Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 165461 (Edna Ishizuka y Cartajena v. People of the Philippines); and G.R. No. 165558 (Edna Ishizuka y Cartajena v. People of the Philippines).

The assistant city prosecutor of Manila charged appellant Edna Ishizuka y Cartajena (Edna) with estafa^[1] before the Regional Trial Court ^[2] (RTC) of Manila in Criminal Case 00184448.

The evidence for the prosecution shows that sometime in November 1991, Edna called her long-time friend Marissa A. Araki (Marissa) for financial help. Edna offered to sell Marissa her titled property^[3] for P3 million. Edna claimed that the property was mortgaged with Home Savings Bank and Trust Co. (Home Savings) for P800,000.00 and was about to be foreclosed.

Marissa initially refused the offer, saying that she did not need the property and that she only had P2 million and could not produce more to pay for the mortgage loan. Still, Edna convinced her to buy the property; they eventually agreed on the sale for a price of P2 million, with Edna assuming the liability for the payment of the mortgage loan, the capital gains tax, the registration fee, and documentary stamps tax.

On November 22, 1991 Marissa withdrew money from PCI Bank, Vito Cruz Branch, and then met Edna at Unit D, Robinson's Commercial Complex, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila. Edna had with her a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage.^[4] Marissa signed the document and gave Edna the P2 million they agreed on. She then handed over the title to the property to Edna upon the latter's representation that she would pay the necessary taxes and have the title transferred to Marissa's name.

But, Edna did not deliver the title to Marissa. On June 29, 1993 Marissa sought the help of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Upon investigation, the NBI discovered that the title remained in Edna's name and that she mortgaged it anew to Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. (Metrobank) for P1.5 million.^[5] Consequently, the NBI filed a case of estafa against her with the City Prosecutor's Office of Manila.

For her part, Edna denied having defrauded Marissa. She presented Atty. Dexter A. Bihis (Atty. Bihis) who testified that the mortgage to Home Savings had been cancelled way back in 1989 under a deed of cancellation dated July 21, 1989. Edna insisted that she did not need financial assistance and had no reason to sell the property to Marissa in November 1991.

On March 12, 2003 the RTC found Edna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a)^[6] of the Revised Penal Code (RFC).^[7] The RTC sentenced Edna to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, as well as the accessory penalties provided by law. The RTC further ordered her to pay Marissa P2 million with 6% interest per annum from the filing of the Information until the amount is fully paid, and 12% per annum upon finality of judgment until the amount is fully paid.

Edna appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR 27371. On June 15, 2004 the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Decision.^[8] With the denial of her motion for reconsideration,^[9] Edna appealed to this Court via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in holding that Edna defrauded Marissa when she took her P2 million on the pretext of selling her titled property to her when Edna's intention was to keep the documents and appropriate the property.

Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RFC penalizes estafa committed by any person who defrauds another by false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.^[10] The fraud is committed by 'Rising fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by other similar deceits."^[11] 

Here, the prosecution amply proved through Marissa's testimony that Edna induced her to give her P2 million by making it appear that she was transferring the title over her property to Marissa's name when her intention was to run away with the property and Marissa's money. Marissa testified that Edna never transferred the title to her name. She instead mortgaged the property to Metrobank. Thus:

Atty. Asa:
Q.	Why did you give back the title as well as the Deed of Absolute Sale to the accused Edna Ishizuka y Cartagena?
Witness:
A.	So that she could transfer that to me.
Atty. Asa
Q.	And what did she do?
Witness:
A.	She took the documents from me.
Court:
Q.	Ano ang ginawa niya tungkol sa inyong kasunduan na babayaran niya ang Capital Gains Tax at irerehistro ang mga dokumento?
Witness:
A.	I was not able to see her anymore, sir.[12]
	x x x x
Atty. Asa:
Q.	Where did you give this P2 million?
Witness:
A.	At Unit B Robinsons Complex, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, at the office of my husband.
	x x x x
Court:
Q.	Saan ba kayo nagpirmahan ng kontrata?
Witness:
A.	At the office of my husband, your Honor.
Court:
Q.	Nagpirmahan at nagbayaran kayo ay isang araw lang iyan?
Witness:
A.	Yes, your Honor.
	x x x x
Atty. Asa:
Q.	You said that the documents were not returned to you, do you know the reason why?
Witness:
A.	Inaayos pa raw po niya kasi ang mga papeles dahil ito pong property ay nakasanla sa Home Savings Bank.
Atty. Asa:
Q.	From your own personal knowledge, what happened to this property?
Court:
	If the Court may modify the question, alam mo ba kung ano na ang naging katayuan ng lupa na ito sa panahong ito?
Witness:
A.	It was mortgaged with Metrobank.
	x x x x
Court:
Q.	Sino ang nagsanla?
Witness:
A.	Edna Ishizuka, your Honor.
Atty. Asa:
Q.	Did you give her any authority to mortgage this to Metrobank?
Witness:
A.	No, sir.
Court:
Q.	The property was never registered in your name pursuant to the document?
Witness:
A.	No, your Honor.[13]

NBl Agent Arnel Narag corroborated Marissa's testimony.^[14] In addition, the prosecution also presented the Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage and registered title with its corresponding annotations. 

On the other hand, Edna merely denied the truth of the evidence against her. Since she failed to substantiate her denial with clear and convincing evidence, it is not entitled to belief.^[15] All she insisted on was that she had no reason to seek financial assistance from Marissa. Her lone witness, Atty. Bihis, testified on the supposed 1989 cancellation of the mortgage on the property in favor of Home Savings. But, on cross-examination, Atty. Bihis admitted that the cancellation had never been annotated on the title. Indeed, the mortgage was cancelled only in 1993 through a deed of cancellation that another lawyer notarized.^[16]

All told, the defense failed to rebut the prosecution's testimonial and documentary evidence. And, since this Court is hampered in its appreciation of the testimonies of the witnesses by the fact that its members took no part at the trial, it must of necessity rely on the trial court's factual findings. There is no showing that those findings are palpably unsound or have nothing in the record to support them.^[17] Thus, the Court finds no compelling reason to reverse the factual findings of the RTC and the CA.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS in their entirety the June 15, 2004 decision and September 27, 2004 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 27371.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
  Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
  Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Records, pp. 1-2.

^[2] Branch 55. 

^[3] Covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) 16227; records, pp. 9-10. 

^[4] Id. at 33-34. 

^[5] Supra note 3. 

^[6] 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

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

^[7] Rollo, pp. 68-83, Penned by Judge Hermogenes R. Liwag.

^[8] Id. at 31-40. Penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.

^[9] Id. at 42.

^[10] Sy v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010.

^[11] Garcia v. People, 457 Phil. 713, 720 (2003).

^[12] TSN, September 11, 2011, pp. 32-33.

^[13] Id. at 36-39.

^[14] TSN, December 19, 2001.

^[15] Domingo v. People, G.R. No. 186101, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 488, 507-508.

^[16] TSN, April 30, 2002, pp. 37-38.

^[17] People v. Talita, G.R. No. 181702, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 687, 695.