Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > March 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25460 March 13, 1968 - INOCENCIO C. TAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25460. March 13, 1968.]

INOCENCIO TAN Y CONCEPCION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Defendant-Appellee.

Ramon A. Gonzales, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Solicitor General, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE; JUDGMENTS; COURT WITHOUT POWER TO ANNUL JUDGMENT RENDERED BY ANOTHER BRANCH. — The jurisdiction to annul a judgment of a branch of the Court of First Instance belongs solely to the very same branch which rendered the judgment. For the lower court to have acceded to plaintiff-appellant’s prayer would have been for it to have exceeded its jurisdiction or to have acted with abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

2. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION; ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA THRU FALSE PRETENSES. — The element of false pretenses is alleged by the averment that the accused manifested and represented to the injured party that they were influential to the President and his Executive Secretary, which they knew fully well to be false and which they made only to obtain P2,000 from the injured party. The averment that the accused succeeded in inducing the injured party to part with his P2,000 is sufficient allegation of the element that the offended party relied upon such false pretenses. Lastly, the phrase "to the damage and prejudice of said Fernando E. Ricafort in the aforesaid sum of P2,000. . ." constitutes the averment of damages. There is no basis therefore for the charge that plaintiff-appellant’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of his accusation was violated.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


Plaintiff-appellant Inocencio Tan and one Antonio Conejero were accused of estafa committed by means of false pretenses in an information filed on October 10, 1958 in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VI, docketed as Criminal Case No. 45905. After due proceedings, the trial court, on October 27, 1959, acquitted Antonio Conejero but convicted plaintiff-appellant for consummated estafa.

Appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals. On August 31, 1963, the judgment of Branch VI of the Court of First Instance of Manila was modified, the appellate court convicting plaintiff-appellant of attempted estafa only. The latter still endeavoured to have the Supreme Court totally reverse the modified judgment but his petition for review was not given due course since the issues raised were factual and there was no merit in the petition. 1

On August 31, 1964, plaintiff-appellant instituted Civil Case No. 58158 before Branch XXI of the Court of First Instance of Manila to annul the judgment of conviction rendered in the criminal proceedings. His ground was that the information therein was so totally defective that criminal jurisdiction did not attach, thereby vitiating the resulting judgment of conviction.

Meanwhile, in the criminal proceedings, plaintiff-appellant was able to have the promulgation of the judgment of conviction for attempted estafa suspended pending the outcome of the civil case.

On December 1, 1964, the State filed its answer in the civil case. The issues having been joined, and after a pre-trial resulting in a stipulation of the facts as stated above, the lower court rendered judgment on August 31, 1965 which dismissed the complaint.

Plaintiff-appellant now comes again to this Court on a pure question of law.

Basically, what plaintiff-appellant seeks is to have Branch XXI of the Court of First Instance of Manila annul a judgment originating from Branch VI of the same court, as modified, with finality, by the appellate courts. This simply cannot be done. Just very recently, 2 We reaffirmed the rule that." . . the jurisdiction to annul a judgment of a branch of the Court of First Instance belongs solely to the very same branch which rendered the judgment." For the lower court to have acceded to plaintiff-appellant’s prayer would have been for it to have exceeded its jurisdiction or to have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. For this reason alone, the appeal should be dismissed.

But even on the merits, the appeal cannot prosper. The offense for which plaintiff was indicted is prescribed by Art. 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code in the following language:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits." (Emphasis supplied)

The information filed against plaintiff averred: 3

"That on or about and during the period covered from September 11, 1958 to October 9, 1958, both dates inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused Inocencio Tan y Concepcion and Antonio Conejero y Navo, the latter being then an employee of the Philippine National Bank, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud Fernando E. Ricafort, Assistant General Manager of the Laureano Brothers Co., Inc., in the following manner: The said accused, during the above-mentioned period of time falsely pretending to possess influence on His Excellency, President Carlos P. Garcia and Executive Secretary Pajo, and by means of false representations and fraudulent manifestations which they made to said Fernando E. Ricafort to the effect that the accused being influential to His Excellency, President Carlos P. Garcia and Executive Secretary Pajo, they could facilitate the release of the loan applied for by Fernando E. Ricafort with the Philippine National Bank in the sum of P250,000.00, provided that the said Fernando E. Ricafort would give the accused 10% of the said sum of P250,000.00, or the amount of P25,000.00; that the sum of P25,000.00 would be given to Executive Secretary Pajo as bribe money for the said purpose of facilitating the release of the afore-mentioned loan, and by means of other similar deceits, succeeded in inducing the said Fernando E. Ricafort to give and deliver to the accused the sum of P2,000.00 (supposedly amounting to P25,000.00), both the said accused knowing fully well that their aforestated pretenses, representations and manifestations were false and fraudulent and that the same were only made for the sole purpose of obtaining, as they in fact obtained from Fernando E. Ricafort the said sum of P2,000.00, which amount they willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to defraud, misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said Fernando E. Ricafort in the aforesaid sum of P2,000.00, Philippine currency.

"Contrary to law." (Emphasis supplied)

The underscored portions of the above-quoted information clearly refute the claim that some of the supposed essential elements of estafa by means of false pretenses were not alleged. The element of false pretenses is alleged by the averment that the accused manifested and represented to the injured party that they were influential to the President and his Executive Secretary, which they knew fully well to be false and which they made only to obtain P2,000.00 from the injured party. The averment that the accused "succeeded in inducing" the injured party to part with his P2,000.00 is sufficient allegation of the element that the offended party relied upon such false pretenses. Lastly, the phrase "to the damage and prejudice of said Fernando E. Ricafort in the aforesaid sum of P2,000.00 . . ." constitutes the averment of damages. There is no basis therefore for the charge that plaintiff-appellant’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of his accusation was violated.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is, as it is hereby, affirmed. Treble costs against plaintiff-appellant. So Ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. In L-22450 (Inocencio Tan v. People), resolution of March 16, 1964.

2. J.M. Tuason v. Torres, L-24717, Dec. 4, 1967.

3. Record on Appeal, pp. 2-4.




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-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21738 March 1, 1968 - IN RE: CHOA EK YONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21881 March 1, 1968 - PACIFIC OXYGEN & ACETYLENE COMPANY v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-23066 March 1, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE S. UMALI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23426 March 1, 1968 - LEOPOLDO SY-QUIA, ET AL. v. MARY MARSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22667 March 1, 1968 - JOSE DE ASIS, ET AL. v. ANGELINA DUMADAUG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24115 March 1, 1968 - EUFEMIA V. SHAFFER v. VIRGINIA G. PALMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25175 March 1, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIANO SORIA

  • G.R. No. L-26082 March 1, 1968 - NORBERTO DE LA REA v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-27030 March 6, 1968 - PABLO GONZAGA, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-28473 March 6, 1968 - TAHIR LIDASAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28598 March 12, 1968 - NAGA TAGORANAO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28725 March 12, 1968 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY v. JOSUE L. CADIAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20865 March 13, 1968 - ASELA P. TACTAQUIN v. JOSE B. PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-22485 March 13, 1968 - CONSUELO V. CALO v. AJAX INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED

  • G.R. No. L-23351 March 13, 1968 - CIRILO PAREDES v. JOSE L. ESPINO

  • G.R. No. L-23718 March 13, 1968 - JUSTINO LUCERO v. LEON P. DACAYO

  • G.R. No. L-24213 March 13, 1968 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25420 March 13, 1968 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25460 March 13, 1968 - INOCENCIO C. TAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26185 March 13, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFORIANO CESAR

  • G.R. No. L-26437 March 13, 1968 - RAQUEL G. DOCE v. BRANCH II OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26585 March 13, 1968 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-25738 March 14, 1968 - SILVERIO CAGAMPANG v. FLAVIANO MORANO

  • G.R. No. L-25001 March 15, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO B. ALBAPARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21610 March 15, 1968 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. DON PEDRO SECURITY GUARDS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23912 March 15, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOSE CONCEPCION

  • G.R. No. L-19911 March 15, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-22997 March 15, 1968 - PABLO C. MONTALBAN, ET AL. v. GERARDO MAXIMO

  • G.R. No. L-25052 March 15, 1968 - DATU MARIGA DIRAMPATEN v. HADJI MADKI ALONTO

  • G.R. No. L-25302 March 15, 1968 - ABUNDIO MATILLANO, ET AL. v. SEVERIANO DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-25403 March 15, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS A. CATALINO

  • G.R. No. L-26331 March 15, 1968 - BALBINO PAMINTUAN, ET AL. v. EMMANUEL M. MUÑOZ

  • G.R. Nos. L-20662 & L-20663 March 19, 1968 - PHILIPPINE MARlNE OFFICERS’ GUILD v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24466 March 19, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME CAPITO @ JIMMY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22486 March 20, 1968 - TEODORO ALMIROL v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF AGUSAN

  • G.R. No. L-23586 March 20, 1968 - A.D. SANTOS, INC. v. VENTURA VASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-24826 March 20, 1968 - ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24918 March 20, 1968 - FELIX DE VILLA v. ANACLETO TRINIDAD, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25939 March 20, 1968 - REPARATIONS COMMISSION v. JESUS P. MORFE

  • G.R. No. L-27106 March 20, 1968 - PALANAN LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO., INC., ET AL. v. MANUEL ARRANZ

  • G.R. Nos. L-20589-90 March 21, 1968 - ERNESTO DEL ROSARIO v. VICTORINO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22231 March 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO PAAT

  • G.R. No. L-23565 March 21, 1968 - INSULAR LIFE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25640 March 21, 1968 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26538 March 21, 1968 - MELECIO ROSARIO, ET AL. v. TAYUG RURAL BANK, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26922 and 26923 March 21, 1968 - EUFRACIO FAGTANAC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 101 March 27, 1968 - EMETERIO A. BUYCO, ET AL. v. MARIANO A. ZOSA

  • G.R. No. L-19378 March 27, 1968 - ACOJE MINING COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20046 March 27, 1968 - ROMEO PAYLAGO, ET AL. v. INES PASTRANA JARABE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22265 March 27, 1968 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GOODRICH INTERNATIONAL RUBBER CO.

  • G.R. No. L-22984 March 27, 1968 - MARGARITO SARONA, ET AL. v. FELIPE VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23467 March 27, 1968 - AMALGAMATED LABORERS’ ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23489 March 27, 1968 - JULIAN ABANA v. FRANCISCO QUISUMBING

  • G.R. Nos. L-24123, L-24124, L-24125 & L-24126 March 27, 1968 - GREGORIO ROBLES v. CONCEPCION FERNANDO BLAYLOCK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25471 March 27, 1968 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., ET AL. v. BCI EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION-PAFLU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25513 March 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSAURO C. DIONISIO

  • G.R. No. L-25676 March 27, 1968 - ROSENDA A. DE NUQUI, ET AL. v. ILDEFONSO D. YAP

  • G.R. No. L-26213 March 27, 1968 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), ET AL. v. PIO R. MARCOS

  • G.R. Nos. L-28550 to L-28552 March 27, 1968 - PEDRO R. DIZON v. TITO V. TIZON

  • G.R. No. L-28563 March 27, 1968 - GOV. PEDRO R. DIZON v. HON. TITO V. TIZON

  • G.R. No. L-21196 March 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO BELCHEZ

  • G.R. No. L-22535 March 28, 1968 - ALFREDO VILLARUEL v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24440 March 28, 1968 - PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24660 March 28, 1968 - PEDRO VIDAL, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-27757 March 28, 1968 - RICARDO DEQUITO v. LEOPOLDO LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20477 March 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX B. ACEBEDO

  • G.R. No. L-20802 March 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. REPUBLIC SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21890 March 29, 1968 - MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22062 March 29, 1968 - GREGORIO Y. ROMERO v. MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF BOLJOON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22759 March 29, 1968 - MANUEL R. JIMENEZ v. ALBERTO V. AVERIA

  • G.R. No. L-25366 March 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BUAN

  • G.R. No. L-25475 March 29, 1968 - FELICIDAD REYES-TALAG v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAGUNA

  • G.R. No. L-26830 March 29, 1968 - CIPRIANO A. FALCON, ET AL. v. FELICIANO OROBIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23375 March 30, 1968 - FRANCISCO ORFIDA v. PEDRO PANUELOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28539 March 30, 1968 - SALVADOR Q. PEDIDO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.