THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235835. April 18, 2018.]
APOLINARIO C. ACLAN, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 18, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235835 (APOLINARIO C. ACLAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.) — This appeal seeks to undo the affirmance by the Court of Appeals (CA) of the conviction 1 of the petitioner for the crime of estafa as defined and punished by Article 315 (2) of the Revised Penal Code handed down by the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The Prosecution showed that the petitioner was the President of the Robinsons Faura Taft Bukid Pateros Drivers Association (ROFATABUPA) in the period material to this case; that on June 4, 2001, complainant Tommy Hizon Valencia was referred by his nephew Archie Ponferrada to the petitioner who had supposedly claimed that he could expedite the processing of Valencia's application for a franchise from the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) because of his connections; that the petitioner assured Valencia that he could secure the franchise to operate a public utility vehicle within 30 days; that Valencia handed to the petitioner the total amount of P30,000.00 for the processing of the franchise on two different occasions (i.e., P15,000.00 on June 4, 2001, and P15,000.00 on June 17, 2001) but the petitioner failed to secure the franchise for Valencia despite the lapse of a considerable time; that on September 10, 2001, the petitioner returned to Valencia only the sum of P5,000.00; and that Valencia then brought his criminal complaint for estafa against the petitioner.
In his defense, the petitioner denied the accusation, and insisted that it was Valencia who had sought his help in the processing of the franchise of his vehicle; that although the petitioner received the money from Valencia, he turned the money over to Carol Gutierrez, who had an office near the Land Transportation Office (LTO), to facilitate the granting of the franchise by the LTO; that Gutierrez promised to the petitioner that the franchise would be released after a month, but the transition in the LTO leadership caused the processing of the franchise to be put on hold; that Gutierrez told the petitioner to wait for two months; that Gutierrez later on went missing; that despite the petitioner's effort to look for Gutierrez, even going to her house, he could not locate her; that in the meantime, the petitioner advised Valencia to operate his vehicle under the name of ROFATABUPA; that Valencia heeded the petitioner's advice; and that the petitioner returned the amount of P5,000.00 to Valencia because the rest of the P30,000.00 was paid as membership fee to ROFATABUPA.
On August 31, 2011, 2 the RTC found and pronounced the petitioner guilty of estafa as charged, disposing thusly:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court hereby finds accused Apolinario Aclan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and hereby orders him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum. The accused is also ordered to pay the complainant the sum of P25,000.00 plus legal interest from the date of demand until fully paid as actual damages.
SO ORDERED. 3
Although the petitioner moved for reconsideration, the RTC denied his motion on July 23, 2013. 4
On appeal, the CA promulgated its assailed decision on March 9, 2017 affirming the decision of the RTC, 5 decreeing as follows:
WHEREFORE the APPEAL is DENIED for lack of merit. Hence, the Decision of the Trial Court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION with respect to the rate of interest imposed in the monetary award and petitioner is ORDERED to pay complainant Valencia an interest rate of six (6%) per annum on the total monetary award computed from finality of this Decision until full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED. 6
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied on September 20, 2017. 7
Hence, this appeal.
Ruling of the Court
After a judicious review of the records, the Court RESOLVES TO DENY the petition for review on certiorari in view of the failure of the petitioner to show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding the petitioner guilty of estafa under Article 315, par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code.
As a rule, our jurisdiction in cases brought to us from the CA is limited to the review and revision of errors of law committed by the CA. The findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are deemed conclusive, and the Court is consequently not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. 8 This rule is justified by the Court not being a trier of facts under the 1987 Constitution. Moreover, the trial court had the direct access to the evidence and the witnesses when they testified during the trial. Such access enabled the trial court to have the firsthand look at the demeanor of the witnesses. There may be occasions in which the Court is called upon to serve as a trier of facts, such as when there is a material disagreement between the CA and the trial court about the facts, or the CA has misapprehended, or misappreciated the record, among others. Alas, no such exceptional circumstances are applicable herein. The Court cannot, therefore, depart from the general rule of being bound by the factual findings of the lower courts.
At any rate, the appeal, if considered on its merits, is nonetheless wanting in persuasion.
The elements of estafa under Article 315, par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code are, namely: (1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, and was thus induced to part with his money or property; and (4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
All the foregoing elements were sufficiently established by the Prosecution. The Court holds that the petitioner made the fraudulent representation to Valencia that led to the latter's defraudation. As the CA correctly observed, the petitioner falsely pretended to have the capacity to secure the franchise to operate a public utility vehicle from the LTFRB, and based on such pretense Valencia delivered to the petitioner the sum of P30,000.00. As a result of the petitioner's false pretense and fraudulent representation, Valencia suffered damage because the promised franchise was not issued and the money he had paid to the extent of P25,000.00 was not returned.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on March 9, 2017 in all respects; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 32-37; penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam (now a Member of the Court) and Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta.
2.Id. at 59-65.
3.Id. at 65.
4.Id. at 66-67.
5.Id. at 32-39.
6.Id. at 37.
7.Id. at 41-42.
8.People v. Petralba, G.R. No. 137592, September 27, 2004, 439 SCRA 158, 167.