Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > March 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 199796 : March 05, 2012] ROMEO M. SARMIENTO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES :




SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 199796 : March 05, 2012]

ROMEO M. SARMIENTO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 March 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 199796 (Romeo M. Sarmiento v. People of the Philippines).  - Before this Court is a Rule 45 Petition questioning the affirmance by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR. No. 33226 of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 72 of Olongapo City, Zambales in Criminal Case No. 601-04, which convicted petitioner Romeo M. Sarmiento for the crime for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner Sarmiento raises no convincing arguments in the instant Petition for us to overturn the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

In brief, petitioner Sarmiento, as a bondsman, was accused by private complainant Salvador Perfecto of having misappropriated the latter's P36,966.25 given to the former for the purpose of securing a supersedeas bond.

The factual antecedents of the case are straightforward and encapsulated in the Decisions of the trial and appellate courts. Private complainant Perfecto lost a civil case[1] and needed to obtain a supersedeas bond to file an appeal. On 30 March 2004, he handed the amount of P30,000 to his lawyer, Atty. Jesus Lugtu, for the purpose of securing the needed appeal bond. The latter then contacted petitioner Sarmiento and delivered the entire amount given by the private complainant. Upon instructions of Atty. Lugtu, Perfecto went to the office of petitioner that same afternoon to work out the details of the supersedeas bond.

Petitioner Sarmiento assured private complainant Perfecto that the former would make the necessary arrangements for the filing of the supersedeas bond, so that the latter's civil case will be elevated to the CA. He issued thereafter an Official Receipt that reflected only the amount of P24,000, and not the full P30,000.[2]  Petitioner told private complainant that the total cost of the bond would be P36,966.25.

On 05 April 2004, private complainant Perfecto went back to the office of petitioner Sarmiento and delivered the balance of P6,966.25.[3] Considering that private complainant had already paid P30,000, he was made to pay only the balance of P6,966.25, even if the earlier receipt reflected only the amount of P24,000.

The next day, private complainant Perfecto went back to the office of petitioner Sarmiento to ask about the status of the bond. Petitioner, however, had not yet processed the bond and even asked that private complainant give a vehicle as collateral, so that the latter's bond could be processed in three days.

One month thereafter, private complainant Perfecto had not received any word from petitioner Sarmiento regarding the status of the bond that the former had applied for. When Perfecto went to the office to follow up the bond application, he was told by the employees that petitioner had requested that private complainant issue a check as collateral in the amount equivalent to the bond. The check was purportedly required by their Manila office as a prerequisite for the release of the bond. In compliance therewith, private complainant issued a check.

Petitioner Sarmiento then went to Manila to process the documents, but came back to inform private complainant Perfecto that the head office had requested a vehicle as collateral. Perfecto then informed petitioner that the former did not own a vehicle that could be used for that purpose. Petitioner Sarmiento even offered his Delica Van as collateral for private complainant, in exchange for a check to be issued in favor of the former. Perfecto denied the offer.

Without any bond forthcoming, private complainant Perfecto confronted petitioner Sarmiento in the latter's own house, to request that the money simply be returned. Petitioner agreed and asked that they meet at his office the following day. However, when Perfecto went to the office the next day, Sarmiento was not present as the latter had reportedly gone to Iba, Zambales.

Months passed, but petitioner Sarmiento was not able to comply with his promise to secure a bond for private complainant. The latter even obtained a supersedeas bond for his appeal from a different bonding company for the amount of P27,000 only.

Thereafter, Atty. Lugtu, on behalf of his client, sent petitioner Sarmiento a demand letter for the return of the amounts given.[4] In his reply letter, petitioner insisted that the main office required Perfecto to give an additional security in the form of a collateral mortgage, aside from the undated check.[5]  Moreover, petitioner expended substantial amounts for his travel expenses and meetings with the Manila office.

Acting on the criminal information in Criminal Case No. 601-04,[6] the RTC of Olongapo City (Branch 72) convicted petitioner Sarmiento of estafa and found that he had defrauded private complainant Perfecto, by failing to disclose at the outset the requirements for securing a supersedeas bond.[7] Petitioner duly filed his appeal[8] and subsequently his appellant's brief.[9] 

Affirming the conviction, the CA found that petitioner Sarmiento had failed to substantiate proof of his travel expenses.[10] In addition, his failure, upon demand, to account for funds or property held in trust was used by the appellate court as circumstantial evidence that he misappropriated the funds and presented no documents to show that he had indeed prepared the check and voucher for refund. The appellate court eventually denied his Motion for Reconsideration.[11] 

In the instant Rule 45 Petition, petitioner Sarmiento insisted that there was "grossly inadequate" evidence to convict him of the crime of estafa beyond reasonable doubt, and that the court's findings were mere conclusions that were completely unsupported.[12] He likewise argued that he had only a civil obligation to return the money he received from private complainant.[13]

The Court affirms the conviction and finds no compelling reason to overturn petitioner's conviction by the trial and the appellate courts.

