Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > July 2007 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 174565 : July 02, 2007] MARIO P. VILLAMOR AND EMMANUEL T. DELES V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND VICTORIA LOPEZ TUAZON:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 02 July 2007:

G.R. No. 174565 - (Mario P. Villamor and Emmanuel T. Deles v. People of the Philippines and Victoria Lopez Tuazon)


This resolves petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration:

In a Resolution dated December 4, 2006, the Court denied petitioner's Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision and Resolution dated March 21, 2006 and September 7, 2006, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 73.649 for failure to attach the affidavit of service of copy of the petition on the lower court concerned and on the adverse party pursuant to Sec. 3 and 5, Rule 45, Sec. 5(d), 13, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended; a petitioners failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.^[1]

In their Motion for Reconsideration dated February 3, 2007, petitioners contend that the Court failed to locate the Affidavit of Service which was attached to the Petition as Annex "D" and that the CA committed grave reversible error by ruling that the portions of the Information stating duplicitous offenses, are but recitals of facts.^[2] A re-examination of the records show that, indeed, the Affidavit of Service was attached to the Petition.^[3] Nonetheless, the petition must still fail for lack of merit.

The assailed Information reads:

That on or about the 18^th of November, 1998 in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being .private, individuals conspiring and confederating together and all of them, mutually helping and aiding each other, through false representations, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud complainant VICTORIA LOPEZ TUAZON in the following manner to wit: the said accused thru fraudulent representations made to the complainant to the effect that they have connections with the Register of Deeds of Makati and can help her effect the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title in here name; and complainant believing the representations of the accused to be true, delivered to accused Villamor the necessary papers in order to cause the cancellation of TCT No. S-37698 and issuance of a New Transfer Certificate of Title thereof, as the accused actually received documents, was able to cancel TCT No. S-37698 and issue a New Transfer Certificate of Title No. S-213818 in favor of complainant, and later on cancelled the latter and effect the issuance of a New Transfer Certificate of Title No. 214093 in favor of BMM Properties, Inc., by then and there falsify the signature of complainant in a Deed of absolute Sale, a public document, making it appear that, complainant; Victoria Lopez Tuazon executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of BMM Properties Inc., when in truth and in fact, as the accused well knew that complainant never sign or executed the said deed, thereby causing damages to the complainant in the amount of PI.5 Million more or less.^[4]

It is well-settled that where the different acts or specifications charging the accused with having committed the offenses charged were included in the Information merely to describe and to narrate the different and specific acts the sum total of which constitutes the crime, the validity of the Information cannot be assailed on the ground that it charges more than one offense, because those different acts or offenses may serve merely as a basis for the prosecution of one single crime.^[5]

In the case of United States v. Cernias,^[6] it was held that while it is true that each of those acts charged against the conspirators was itself a crime, the prosecutor in setting them out in the Information did no more than to furnish the defendants with a. bill of particulars of the facts to prove at the trial, not only as a basis upon which to found an interference of guilt of the crime of conspiracy but also as evidence of the extremely dangerous and wicked nature of that conspiracy.^[7]

Thus, the charge is not defective for duplicity when one single crime is set forth in the different modes prescribed by law for its commission, or the felony is set forth under different counts specifying the way of its perpetuation, or the acts resulted from a single criminal impulse. Neither is there duplicity when the other offense described is but an ingredient or an essential element of the real offense charged nor when several acts are related in describing the offense.^[8]

WHEREFORE, the present Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with finality. No further pleadings shall be entertained.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 132

^[2] Id. at 135.

^[3] Id. at 123.

^[4] Id. at 103.

^[5] People v. Camerino, 108 Phil. 79, 82 (1960).

^[6] 10 Phil. 682 (1908).

^[7] Id. at 690.

^[8] Padilla, Criminal Procedure Annotated, 1959 Edition p. 101; People v. Camerino, supra note 5, at 83.