Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Petitioners, Present:
That on or about April 27, 1995, in Pasay
City, Metro Manila and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
CARPIO, J.,
accused ELVIRA LATEO y ELEAZAR,
1
When arraigned on May 31, 1995, petitioners, seven (27) hectares of Plan A-7 of the
with the assistance of their counsel, entered their Mutinlupa Estate, situated in Barrio
respective pleas of not guilty. Accused Lalota and De Magdaong, Poblacion,
Guzman remained at large. Muntinlupa. However, [in] December
owned by [petitioner] Elca as the sole demanded from them [the] return of the
heir of Gregorio Elca. Title to the money. She was told that they did not
property had not been transferred to have any money to return. They instead
certain discrepancy between the Deed of identified as Lot 10140 of Plan Sgs 04213-
of said land. She was then introduced to [petitioner] Elca. [Petitioner] Elca,
amounts. [Petitioner] Elca told [Lucero] discovered that [petitioner] Elca only had
that certain portions of the property will a pending application for the sales
first be put in the name of [petitioner] patent over a four (4)[-hectare] area of
her. [Lucero] was given a Deed of Sale misrepresentations prompted her to file
dated March 27, 1987. [Petitioner] Elca a complaint with the Task Force
4
deceits. Further, in the case of Villaflor vs. absence of proof thereof, the offender
CA 192 SCRA 680, the Supreme Court would x x x be guilty of attempted
held: what is material is the fact that estafa. Appellant commenced the
misrepresentation when knowing that failed to perform all the acts of execution
the car was then owned by the Northern which would produce the crime not by
Motors, Inc., still he told the private reason of [their] spontaneous desistance
complainant that the car was actually but because of his apprehension of the
owned by him for purposes of and at the authorities before they could obtain the
time he obtained the loan from the amount. Since only the intent to cause
latter. Indubitably, the accused was in damage and not the damage itself has
bad faith in obtaining the loan under been shown respondent court correctly
provides that there is an attempt when of intent to transfer his rights and/or
felony by reason of some cause or Francisco Elca that he owns the property
accident other than his own in Bacoor, Cavite, his having offered the
spontaneous desistance. The entrapment same again to the complainant in lieu of
thus prevented the consummation of the the aborted deal in the Muntinlupa
The RTC decreed that: III. That the Honorable Court erred in the
imposition of the appropriate
SO ORDERED.[8]
WHEREFORE, premises
reconsideration,[9] but the RTC denied it on December 28, s to the penalty imposed. [Petitioners]
maximum.
II. That the basis of the findings of the Petitioners filed a motion for
Honorable Court that they reconsideration, [13]
but their motion also suffered the
(three accused) are guilty of same fate, as the CA denied it on January 12, 2004. [14]
6
xxxx
defraud Eleonor Lucero (Lucero). Petitioners deny that acts executed prior to or simultaneously
they deceived Lucero. They claim that Lucero was aware with the commission of the fraud:
that the Bacoor property is not yet titled in the name of
Elca; and that they went to Furosato restaurant upon
Luceros invitation and on Luceros representation that she
(a) By using fictitious name, or
would hand to them the P200,000.00 needed to facilitate
falsely pretending to possess
the issuance of title in Elcas name. Petitioners, therefore,
power, influence, qualifications,
plead for an acquittal. Finally, petitioners assail the
property, credit, agency,
penalty imposed by the CA for being erroneous.
business or imaginary
transactions; or by means of
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on the other similar deceits.
It is true that the rule admits of several that is, he was induced to part with
exceptions,[16] but none of the recognized exceptions is his money or property because of
8
another, or by which an undue and only the intent to cause damage and not the damage
unconscientious advantage is taken of itself had been shown,[24] the RTC and the CA correctly
9
However, we agree with the OSG that it would I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
be inequitable to impose the additional incremental been reached in consultation before the case was
penalty of 7 years to the maximum period of penalty, assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
considering that petitioners were charged and convicted Division.
merely of attempted and not consummated estafa. We,
therefore, modify the penalty and sentence petitioners to
imprisonment of four (4) months of arresto mayor.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA- Chairperson, Second Division
RENATO C. CORONA
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
10