ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136919. March 15, 1999]

FELIZARDO OBANDO vs. CA & PEOPLE

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 15, 1999.

G.R. No. 136919 (Felizardo Obando vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines.)

Petitioner assails the resolution of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court which found petitioner guilty of estafa for having misappropriated or converted to his own personal use part of the funds entrusted for his administration.

Petitioner was appointed by his paternal aunt, Do�a Juana Ruperto Vda. de Obando, as her attorney-in-fact to administer her property. He acted as such from September 1, 1978 until the aunt's death on October 23, 1982.

Upon Do�a Juana's death, Gloria Calianga, a niece was appointed administratrix of the estate and upon her motion, the probate court directed petitioner to submit an accounting report of his administration of Do�a Juana's property and business affairs from September 1, 1978 to October 31, 1982.

Thereafter, a certified public accountant was commissioned to audit petitioner's account which led to the discovery of irregularities and discrepancies in the report disclosing further that petitioner was still accountable for P164,666.00. This prompted Calianga to write petitioner demanding restitution.

Upon petitioner's refusal to settle the abovementioned accountability, Calianga filed a complaint charging petitioner with estafa, upon which accusation he was later found guilty.

Petitioner alleges that the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction based on insufficient evidence.

Clearly petitioner seeks the review of factual findings made by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals which this Court is not called upon to perform in the ordinary course of law. Time and again we have ruled that absent any circumstance requiring the overturning of the factual conclusions made by the trial court, particularly if affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the Court must necessarily uphold said findings of facts (Sandoval vs. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 283 [1996]).

It is to be noted also that the petition is not accompanied by the required explanation why service was done by mail.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE