ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138643. August 16, 1999]

ARCELA M. VILLARIASA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 16, 1999.

G.R. No. 138643 (Arcela M. Villariasa vs. People of the Philippines.)

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming petitioner's conviction of estafa by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33. It appears that petitioner Villariasa recruited complainant Julieta Angulo for employment as a fruit sorter in Switzerland at a monthly salary of US$1,000.00. Petitioner asked complainant to pay P100,000.00 for the plane ticket and other placement expenses. As complainant was able to come up with P55,000.00 only, it was agreed that the balance would be deducted from complainant's salary once employed. Complainant was to leave for Switzerland in June 1992 but the overseas job turned out to be nonexistent. Accordingly, complainant demanded the return of her money. To pay for her obligation, petitioner executed two (2) promissory notes in favor of complainant but when petitioner failed to redeem the same, complainant filed a complaint for estafa. The trial court found petitioner guilty of estafa. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction. Hence, this petition.

Petitioner assails the factual findings of both the trial court and the appellate court that she recruited complainant for overseas employment. In appeals by certiorari under Rule 45, �1, however, only questions of law may be raised (Sarao v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 247 (1997)). Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are deemed conclusive unless it is shown that the appellate court overlooked questions of substance which, if true, would require a reversal of the appealed decision. Thus, petitioner cannot asks for a review of the factual finding that petitioner was the one who recruited the complainant based on her own admission that she was the one who received the money from the complainant, the one who signed the receipt for the money, and the one who assured the complainant that an overseas job be found for her, in the absence of clear showing that the Court of Appeals overlooked questions of substance.

Petitioner also contends that it is incredible for the complainant to have lived for three (3) months in her (petitioner's) house if it is true that she swindled the complainant. As the Court of Appeals, however, found, complainant was so convinced that petitioner could get her a job that she agreed to live in the house of the petitioner while waiting for communication from abroad.

The fact that the prosecution was not able to present the receipt showing payment by complainant of P55,000.00 for the plane fare and the placement fees is not fatal to the prosecution's care considering the clear and convincing testimony of the complainant concerning such payment, and the failure of petitioner to explain why she made two (2) promissory notes, dated October 28, 1992 and November 9, 1992, on favor of the complainant. Moreover, as found by the Court of Appeals, petitioner herself admitted receipt of said amount in her testimony before the trial court (Decision, pp. 5-7, Rollo, pp. 24-26).

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit showing that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE