Spouses Dulay v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215132, September 13, 2021, SECOND DIVISION, (Hernando, J.)

 Spouses Dulay v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 215132, September 13, 2021, SECOND DIVISION, (Hernando, J.)

Doctrine:

Deceit is rarely simple and far from cut and dried. Although ostensibly uncomplicated, deception in various forms of dissembling, suppression of truth, concealment and misrepresentation, once established beyond reasonable doubt will give rise to criminal liability.

Facts:

Claiming to be the actual owners of a 450-square meter lot in Baguio City, petitioners sold it to private complainants, the spouses Isabelo and Hilaria Dulos (Hilaria; collectively as spouses Dulos); hence, petitioners were charged with estafa under Article 315 2(a) of the RPC.

Before the arraignment, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash which was denied by the RTC . The RTC ruled that: (1) the trial court has jurisdiction to try the case for estafa under Article 315 2(a) of the RFC, and (2) there is no other pending criminal case before the first level courts of Agoo, La Union which constitutes as litis pendentia. Thus, at the arraignment, petitioners pleaded not guilty.

The RTC found petitioners guilty of Estafa under Article 315, (2)(a) of the RPC.
The trial court ruled that all the elements of estafa by deceit under Article 315 (2)(a) of the RFC were established and proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioners, through false pretenses and fraudulent acts of ostensible ownership of the subject property, deceived the spouses Dulos into buying the property and. paying the total amount of P707,000.00.

On appeal, the appellate court affirmed petitioners' conviction and modified their liability for civil damages to include payment of interest. The lower courts uniformly found that petitioners sold the subject property to the spouses Dulos under false pretenses of ownership.

Issue:

1.     Whether petitioners are guilty of the crime of Estafa when private complainants were aware that the subject property was not in their names at the time of the transaction.

Ruling: There is no merit in petitioners' appeal.

As found by the lower courts, petitioners are not the owners, more so registered owners, of the subject property. Yet, they brazenly sold the property to the spouses Dulos which they do not own under any color of title. In fact, petitioners' deceit is emphasized by the vacillating defenses they invoked.

Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC provides:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

x x x

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 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.

x x x

Jurisprudence has long established the elements of Estafa by means of deceit as defined under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC:

(1) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;
(2) that such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
(3) that the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and
(4) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

The Court abided the uniform factual findings of the lower courts which establish petitioners' commission of estafa by deceit through false pretenses and fraudulent misrepresentation.

First. Petitioners made false pretenses and fraudulent misrepresentations to complainants, the spouses Dulos, consisting of the following untruthful claims

Here, petitioners employed a scheme of dissembling against the spouses Dulos by withholding from the latter the true registered owners of the subject property under TCT No. T-2135. Petitioners took advantage of the demise of the real registered owners, the spouses Isidro and Virginia Dulay and more importantly, the similarity in the names of the two Isidros who are related and share the exact same name, i.e., Isidro Dulay.

Petitioners' deceit is illustrated by their inconsistent and conflicting claims (a) that title to the subject property is simply being reconstituted to reflect their names, (b) that they are the same persons as Isidro and Virginia Dulay, and (c) that petitioner Isidro is a putative heir of Maria, the purported registered owner of the subject property prior to the registered owners reflected in TCT No. T-2135.

Second. As found by the lower courts, the second, third and fourth elements of the offense are likewise present.

Jurisprudence further distinguishes criminal fraud from civil fraud. People v. Aquino instructs:

[T]he gravamen of the [crime of Estafa] is the employment of fraud or deceit to the damage or prejudice of another. When fraud pertains to the means of committing a crime or the classes of crimes under Chapter Three, Title Four, , Book Two and Chapter Three, Title Seven, Book Two of the RPC, criminal liability may arise; otherwise, if fraud merely causes loss or injury to another, without being an element of a crime, then it may only be classified as civil fraud from which an action for damages may arise.

As demonstrated herein, petitioners committed estafa by deceit under Article 315 paragraph 2(a) of the RPC.