REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

CITY OF LAPULAPU
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
- versus Cri! Case N"! M#LLP#$%#$$&'&#CR
AN( M#LLP#$%#$$&%)#CR
F"r* ESTAFA un+er Art! ,-', Par! .-/
"f t0e Revise+ Penal C"+e
TORIBIA CASIO, ET! AL!,,
A11use+!
2 ############################################### 2
(EMURRER TO E3I(ENCE
The Accused TORIBIA 4! CASIO an+ (ELFIN CASIO, through the undersigned
counsel, most respectfully submits its Demurrer to Evidence and avers:
S T A T E M E N T O F F A C T S
On May 5, 1999, in the ity of !apu-!apu, "hilippines, accused Toribia #$ asio, in
conspiracy %ith &elfin asio by %hom she appointed as her Attorney in 'act, through a (pecial
"o%er of Attorney approached Thelma antoneros and sold to Thelma antoneros a 1)* s+$
meters portion of !ot ,o$ -.5- for a consideration of One /undred Thousand "esos
0"111,111$112 as evidenced by the &eed of Absolute (ale dated May 5, 1999$
"rior to the and during the sale of the 1)* s+$ meters of !ot ,o$ -.5- by Toribia asio
and &elfin asio to Thelma antoneros, antoneros %as assured that the sub3ect land %as not
encumbered, mortgaged alienated and conveyed to any other persons and that the asios have a
perfect title to convey the same and to protect the rights in any court of 3ustice in case their
o%nership and possession be disturbed$
After the sale of the 1)* s+$ meters portion of !ot ,o$ -.5-, antoneros fenced the
same %hile other buyer of another portion of same lot constructed a house thereon$ /o%ever,
sometime in the third or fourth %ee4 of 5une, 1999, antoneros received a (ummons and a copy
of a omplaint for 6uasi-&elict and 7n3unction %ith prayer for T8O from the 8egional Trial
ourt, 9ranch )5 impleading her as one of the defendants together %ith #enoveva "ino, Toribia
#esulga, &elfin asio and 8onel 5umaoas and %ith Marciano 6ui:eo and #alicano Arriesgado
as the "laintiffs$
After antoneros approached the asios and as4ed them %hy the omplaint surface,
according to them there %as no problem at all and assured antoneros that the asios %ere the
rightful o%ners of !ot ,o$ -.5-$
As the proceedings of the case %ent on, the asios %ere very cooperative the their
defense of the case filed by then 5udge #alicano Arriesgado but said cooperation died do%n as
they are no% siding %ith #alicano Arriesgado$ antoneros demanded from the asios %hy they
gave up on the defense and further demanded for the return of the money but despite it asios
failed and refused to e;plain their side and return the money paid to them$
4 R O U N ( S
The A<(=&, by counsel, respectfully submits this &emurrer to =vidence, because
plaintiff has failed to prove her claims, on the follo%ing grounds:
1$ There is no crime of =stafa under Art$ .1), "ar$ 012 of the 8evised "enal ode
committed during the sale transaction> and
?$ The crime of =stafa under Art$ .1), "ar$ 012 of the 8evised "enal ode, as alleged by
herein plaintiff, has already prescribed$
( I S C U S S I O N AN( A R 4 U M E N T S
Evi+en1e f"r t0e state
1ann"t 1"nvi1t t0e a11use+
The prosecution attempts to convince the ourt that &elfin asio %as pretending to be
the o%ner of !ot ,o$ .)5- being sold to antoneros thus, committing the crime of =stafa under
"aragraph 012 of Article .1) of the 8evised "enal ode$
The prosecution during the presentation of evidence, adduced the &eed of Absolute (ale
signed by the accused not for himself as the o%ner but as the Attorney in 'act of the o%ner
Toribia asio$
'or a vivid e;position, here%ith reproduced is the transcript of stenographic note 0T(,s2
illustrating the testimony of antoneros as follo%s:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Atty$ Malig-on: &o you confirm and agree %ith me that based on this deed of sale that 7
have sho%n to you the other accused &elfin asio actually signed this
&eed of (ale as a vendor because according to this &eed of (ale on the
lo%er portion, he is the Attorney in 'act of Toribia asio, is that correct@
Aitness: Bes
A: 7n other %ords, accused Delfin Casio signed this Deed of Sale not for
Himself as the owner but as the Attorney in Fact of the owner Toribia
Casio@
A: Bes$
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
0=mphasis supplied2
7t can be clearly seen that &elfin asio never pretended to be acting as the o%ner of !ot
,o$ .)5-$ /e %as acting in an authority delegated and authori:ed by him through the (pecial
"o%er of Authority appointing him as the Attorney in 'act of Toribia asio %ho %as the la%ful
o%ner of the said property$
Article .1) and paragraph 1 of the 8evised "enal ode reads as follo%s:
A8T$ .1)$ Other forms of swindling$- The penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than the value of the damage
caused and not more three times such value shall be imposed:
1$ Any person %ho, 5reten+in6 t" 7e t0e "8ner "f an9 real 5r"5ert9, shall
convey, sell, encumber or mortgage the same$
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
0<nderscoring supplied2