The doctrine is well-settled under our criminal jurisprudence that the essence of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b), is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the owner.[14] The words 'convert' and 'misappropriated' connote an act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for one's own use includes, not only conversion to one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without right."[15] Failure to account upon demand for funds or property held in trust is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.[16] 

In the instant case, petitioner Sarmiento failed to give an accounting of the P36,966.25 given to him by private complainant for purposes of securing a supersedeas bond. Indeed, petitioner has not explained where the amounts have gone, despite his non-issuance of a bond in favor of private complainant in the latter's appeal. Private complainant Perfecto was even forced to secure a separate appeal bond from another company for the purpose of filing his appeal in the civil case.

The excuse given by petitioner - that the money he received was used to pay for his travelling expenses to Manila - is unworthy of belief at this stage of the proceedings. As the appellate court aptly ruled, no evidence was ever introduced in the lower court to substantiate the expenses incurred by petitioner in shuttling back and forth for the purpose of securing the bond in favor of private complainant.[17] Neither can the Court give credence to his bare allegation that he was prepared to pay the amount he received from private complainant.[18]

In the exercise of its power of review over decisions in criminal cases, this Court maintains a well-established general rule to refrain from undertaking a reexamination of the evidence presented by the parties during the trial proceedings. The Court is not a trier of facts, particularly if the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the CA.[19] In this case, this Court finds no exceptional reason to deviate from the findings of the trial and the appellate courts.

In sum, all the elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code are present.[20] Petitioner Sarmiento accepted money in trust from private complainant Perfecto for the purpose of securing a supersedeas bond  for the latter. Petitioner failed to secure the bond, contrary to his assurances, and was not able to account for the money he had received when so demanded. Without the promised bond, Perfecto was forced to secure the services of a different bonding company in order to be able to file an appeal in his civil case. When private complainant, through his lawyer, demanded the return of his money, petitioner failed to account for the funds and even insisted that he used the money for travel expenses, which were unsubstantiated or unsupported by the evidence on record. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, the Court affirms the finding of guilt against petitioner Sarmiento for the crime of estafa. cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 13 January 2012 filed by petitioner Romeo M. Sarmiento is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:


[1] Evangeline Prudente v. Salvador Perfecto, Civil Case No. 406-0-99.

[2] O.R. No. 0992 dated 30 March 2004, Exhibit "B" (rollo, p. 71) 

[3] Provisional Receipt dated 05 April 2004, Exhibit "B-1" (rollo, p. 72) 

[4] Letter dated 26 May 2004 (Exhibit "C"); rollo, p. 74. 

[5] Demand Letter dated 28 May 2004 (Exhibit "I"); rollo, p. 75. 

[6] Information dated 07 July 2004 signed by Prosecutor III Raymond G. Viray; rollo, p. 51. 

[7] RTC Decision dated 29 January 2010 penned by Judge Richard A. Paradeza; rollo, pp. 80-86. 

[8] Notice of Appeal dated 17 February 2010; rollo, p. 87. 

[9] Appellant's Brief dated 02 November 2010; rollo, pp. 90-96. 

[10] CA Decision dated 28 April 2011, penned by Vicente S.E. Veloso and concurred in by Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Edwin D. Sorongon; rollo, pp. 29-13. 

[11] CA Resolution dated 17 November 2011; rollo, p. 45. 

[12] Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 13 January 2012, p. 10; rollo, p. 19. 

[13] Id. p. 14; rollo, p. 23. 

[14] Serona v. Court of Appeals, 440 Phil. 508 (2002). 

[15] Amorsolo v. People, G.R. No. 76647, 30 September 1987, 238 Phil. 557, 558, citing U.S. vs. Panes, 37 Phil. 118 (1917). 

[16] Aw v. People, G.R. No. 182276, 29 March 2010, 617 SCRA 64, citing Lee v. People, 495 Phil. 239, 250 (2005). 

