JENG EVANGELISTA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE HONORABLE COURT APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari by petitioner JENG
EVANGELISTA from the decision^[1]
promulgated on March 1, 1989
of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision^[2] dated
June 16, 1987 of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 100, in Criminal Case No. Q-33252 for ESTAFA, the
dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and citing the case of ‘People
vs. Romero, CA O.G. 695’ this Court finds the accused Jeng Evangelista Y Cereno
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and hereby sentences him to suffer an
Indeterminate penalty of from TWO (2) YEARS ELEVEN (11) MONTHS and TEN (10)
DAYS of Prision Correccional as minimum to FIVE (5) YEARS FIVE (5) MONTHS and
TEN (10) DAYS of Prision Correccional and to pay the costs. The accused is further ordered to indemnify
the complaining witness Virgilio Mercado the sum of SEVENTEEN THOUSAND
(P17,000.00) PESOS without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. However in the service of his sentence, the
herein accused is entitled to the provisions of Article 29 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended by Republic Act 6127, and further amended by BP Blg. 85,
provided he does not fall within the exceptions thereof.”^[3]

The Information upon
which this prosecution was based is, as follows:

“That on or about the 12th day of April, 1984 in Quezon City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually
helping one another, by means of deceit, false pretenses and/or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one Virgilio Mercado Y Aro,
in the manner, as follows: That
pursuant to their conspiracy, the accused Jeng Evangelista, Charles Doe and
John Doe on the date and in the place aforementioned approached the offended
party and induced the latter to capitalize a card game of Bacharat (sic) with
an alleged rich man from Bacolod City, who is the accused Peter Doe alias
Minong and to give them the amount of P10,000.00 cash $350.00 as capital as he
will surely win; That to insure his success said accused represented to said
offended party that they will help him win by making pre-arranged signal in
which the offended party was taught and coached by said accused, and the
offended party believing in the representation of the said accused, gave and
delivered said amount of P10,000.00 and U.S.Dol.$350.00 to the accused and the
latter changed the same to chips and thereafter the card game ensued between
the offended party and the accused Peter Doe alias Minong, however, said party
lost, to his damage and prejudice in the aforementioned amount.”

Upon arraignment,
petitioner pleaded “Not Guilty” while his other co?accused
Charles Doe, John Doe and Peter Doe alias Minong remained at large.

The facts, as found by
the trial court are, as follows:

Complainant Virgilio
Mercado was introduced on April 10, 1984 to petitioner Jeng Evangelista by the
latter’s co-worker, Ben Magalong, at the Producers Bank’s canteen in Paseo de
Roxas, Makati, Metro-Manila. During
said meeting, complainant and Magalong talked about the casino and petitioner
told them that he has a friend who frequents the casino. Thereafter, complainant asked petitioner to
introduce him to his friend and the latter agreed.

On April 12, 1984,
complainant met petitioner at the Ma Mon Luk Restaurant in Quezon City where
the latter told the former to accompany him to the casino at the
Philippine Village Hotel and they boarded a taxi with Raffy Juta. However, before proceeding to the casino,
petitioner suggested that they go to his friend’s (Chito Areola) house first as
they would teach him how to gamble and win in the casino. Upon reaching the house of Chito Areola at
No. 6 Ilustre Street, Galas, Quezon City, petitioner, together with Rey Santos
and Chito Areola, led complainant to a room where the latter was taught the
rudiments of the games of blackjack and baccarat. They also taught complainant how to cheat by
using certain tricks and signals.

Thereafter, petitioner and his friends informed complainant that
before proceeding to the casino, he will be playing against a rich man from
Bacolod named Minong with Chito Areola acting as the dealer^[4] and
requested complainant to deposit his money to them. Whereupon, complainant deposited P10,000.00 and U.S.$350.00 or a
total of P17,000.00, which were replaced with plastic chips, to petitioner and
his friends on their assurances that he will win in the card game by using the
pre-arranged signals and tricks taught to him.

During the early part of the card game, complainant was winning
as petitioner and his friends were employing the tricks and signals they had
taught him. However, complainant
started to lose when petitioner and his friends stopped giving him the pre-arranged
signals. With a few remaining chips
left from his winnings worth P20,000.00, more or less,^[5]
complainant decided to stop playing for fear of losing his capital but
petitioner and his friends refused and, instead, stared menacingly at him.

Thereafter, complainant asked petitioner and his friends to
return his money which he had earlier deposited but the latter told him that he
had lost all his money in the card game. As soon as complainant realized that he was being cheated, he asked permission to leave with Raffy Juta and
was allowed after he had executed a letter,^[6] the content of which he cannot remember
since it was only dictated to him by Rey Santos.^[7]

On May 3, 1984,
petitioner was arrested at the Philippine Banking Corporation in Makati,
Metro-Manila by the policemen who accompanied complainant.

Corporal Rogelio Castillo
testified during the trial that when he investigated petitioner, the latter
verbally admitted his guilt to him.

