July 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > July 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 149877 : July 30, 2007] LYDIA PARANADA V. COURT OF APPEALS :
[G.R. No. 149877 : July 30, 2007]
LYDIA PARANADA V. COURT OF APPEALS
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 30 July 2007:
G.R. No. 149877 (Lydia Paranada v. Court of Appeals)
This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 seeks the annulment of the September 7, 2001 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 22151 entitled People of the Philippines v. Lydia Paranada, which affirmed the March 16, 1998 Judgment of the PasigCity Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 267 in Criminal Case No. 10975, convicting petitioner of the crime of estafa.
Sometime in April 1995, petitioner Lydia Paranada, along with Gigi Garcia, Luz Dilay, and Aurora Penetrente, went to the office of Reynaldo Garcia to sell to him a piece of land owned by Aurora Penetrente located at Norzagaray, Bulacan. Reynaldo accommodated them because Gigi is his sister-in-law. In convincing Reynaldo to buy the property, he was shown the property's title and pictures of the alleged actual location and condition of the lot. The pictures depicted a scenic agricultural land surrounded by rice paddies. Moreover, it was guaranteed that the lot could be cultivated and that it was situated near the highway.
A few days thereafter, Reynaldo agreed to buy the property at thirty pesos (PhP 30) per square meter. On May 3, 1995, Reynaldo issued two checks amounting to PhP 350,000. The checks were received by Aurora Penetrente. Later, he again issued a check in the amount of PhP 145,000, which was received by Luz Dilay.
Before paying the remaining balance of the purchase value, Reynaldo conducted an ocular inspection of the subject property. The lot was shown to him by Aurora's caretaker. Upon seeing the lot, Reynaldo was dismayed to discover that it was about two to three kilometers away from the highway and was not accessible by any means of transportation. Moreover, contrary to the scenic view illustrated in the pictures that were shown to him, the property was actually a steep ravine covered with bushes.
Feeling aggrieved, Reynaldo asked for the cancellation of the transaction and the return of his money. He sent two demand letters' dated June 28, 1995 and July 7, 1995, respectively, but these were unheeded.
Later, Reynaldo was able to speak with petitioner, Lydia Paranada. The latter promised to return to him the amount of money he paid for the lot. Unfortunately, petitioner reneged on her promise.
Thus, Reynaldo filed a complaint for estafa and damages against Lydia Paranada, Aurora Penetentre, Luz Dilay, and Gigi Garcia. Subsequently, the following Information was submitted before the trial court:
During arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the crime charged in the Information. Trial on the merits ensued.
Petitioner denied the charge against her. She claimed that her co-accused, Luz Dilay, is her partner in the business of buying and selling jewelries. She averred that Luz owed her a certain amount of money for the jewelries that the latter obtained from her. When she demanded payment, Luz asked to meet her at a shopping mall. At the mall, Luz was accompanied by her sister, Gigi, and two other female companions. From there, they proceeded to the office of Reynaldo. After arriving at Reynaldo's office, she saw Reynaldo handing over to Luz a treasury check. Thereafter, they went to the bank to exchange the check for cash. Luz then paid her PhP 40,000 representing one half of the obligation owed to her. They allegedly never met again after that day.
After trial, the RTC rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
It is apparent that this petition raises issues of facts. However, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitions for review may be brought only on questions of law,[4] not on questions of fact. Moreover, it is a settled rule that factual findings of the CA, affirming those of the trial court, are conclusive on the parties and may not be reviewed on appeal.[5]
In the present case, petitioner has not provided this Court with any justification for altering the assailed September 7, 2001 Decision of the CA. We are convinced that the RTC and CA had carefully considered the questions of facts raised, and that both decisions of the trial and appellate courts were amply supported by the evidence on record. No cogent reason was shown by the accused to justify the rejection of the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court. We therefore confirm said findings as reliable and credible.
Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he/she shall act upon it to his/her legal injury.[6] Under Article 315 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, estafa by means of deceit is committed upon the concurrence of the following elements: (1) that there was a false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; (2) that such false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he/she was induced to part with his/her money or property because of false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; and (4) that as a result this act, the offended party suffered damage.[7]
The fact that petitioner was swindled is not at issue in this case. What petitioner contends is her participation in the fraudulent act. However, the deceit committed by petitioner was sufficiently established by the prosecution. Private respondent, Reynaldo, specifically identified petitioner as "the one officiating or leading the talks"[8] during the negotiation for the sale of the purported agricultural land. On the other hand, petitioner offered only a bare denial as defense. Weighed against the positive and straightforward testimony of the complaining witness, petitioner's denial, unsubstantiated by convincing evidence, loses evidentiary value.[9] Petitioner's plea for exoneration must fail.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for failure to show that a reversible error had been committed by the appellate court. The September 7, 2001 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 22151 is AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 149877 (Lydia Paranada v. Court of Appeals)
This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 seeks the annulment of the September 7, 2001 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 22151 entitled People of the Philippines v. Lydia Paranada, which affirmed the March 16, 1998 Judgment of the PasigCity Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 267 in Criminal Case No. 10975, convicting petitioner of the crime of estafa.
Sometime in April 1995, petitioner Lydia Paranada, along with Gigi Garcia, Luz Dilay, and Aurora Penetrente, went to the office of Reynaldo Garcia to sell to him a piece of land owned by Aurora Penetrente located at Norzagaray, Bulacan. Reynaldo accommodated them because Gigi is his sister-in-law. In convincing Reynaldo to buy the property, he was shown the property's title and pictures of the alleged actual location and condition of the lot. The pictures depicted a scenic agricultural land surrounded by rice paddies. Moreover, it was guaranteed that the lot could be cultivated and that it was situated near the highway.
A few days thereafter, Reynaldo agreed to buy the property at thirty pesos (PhP 30) per square meter. On May 3, 1995, Reynaldo issued two checks amounting to PhP 350,000. The checks were received by Aurora Penetrente. Later, he again issued a check in the amount of PhP 145,000, which was received by Luz Dilay.
Before paying the remaining balance of the purchase value, Reynaldo conducted an ocular inspection of the subject property. The lot was shown to him by Aurora's caretaker. Upon seeing the lot, Reynaldo was dismayed to discover that it was about two to three kilometers away from the highway and was not accessible by any means of transportation. Moreover, contrary to the scenic view illustrated in the pictures that were shown to him, the property was actually a steep ravine covered with bushes.
Feeling aggrieved, Reynaldo asked for the cancellation of the transaction and the return of his money. He sent two demand letters' dated June 28, 1995 and July 7, 1995, respectively, but these were unheeded.
Later, Reynaldo was able to speak with petitioner, Lydia Paranada. The latter promised to return to him the amount of money he paid for the lot. Unfortunately, petitioner reneged on her promise.
Thus, Reynaldo filed a complaint for estafa and damages against Lydia Paranada, Aurora Penetentre, Luz Dilay, and Gigi Garcia. Subsequently, the following Information was submitted before the trial court:
That sometime in the month of April 1995, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another by means of deceit, false pretense and fraudulent representations executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously induce one Reynaldo F. Garcia to buy a parcel of land located at Norzagaray, Bulacan, in the amount of PhP 1,400,000.00 in the name of accused Aurora Penetrente, the accused knowing fully well that their representations are false because the land offered by them is different from what they actually sold, and said representations were only made to convince said Reynaldo F. Garcia, who believing said representations to be true, delivered/gave a down payment in the amount of PhP 520,000.00, which the accused received, but the accused once in possession of the money, use [sic] the same to their own personal use and benefit and despite repeated demands, failed and refused and still fails [sic] and refuses [sic] to return the money, to the damage and prejudice of said Reynaldo F. Garcia in the aforementioned amount of PhP 520,000.00.Of the four accused, petitioner Lydia Paranada was the only one arrested. The other accused went into hiding.
During arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the crime charged in the Information. Trial on the merits ensued.