'or the petitioner to be convicted of the crime of =stafa under paragraph 012 of Article
.1) of the 8evised "enal ode, the prosecution has the burden of proof to prove the confluence
of the follo%ing elements as held in the case of Peole v! "otivio#C 0$A$2 *1 O$#$ 0(upp$ 52 11*:
There are three 0.2 conditions necessary for the crime of =stafa as defined in par$ 1 of
Article .1) of the 8evised "enal ode: C012 that the thing be immovable property> if
it %ere movable, the fact may perhaps constitute the crime of theft or any other but
not of estafa> 0?2 that he %ho is not o%ner of said property should represent that he is>
if he should believe in truth, that fact constitutes an error, an ignorance but not a
crime of estafa to %hich the element of deceit or fraud is inherent> and 0.2 that the
alleged o%ner should have e;ecuted an act of o%nership to the pre3udice of the real
o%ner, as for e;ample, selling it, leasing it, encumbering it or mortgaging it$C To
these elements, %e could add another %hich is Cthat the act be made to pre3udice the
o%ner or a third person or at least %ith the intention to cause it, because this is the
generic condition of all the crimes to defraud$C 0D #roi:ard, "enal ode, p$ ???2$
One of the essential elements of s%indling under Article .1), paragraph 012, is that he
%ho is not the o%ner of the said property should represent that he is> if he should believe in truth,
that fact constitutes an error, an ignorance but not a crime of estafa to %hich the element of
deceit or fraud is inherent$
,o%here in the admission of the %itness that accused acted as the vendor$ /e %as only
acting in a capacity as stated under the (pecial "o%er of Attorney, as a Attorney in 'act$ /e %as
not pretending nor misrepresenting himself in any %ay to the buyer$
7f no deceit %as done by the accused, no crime of estafa %ould have been committed, as
the three elements of estafa %as not present$ The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that accused
should be ac+uitted of the crime charged$
Cant"ner"s 8as n"t a
7u9er in 6""+ fait0
A purchaser in good faith is one %ho buys the property of another %ithout notice that
some other person has a right to or interest in such property, and pays a full and fair price for the
same at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claim of another person$
Ae are dealing %ith registered land, a fact 4no%n to antoneros since she received the
Transfer ertificate Title from &elfin asio %hen she purchased the land$ At the time of the sale
to antoneros, even if the land %as named and registered under Toribia asio, the vendor of
such property %as &elfin asio$ 9y itself, this fact should have put antoneros on guard and
prompted them to chec4 %ith the 8egistry of &eeds as to the most recent certificates of title$ As
the ourt pronounced in Abad v! Ss! $uimba%
EThe la% protects to a greater degree a purchaser %ho buys from the registered
o%ner himself$ orollarily, itF re+uires a higher degree of prudence from one %ho
buys from a person %ho is not the registered o%ner, although the land ob3ect of
the transaction is registered$ Ahile one %ho buys from the registered o%ner does
not need to loo4 behind the certificate of title, "ne 80" 7u9s fr" "ne 80" is
n"t t0e re6istere+ "8ner is e25e1te+ t" e2aine n"t "nl9 t0e 1ertifi1ate "f
title 7ut all fa1tual 1ir1ustan1es ne1essar9 f"r :"ne; t" +eterine if t0ere
are an9 fla8s in t0e title "f t0e transfer"r, or in EtheF capacity to transfer the
land$ 0=mphasis supplied2
7nstead, antoneros relied completely on asioGs representation %hen he offered the
property for sale and did not even bother to perform the most perfunctory of investigations by
chec4ing the propertiesG titles %ith the 8egistry of &eeds$ /ad antoneros only done so, she
%ould have easily learned that the property %as already sold also to Arriesgado and 6ui:eo$
Their failure to e;ercise the plain common sense e;pected of real estate buyers bound them to
the conse+uences of their o%n inaction$
Cant"ner"s trust an+ relian1e
"n ven+"r
A person cannot only rely on the %ords of another even if he has given him utmost trust
as to things$ The relationship bet%een antoneros and asioGs cannot be considered as on in
%hich both parties have already had that trust bet%een the both of them$ 7t %as on antoneros on
%hy he relied so much on the %ord of asio$
7t %as admitted clearly by antoneros during cross-e;amination$ The transcript of the
hearing on (eptember 1., ?11? is further set belo% for a clearer illustration, to %it:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Atty$ Malig-on: ,o% 7 understand you are a business%oman madam %itnesss@
Aitness: Bes$
A: And is it safe to say that you have been buying properties aside this
property@
A: Bes$
; ; ; ;
A: &hy have you not able to read it'
A: 9ecause ( was convinced by them that the lot is not a limited and
encumber by another person$
A: )ut have you seen the title before you give the ayment'
A: ( didn*t haen to get the title and read the encumbrances!
A: &hy'
A: )ecause ( was +ust trusting the convincing words of the vendor!
A: 9ut did you bother to as4 a copy of the title from the accused@
A: ,o, 7 did not bother anymore$
A: Ahy@
A: 9ecause they 4ept on telling me that the lots is that they are absolute
o%ners and that they have title to convey and it is not a limited and
encumber to another person and because of that 7 3ust get the %ord and
trusted them$
A: Bou said that you have been buying properties prior to this transaction, in
The previous transaction that you have entered, did you bother to loo4 at
the title of the property@
A: Bes, your /onor$
A: 9ut %hy is it that in this transaction you did not bother to loo4 at the title@
A: 9ecause 7 %as 3ust trusting them$
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
0=mphasis supplied2
Ahen a person is dealing %ith real estate, one should ma4e sure that there is good title on
the purchased land, that the vendors are the real o%ners or that they have been authori:ed by the
real o%ners, that the buyer has e;erted efforts so as to chec4 on the validity of the sale and the
o%nership of such property$
(ince antoneros did not e;ert any viable effort so as to chec4 on the status of the land or
even chec4 on the title, she can be held responsible for her o%n acts$ ,o one can be held
accountable for her inactions$
T0e filin6 "f t0e 1ase "f Estafa
0as alrea+9 5res1ri7e+
The provisions of the "enal ode %hich are necessary for the resolution of the issue at
bar, are hereunder reproduced:
Art$ 91$ Prescrition of crimes$ H rimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or
reclusion temporal shall prescribe in t%enty years$
rimes punishable by other afflictive enalty shall prescribe in fifteen years$
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years> %ith the
e;ception of those punishable by arresto mayor, %hich shall prescribe in five years!
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
0=mphasis supplied2
antoneros already 4ne% by 1999 that there already %as a case filed by 6ui:eo and
Arriesgado$ (he still continued to file the case at the ity "rosecutors Office of !apu-!apu ity
based on the record, it %as sometime on April 1D, ?11-$ 7t too4 antoneros around nine 092 years
to file the case$
<nder Article 91 of the 8evised "enal ode, crimes punishable by arresto mayor
prescribed in five years$ /ere, since the case %as instituted 092 years after the discovery of the
crime, the crime has already prescribed$
7n ans%er to the clarificatory +uestions of the court, antoneros admits that it too4 her
nine 092 years to file such case:
Atty$ Malig-on: (o in other %ords in 1999 you already 4ne% that there %as already a case
filed by Marciano 6ui:eo and #alicano Arriesgado is that right@
Aitness: Bes$
A: And you filed this case at the ity "rosecutorGs Office of !apu-!apu ity
based on the record sometime on April 1D, ?11-@
A: Bes$
A: 7n other %ords, the deed of sale %as 1999 May and you filed this April 1D,
?11- or around nine years@
A: Bes$
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
C"nt"ner"s is 6uilt9
f"r est"55el
There is no sho%ing that antoneros ever +uestioned %hy there %as another buyer %ho
%as also constructing a house on the 1)* s+$ meters portion of !ot -.5- %hile she, at the same
time %as also fencing it$
7t %as only on April 1D, ?11- or more than nine 092 years from the discovery of the other
buyer that antoneros +uestioned the presence of the other$
5urisprudence on this matter is %ell-settled$ Ahere a party sleeps on his rights and allo%s
laches to set in, the same is fatal to his case 0"eri+uet, 5r$ vs$ 7ntermediate Appellate ourt, ?.-
(8A )9D2$ !aches had been defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and
une;plained length of time, to do that %hich by e;ercising due diligence could or should have
been done earlier> it is negligence or omission to assert a right %ithin a reasonable time,
%arranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to
assert it 0Oli:on vs$ ourt of Appeals, ?.) (8A 1*-2$
8espondentsI neglect or omission to assert a supposed right for nine 092 years is too long
a time as to %arrant the presumption that they had either abandoned such right or had conceded
the correctness of the sale$ 7ndeed, the la% helps the vigilant but not those %ho sleep on their
rights$ 'or time is a means of destroying obligations and actions, because time runs against the
slothful and contemners of their o%n rights 0#on:ales vs$ 7ntermediate Appellate ourt, 15D
(8A 59D, 5anuary ?9, 19--2$

P R A Y E R
A/=8='O8=, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the /onorable ourt
that this &emurrer to =vidence be granted and that the criminal charge of =stafa against the
accused TORIBIA 4! CASIO an+ (ELFIN CASIO be &7(M7((=&$
Other reliefs, 3ust and e+uitable, are li4e%ise prayed for$
!apu-!apu ity, "hilippines, May ?5, ?11*$
acho 6ui3ano !a% Office