On the other hand,
petitioner denied participating in the alleged deceitful and fraudulent card
game and maintained that:

“x x x he came to know the complaining witness, Mr. Mercado,
when the latter was introduced to him by a co-worker, Mr. Ben Magalong; during
that meeting, Mr. Mercado mentioned to him about gambling in the casino, and he
in turn informed Mr. Mercado that he had friends who frequented the place;
eager to meet these persons, the complaining witness allegedly went to the
house of Mr. Areola after an appointment had been set by the petitioner; there
were other persons present during that time including Mr. Raffy Juta and Mr.
Rey Santos; after some conversation, petitioner saw them play “Black
Jack” while petitioner only watched the game; at the start of the game,
Mr. Mercado was winning but later, he did not want to stop because he was
already losing; in the end, Mr. Mercado lost in the game which allegedly
started about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon and ended about 6:00 o’clock in the
evening; Mr. Mercado still wanted to play but he had no more money, so, they set
another date for them to play; in fact, Mr. Mercado prepared a letter to his
playmates dated April 13, 1984 (Exh. 1) asking them to play again; on May 3,
1984, he was surprised when he was arrested by five policemen accompanied by
Mr. Mercado; he was brought to Fort Bonifacio where he was tortured and made to
admit having cheated Mr. Mercado; and that he never admitted his guilt to
Corporal Castillo (tsn, April 16, 1986, pp. 2-7).^[8]

Petitioner now contends
that he should be acquitted on the ground that his guilt was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt. Petitioner assailed
complainant’s credibility by asserting that by consenting to petitioner’s
fraudulent scheme of cheating Minong, complainant was a willing party and
conspirator in the card game he
played with Minong. Consequently,
complainant’s testimony should not be given credence by the Court.

We do not agree.

Under Article 315, paragraph 3(b) of the Revised Penal Code,
estafa is committed by any person who shall defraud another by resorting to
some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game.

In the case at bar, the evidence for the prosecution proved that
complainant was deceived into parting with his money on petitioner’s assurance
that he would win in the card game by using the pre-arranged signals and tricks
taught to him. While it is true that
complainant consented to petitioner’s scheme to defraud Peter Dee alias Minong,
the fact remains that it was complainant who ended up being cheated by petitioner
and his friends since the latter helped one another to victimize complainant and to divest him of all his
money. As stated by the appellate
court:

“It is true that by consenting to a fraudulent scheme, and although
he was deceived at the end, complainant displayed the sort of a person he
is: dishonest and a conspirator to the
deceit and fraudulent practice with which he played the game. But if complainant’s testimony is to be
discarded by the Court because he consented to the fraudulent scheme, may the
Court give credence
to the testimony of the accused who, together with Areola and Santos,
lured complainant to play Blackjack against Minong with the attractive promise
of sure winning and taught him to cheat at the card? Evidently, the accused is not in a position to condemn the complainant. He comes to Court with even dirtier hands
[than complainant].”^[9]

Although complainant agreed to the unscrupulous scheme of
petitioner and his friends to defraud Minong in the card game, it must be noted
that all the essential elements of estafa are present in the case at bar. Consequently, the party responsible for such
fraud or damage cannot escape criminal responsibility even though the offended
party consented to participate in the illegal or immoral transaction.^[10]

Moreover, this Court has enunciated the oft-repeated principle
that it will not interfere with the findings of the trial court on the issue of
credibility of witnesses unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance and value which, if properly considered, would have altered the
result of the case.^[11] The
fact that complainant was lured by petitioner in a fraudulent card game cannot
serve as a ground for discrediting complainant’s testimony, rather his
inveiglement to participate in the fraudulent card game was part of the scheme
to defraud him. As we held in Ubarra v. Mapalad:

“We find the application of the pari
delicto theory in a
criminal case to be strange, to say the least. In the first place, the rule on pari delicto is a rule in civil law. It is principally governed by Articles 1411
and 1412 of the Civil Code under the Chapter on Void or Inexistent Contracts,
and presupposes a situation where the parties are in culpability similarly
situated, i.e., in eodem loco (Jandusay
vs. Court of Appeals, 172 SCRA 376 [1989]). That this rule can by no means apply in a criminal case is evidenced by
the aforesaid Article 1411 which provides in part that ‘[W]hen the nullity
proceeds from the illegality of the cause or object of the contract, and the
act constitutes a criminal offense, both parties being in pari delicto, they
shall have no action against each other, and both shall be prosecuted.’
Secondly, in view of the broader grounds of public policy, the rule may not be
invoked against the State. Thirdly, in
the prosecution of public crimes, the complainant is the State — i.e.,
the People of the Philippines — while the private offended party is but a
complaining witness. Any criminal act
perpetrated by the latter on the occasion of the commission of the crime, or
which may have given rise to the criminal act imputed to the accused is not the
act or conduct of the State and can by no means bind it under the doctrine of pari delicto. To rule otherwise
would be to establish a dangerous doctrine which would irreparably weaken the
very foundations of the criminal justice system and frustrate the
administration of justice. Whatever
wrongful act may have been committed by the offended party may only be invoked
to justify the accused’s own act or mitigate his liability.”^[12]

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision
appealed from, this petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Puno, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Justice Luis L. Victor with the concurrence of Justice Bienvenido C.
Ejercito and Justice Felipe B. Kalalo.

^[2]
Penned by Judge George C. Macli-ing.

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 29-30.

^[4]
T.S.N., February 27,1985, p. 8.

^[5]
T.S.N., April 25,1986, p. 8.

^[6]
Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit “1”.

^[7]
T.S.N., June 3, 1985, pp. 2-3.

^[8]
Rollo, p. 84-85.

^[9]
Id., at p. 40.

^[10]
People vs. Manansala, 58 Phil. 796 [1933].

^[11]
People vs. Baslot, 209 SCRA 537 [1992].

^[12]
Ubarra vs. Mapalad, A.M. No. MTJ-91-622, March 22, 1993.