ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. NO. 162588.
CUEVAS vs. PEOPLE
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 28 2004.
G.R. NO. 162588 (Josefina "Josie" Cuevas vs. People of the Philippines .)
RESOLUTION
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which assails the Court of Appeals' Decision dated November 28, 2003, affirming petitioner's conviction for Estafa, and its Resolution dated January 30, 2004 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of its Decision.
Petitioner was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City with the crime of Estafa, allegedly for having defrauded private complainant Cesar C. Henson of the amount of P438,345.00 and P34,500.00 by falsely pretending that she has the necessary power, connection and influence to secure US Immigration Visas for private complainant, his siblings and their families. Petitioner insisted that she never represented that she had the power to obtain US Visas for private complainant and the amounts she received from him were loans to her as proven by the receipts signed by petitioner. The words on said receipts stating, "due on or before April 94" meant the due date for payment of the loans and not the supposed departure of private complainant and his siblings.
On April 29, 1999, the trial court convicted petitioner of the crime of Estafa, hence, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The appellate court, in its Decision dated November 28, 2003, affirmed the trial court's decision with the modification that the award of actual damages be deleted. The CA found no reason to overturn the findings of the trial court that "the documents she presented clearly indicate that the amounts were received by her as payment for visa applications, plane tickets, medical check-up expenses and the like." The CA likewise subscribed to the finding of the trial court that petitioner's version is incredible, i.e., that the money she received is a loan to her, because even several years after the supposed due dates, no repayment had ever been made by petitioner. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of said decision was denied per Resolution dated January 30, 2004.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari where the alleged lone error of the CA assigned by petitioner is that the CA erred in affirming the assailed decision of the trial court.
Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "the petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth." It is noted that petitioner merely assails the appellate court's affirmation of the finding of fact that the receipts are not evidence of a loan. Factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. [1] cralaw Petitioner failed to adduce any compelling reason for us to depart from such well-entrenched rule.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the questioned judgment to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw People vs. Francisco, 400 SCRA 650, 658 (2003).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