Petitioner denied the charge against her. She claimed that her co-accused, Luz Dilay, is her partner in the business of buying and selling jewelries. She averred that Luz owed her a certain amount of money for the jewelries that the latter obtained from her. When she demanded payment, Luz asked to meet her at a shopping mall. At the mall, Luz was accompanied by her sister, Gigi, and two other female companions. From there, they proceeded to the office of Reynaldo. After arriving at Reynaldo's office, she saw Reynaldo handing over to Luz a treasury check. Thereafter, they went to the bank to exchange the check for cash. Luz then paid her PhP 40,000 representing one half of the obligation owed to her. They allegedly never met again after that day.
After trial, the RTC rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Lydia Paranada GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa penalized under Article 315, par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code [RPC], as amended, without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, and is accordingly sentenced to suffer the indetermninate penalty of imprisonment ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months of Prision Correccional as the minimum to twenty (20) years of Reclusion Temporal as the maximum. Accused is further sentenced to indemnify the private complainant Reynaldo F. Garcia in the amount of Five Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (PhP 520,000.00) for actual damages.Petitioner appealed to the CA. However, as earlier stated, the CA affirmed petitioner's conviction and dismissed the appeal. The appellate court emphasized that the gravamen of swindling is deceit. And in this case, petitioner's deceit through false pretense was shown by her assurance to Reynaldo that the property being offered for sale was the one depicted in the pictures, when it was actually not.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, petitioner comes to this Court with the following issues for our consideration:The petition has no merit.
A. Whether or not the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt
B. Whether or not accused herein committed the crime as charged or conspired and confederated with the co-accused in committing the crime as found against her.[3]
It is apparent that this petition raises issues of facts. However, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitions for review may be brought only on questions of law,[4] not on questions of fact. Moreover, it is a settled rule that factual findings of the CA, affirming those of the trial court, are conclusive on the parties and may not be reviewed on appeal.[5]
In the present case, petitioner has not provided this Court with any justification for altering the assailed September 7, 2001 Decision of the CA. We are convinced that the RTC and CA had carefully considered the questions of facts raised, and that both decisions of the trial and appellate courts were amply supported by the evidence on record. No cogent reason was shown by the accused to justify the rejection of the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court. We therefore confirm said findings as reliable and credible.
Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he/she shall act upon it to his/her legal injury.[6] Under Article 315 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, estafa by means of deceit is committed upon the concurrence of the following elements: (1) that there was a false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; (2) that such false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he/she was induced to part with his/her money or property because of false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; and (4) that as a result this act, the offended party suffered damage.[7]
The fact that petitioner was swindled is not at issue in this case. What petitioner contends is her participation in the fraudulent act. However, the deceit committed by petitioner was sufficiently established by the prosecution. Private respondent, Reynaldo, specifically identified petitioner as "the one officiating or leading the talks"[8] during the negotiation for the sale of the purported agricultural land. On the other hand, petitioner offered only a bare denial as defense. Weighed against the positive and straightforward testimony of the complaining witness, petitioner's denial, unsubstantiated by convincing evidence, loses evidentiary value.[9] Petitioner's plea for exoneration must fail.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for failure to show that a reversible error had been committed by the appellate court. The September 7, 2001 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 22151 is AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 9-22.
[2] Id. At 24-33. The Decision was Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria Tirona and concurred in by Associate Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Eloy R. Bello Jr.
[3] Supra note 1, at 13.
[4] Sec. 1
[5] Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. New India Assurance Company, Ltd., G.R. No. 156978, may 2, 2006, 488 SCRA 563, 572; DBP Pool Accredited Insurance Companies v. Radio Mindanao Network, Inc., G.R. No. 417039, January 27, 2006, 480 SCRA 314, 321.
[6] Guinhawa v. People, G.R. No. 162822, August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 278, 302; citing People v. Balasa, 356 Phil. 362, 382-383 (1998).
[7] L Reyes, THE REVISED PENAL CODE BOOK TWO, 648 (13th ed., 1993).
[8] Rollo, p. 63.
[9] Velasco v. People, G.R. No. 166479, February 28, 2006, 483 SCRA 649,664; Ferrer v. People, G.R. No. 143487, February 22, 2006, 483 SCRA 31, 52; Peopl v. Alviz, G.R. Nos. 144554-55, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 164, 172.