[17] "First, aside from accused appellant's self-serving statements that he 'processed the bond' and 'spent sizable amount in going back and forth to x x x Makati,' no further proof was shown to substantiate said claim. Worse, other than these mere allegations, accused appellant failed to present an independent evidence proving that he did not act in utter bad faith in his handling of the money entrusted to him by Perfecto. But mere allegation is not evidence just as it is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation." (CA Decision dated 28 April 2011, p. 13; rollo, p. 41) 

[18] "... Here, accused-appellant's claim that he had already prepared the check and voucher for the refund does not convince Us because said documents were not even presented in court to effectively negate his self-serving declaration that he intended to return the money to Perfecto." (CA Decision dated 28 April 2011, p. 14; rollo, p. 42) 

[19] "It is a basic rule of appellate adjudication in this jurisdiction that the trial judge's evaluation of the credibility of a witness and of the witness' testimony is accorded the highest respect because the trial judge's unique opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of the witness enables him to determine whether the witness is telling the truth or not. Such evaluation, when affirmed by the CA, is binding on the Court unless facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case." (Atizado v. People, G.R. No. 173822, 13 October 2010, 633 SCRA 105, 115) 

[20] "The elements of estafa  under this provision are: (1) the offender's receipt of money, goods, or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (2) misappropriation or conversion by the offender of the money or property received, or denial of receipt of the money or property; (3) the misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) demand by the offended party that the offender return the money or property received." (Pamintuan v. People, G.R. No. 172820, 23 June 2010, 621 SCRA 538, 516-47)




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 192822 : January 16, 2012] PEOPLE OE THE PHILIPPINES v. RODOLFO MONTEMAYOR Y TAMAYO

  • [G.R. No. 199796 : March 05, 2012] ROMEO M. SARMIENTO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 187571 : March 05, 2012] FILIPINO ACADEMY OF MOVIE ARTS AND SCIENCES, INC., REPRESENTED BY JUMMY A. TIU V. ART M. PADUA, ANGEL CALSO, UP THEATER, REPRESENTED BY ITS BUSINESS MANAGER VONN PERDON GOLFO, AND ABC TV-5, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ROBERTO BARRIERO AND DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM ACQUISITION VICTORINO VIANZON

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2906 (Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 10-3440-P) : March 05, 2012] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CESAR V. ACANCE, RECORDS OFFICER I, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, QUEZON CITY

  • [G.R. No. 200210 : March 05, 2012] BENJAMIN DE VILLA Y CANTERO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [A.C. No. 4500 : March 06, 2012] BAN HUA U. FLORES v. ATTY. ENRIQUE S. CHUA

  • [UDK No. 14623 : March 07, 2012] SCAD SERVICES PTE. LTD. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER 14TH DIVISION, JORGE YANSON, EDDIE GOLDE, EDGAR NOCHE, ET AL.

  • [March 06, 2012] RE: HOLY WEEK RECESS

  • [G.R. No. 177292 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. JESSIE GARBIDA Y FOSTER, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. 12-2-11-MCTC : March 07, 2012] UNAUTHORIZED EXTENSION OF TRAVEL ABROAD BY MIGUELITA D. VILLA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC), KIBAWE, BUKIDNON

  • [G.R. No. 176126 : March 07, 2012] OSMUND DECANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 192259 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ROSALINDA SUMAYA Y MABALON, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187792 : March 07, 2012] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONRADA AREVALO

  • [G.R.No. 182210 : March 07, 2012] PAZ BERNARDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 200227 : March 12, 2012] LORENZO HIDALGO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 200353 : March 12, 2012] SOUTHERN CARRIER CO., INC. v. CARLITO MA�ACAP

  • [G.R. No. 184315 : March 12, 2012] ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO v. THE MANILA CHRONICLE PUBLISHING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2303 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3416-RTJ) : March 12, 2012] MARIO S. ROMERO, COMPLAINANT VS. MANUEL C. LUNA, JR. EXECUTIVE JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 39, CALAPAN CITY, ORIENTAL MINDORO,

  • [A.M. No. 11-1-09-RTC : March 13, 2012] RE: REQUEST FOR THE CREATION OF ADDITIONAL DRUGS COURTS IN THE RTC, DUMAGUETE CITY

  • [G.R. No. 181779 : March 13, 2012] ANDREW L. ONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND TEODORO DELA TORRE VILLAGRACIA, SR.

  • [G.R. No. 192070 : March 13, 2012] EDDIE "AMONG ED" T. PANLILIO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND LILIA G. PINEDA.

