200.00, as interest. After the
complainant with her children had inspected the property for sale, she
agreed to buy the same under the terms aforesaid.”

“In the
morning of June 12, 1952, the complainant-accompanied by her daughter
Belen and by a1pellant and her husband, Victor Andres—made a trip to
Manila, and withdrew the sum of P1,999.00 from her deposit in the
Philippine Postal Savings Bank, leaving only a balance of P1.00. On her
way out of the room where she got the aforesaid sum, the complainant
was prevailed upon by the appellant to give the same to her supposedly
to prevent its being stolen by pickpockets. From the post office
building, the complainant and her three companions, went to eat in a
restaurant and then return that same day to Dinalupihan, Bataan,
arriving there at dusk. After telling appellant that she would come
back the following day in order that they could go to a notary public
to pay for the aforesaid house and lot, the complainant went home to
the barrio, leaving her money with the appellant.”

The next day, June 13, 1952, the complainant returned to the house of
appellant and they, together with Martina Nebre, and two other women
named Feliza Diaz and Elisa Bañez, and appellant’s husband, went to
Notary Public Daniel Sobrevinas. The latter promptly prepared the deed
of sale, after briefly questioning Martina on whether she was really
selling her property and as regards the price thereof. A copy of the
finished draft of the deed of sale was handed by said notary to each of
those present, except the complainant who did not know how to read.
Upon perusing the document, both the vendor, Martina Nebre, and Felisa
Diaz, one of the witnesses thereto, noted that the name of appellant,
instead of that of Miguela San Angel, appeared thereon as vendee.
Martina and Felisa made remarks to that effect to the complainant, who,
in turn, told appellant that her (complainant’s) children might not
agree to such an arrangement. However, appellant assured the
complainant that there was nothing wrong with her (appellant’s)
appearing as the buyer in the document because she was not going to
fool or cheat her (complainant) and moreover, she assured the
complainant that the title of the property would be transferred to her
after she had completed paying the sum of P1,000.00, which the
complainant agreed to pay to the vendor. With such explanations, the
complainant said nothing more. The deed of sale, Exhibit “3”, was
presently signed by Martina Nebre, as vendor, and Felisa Diaz and Elisa
Bañez, as witnesses.”

“While it appears
from the deed of sale, Exhibit “3”, that the vendor, Martina Nebre,
received in full on June 13, 1932, the purchase price of P3,000.00,
stated therein, actually only the amount of P1,544.00 was paid to her
on said date. This sum was the remainder of the P2,000.00 which was the
agreed initial or down payment on the property, after paying her
indebtedness to appellant in the amount of P456.00. With respect to the
balance of P1,000.00 of the agreed purchase price, pursuant to the
understanding between the appellant and the complainant that the former
would furnish or advance said amount and the latter would pay it in
monthly installments, plus P200.00 as interests, as aforementioned,
appellant entered into an agreement with Martina Nebre to pay her said
balance on or before the end of December, 1952.”

The decision further found that after obtaining the document of sale in
her name, Demetria Mercado sold the house and lot for P3,000.00 to
Federico Simsuangco on May 19,1953, accepting a down payment of
P1,000.00, the balance to be paid later.

On the basis of the
above-stated facts, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment of not
less than 2 months and one day of arresto mayor nor more than one year and eight months of prision correccional, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P3,200.00 and to pay her moral damages in the sum of P1,000.00.

It will be observed that there were two pivotal points against appellant in the matter of the alleged swindling: (a) she caused the notary to write the document of sale in her own name, instead of that of Miguela Angel; and (b)
she subsequently sold the property to Simsuangco and retained the
price. Now, bearing in mind that she had advanced a portion of the
purchase money delivered to Martina Nebre, the contention could be made
that, because she had some interest in the property, she committed no
crime in disposing of it, but only a civil wrong, if any. This is one
reason why we gave due course to the petition for review. We find,
however, upon examination of the record that Miguela San Angel repaid
to this defendant with interest, the amount so advanced, and that was
prior to the Simsuangco sale.

The other reason for the
review was that the subsequent conveyance to Simsuangco had not been
mentioned in the information. Petitioner’s counsel enlarged on this
matter, insisting on the right of the accused to be informed of the
charges. It appears, however, that such sale was proven by the
testimony of the appellant herself. Accordingly, there may be
no objection to taking it as further proof of the conversion and
misappropriation averred in the information.

The petitioner
must, therefore, be held guilty of estafa as charged. And as no
question was discussed in the briefs as to the propriety of the
penalty, the judgment of the appellate court is hereby affirmed, with
costs.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.