  • [G.R. No. 176323 : March 14, 2012] LENY B. DIAZ AND SPOUSES ANTONIO B. ESCALONA AND LEONORA ESCALONA VS. CHERRIE PINEZA AND KOJI HAMAMURA

  • [G.R. No. 189875 : March 14, 2012] NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. TRANS DIGITAL EXCEL, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 199914 : March 14, 2012] MEL MIKE GAMIN Y TARI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 181957 : March 14, 2012] RENATO P. MENDOZA, NEGOTIATING UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF LADY LOU GENERAL MERCHANDISE V. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 198315 : March 19, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RANNIE GULAPA Y ORDINARIO

  • [A.M. No. 14219-Ret. : March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE ULPIANO I. CAMPOS, RTC, BRANCH 22, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE CONRADO B. VENUS, RTC, BRANCH 22, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE ALBERTO V. BENESA, RTC, BRANCH 58, BUCAY, ABRA; JUDGE NORMELITO J. BALLOCANAG, RTC, BRANCH 41, PINAMALAYAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO, JUDGE FILOMENO A. VERGARA, RTC, BRANCH 2, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY; JUDGE EUFEMIO R. JOLINA, MTCC, SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION; JUDGE JOSE V. HABALO, MTCC, LUCENA CITY; JUDGE NORBERTO GREGORIO E. TIZON, JR., MTC, SAN ISIDRO, NORTHERN SAMAR; JUDGE GREGORIO S. VIOS, MTC, KAPATAGAN, LANAO DEL NORTE; AND JUDGE PACIANO B. GALLEPOSO, MCTC, SINDANGAN, ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE

  • [A.M. No. 14218-Ret., March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, RTC, BRANCH 142, MAKATI CITY AND JUDGE ANTONIO C. BAGAG�AN, MTC, GUINOBATAN, ALBAY

  • [G.R. Nos. 153304-05 : March 20, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171850 : March 21, 2012] EDGARDO BAUTISTA v. ROSITA DEPONIO

  • [A.M. No. 14210-Ret. : March 13, 2012] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS OF MRS. VIRGINIA P. ELBINIAS, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE HON. JESUS M. ELBINIAS, FORMER PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • [G.R. No. 160669 : March 14, 2012] SPOUSES WILFREDO SANTOS AND LUZVIMINDA SANTOS v. SPOUSES ALFREDO NEPOMUCENO AND ESTER DELA PAZ NEPOMUCENO, AND HON. MAURICIO M. RIVERA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS RTC JUDGE, 4TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 73, ANTIPOLO CITY.

  • [G.R. No. 176063 : March 14, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO MIA Y IFSOR

  • [G.R. No. 181969 : March 19, 2012] ROMAGO, INC. v. SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 191684 : March 20, 2012] ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • [G.R. No. 199196 : March 20, 2012] NELLY RAMOS v. ANACLETO BALDO

  • [A.M. No. 14216-Ret. : March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE RENE R. VICTORIANO, RTC, BRANCH 124, CALOOCAN CITY; JUDGE ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN, RTC, BRANCH 12, SANCHEZ MIRA, CAGAYAN; JUDGE IRENEO B. ESCANDOR, RTC, BRANCH 55, IROSIN, SORSOGON; JUDGE CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO, RTC, BRANCH 9, CEBU CITY; JUDGE EPIFANIO C. LLANOS, RTC, BRANCH 26, ARGAO, CEBU; JUDGE HILARIO I. MAPAYO, RTC, BRANCH 19, DIGOS CITY; JUDGE COROCOY D. MOSON, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT, COTABATO CITY; JUDGE MARIANO P. FUENTEBELLA, MTCC, IRIGA CITY; JUDGE JAIME F. VILORIA, MCTC, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE ELPIDIO N. QUIÑON, MCTC, POTOTAN-MINA, ILOILO; AND JUDGE CIRIACO C. ARIÑO, MCTC, SAN FRANCISCO, AGUSAN DEL SUR

  • [G.R. No. 193387 : March 21, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS FLORO TECZON, NUMERIANO TABUYAN (DECEASED), AND JOSE ENOVESO, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174682 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. ELMER A. BUCA AND WILLIAM B. CAINCAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175052 : March 21, 2012] DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM REPRESENTED BY OIC SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN v. MANUEL DEL ROSARIO.

  • [G.R. No. 184649 : March 21, 2012] CESAR P. FIANZA, PETITIONER VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 199430 : March 21, 2012] MEINRADO ENRIQUE A. BELLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 186464 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PANNER "TOTS" IDAL Y SAMPORNA A.K.A. PANOTOLAN DAUNTE Y SAMPORNA

  • [G.R. No. 171850 : March 21, 2012] EDGARDO BAUTISTA v. ROSITA DEPONIO

  • [G.R. No. 176579 : April 10, 2012] WILSON P. GAMBOA, PETITIONER, VS. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES, ET AL. RESPONDENTS.