FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 184515. April 7, 2014.]
EMMA REGIS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 7, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 184515 (Emma Regis v. People of the Philippines). — Before the Court is a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 30013. 1 The CA affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, 2 which convicted Emma Regis (Regis or petitioner) of the crime of estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code.
THE FACTS
Below are the facts as culled by the CA, viz.: 3
In 1994, [petitioner] REGIS, [an unlicensed] real estate broker, offered for sale an untitled[,] [one-hectare farm] land located in Munting Ilog, Silang, Cavite to private complainants Leoncio and Carmencita Manarang [(Spouses Manarang or private complainants)]. REGIS explained that the said land was, at that time, a subject of a pending petition for titling instituted by its owners, Spouses Aurelio Regis and Marcela Sambrano ("Spouses Regis" for brevity). [According to petitioner, Aurelio Regis was a relative of her husband]. [Spouses Manarang] agreed to buy the land for the amount of nine hundred thousand pesos (P900,000.00) subject to the condition that upon issuance of title to Spouses Regis, said title will be immediately transferred in the name of [Spouses Manarang]. THEcAS
Consequently, [petitioner] presented two (2) deeds of sale executed and signed by Spouses Regis. The first deed showed the amount of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to be given to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for taxation purposes, while the second deed reflected the amount of eight hundred thousand pesos (P800,000.00) given as [Spouses Manarang's] copy. In return, [Spouses Manarang] issued two (2) BPI checks in the amount of P808,000.00 and P92,000.00 respectively. The first check was made payable to "CASH," while the second check was issued in the name of [petitioner] REGIS.
Several months had passed but the title to the subject property was not yet transferred to [Spouses Manarang]. Thus, they asked REGIS to immediately transfer the tax declaration over the land under their name. But their demand fell on deaf ears.
Unfortunately, [Spouses Manarang] soon discovered that the subject property had already been earlier sold to a certain Mr. Benjamin Go [(Mr. Go)]. They confronted REGIS regarding the matter. REGIS denied the sale to [Mr. Go] and assured [Spouses Manarang] that the subject property was merely mortgaged to Mr. Go. Not so convinced, [Spouses Manarang] met with [one of the original owners,] Marcela Sambrano[,] asking the latter to execute another deed of sale but she refused because she did not remember having sold the property to [them]. Marcela Sambrano even denied having signed any deed of sale. In their attempt to retrieve their hard-earned money, [Spouses Manarang's] counsel sent a demand letter to Spouses Regis. Through their letter-reply, Spouses Regis denied having contracted with [them,] stating that the subject land had already been sold to [Mr. Go] through a "Kasunduan ng Bilihan ng Lupa na may Pasubali" as early as 21 November 1991.
[Spouses Manarang] likewise demanded from [petitioner Regis] the return of their money, but to no avail.
[Petitioner] REGIS denied the charges against her. On the witness stand, she narrated that she offered her services as a real estate broker to [Spouses Manarang]. At the onset of the transaction, REGIS readily informed [them] that the subject property was not yet titled and the same is still declared in the name of [Spouses Regis]. REGIS further informed [Spouses Manarang] that the Spouses Regis were the first owners of the aforesaid property, and then later, the said property was sold by the Spouses Regis to [Mr. Go]. REGIS [admitted that she] knew all these transactions because she was the one who brokered the two (2) previous sales. REGIS likewise testified that it was agreed that they would make it appear that the transaction was made exclusively between Spouses Regis and [Spouses Manarang]. [Mr. Go purportedly] did not want his name to be included in the transaction. It was also agreed that upon issuance of title of the subject property to Spouses Regis, considering that at that time there was a pending application for titling filed by the latter before the RTC of Tagaytay City, said title will be immediately transferred in the name of [Spouses Manarang]. Consequently, two (2) deeds of sale were executed by Spouses Regis and [Spouses Manarang]. The first deed of sale with a consideration in the amount of P500,000.00 would be given to the BIR while the second Deed of Sale in the amount of P800,000.00 would be [Spouses Manarang's] copy. [According to her, the first check was given to Mr. Go, while the second check representing her broker's fee was issued in her name. However, she was unable to show proof that she had actually delivered the check to Mr. Go.]
REGIS further averred that because of the long period of time needed to process the titling of the subject property, [Spouses Manarang] became very impatient and demanded the return of their money. REGIS refused on the ground that [Spouses Manarang] were already in possession of the said property. aSEHDA
THE RTC DECISION
Petitioner Regis was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code. The RTC pointed out that she admitted to having known that the land had already been sold to Mr. Go when she offered the property to Spouses Manarang. In fact, she herself brokered the prior sale in 1991, or three years before offering the land to the couple. Despite her personal knowledge that she could no longer facilitate the sale of the land between the original owners and Spouses Manarang, she still offered the land for sale while making it appear that the original owners were the ones who were selling the property, as shown in the two Deeds of Sale that she gave to the spouses. Petitioner even assured them that the title to the property would eventually be transferred to their names. They relied on her false pretenses, and she was in fact able to collect the entire purchase price from them. However, due to her inability to show that she had the capacity and authority to sell the property under its new owner, or that the money was nevertheless turned over to Mr. Go, the trial court ruled that petitioner had committed the crime of estafa.
THE CA RULING
The CA affirmed the conviction of petitioner. According to the appellate court, it reexamined the evidence on record and found no compelling reason to depart from the findings of the RTC. The CA stressed that Regis herself admitted to brokering the sale of the property twice — first, with Mr. Go; and second, with Spouses Manarang. It then pointed out that petitioner failed to substantiate her claim that she had disclosed the prior sale to the couple, or that they knew about it. In fact, petitioner herself acknowledged that there was no chance for Mr. Go and Spouses Manarang to communicate with each other. Furthermore, she was unable to prove that the check representing complete payment of the purchase price paid to her by the spouses had been turned over to Mr. Go, or that he somehow benefitted from the sale. Accordingly, the CA ruled that petitioner employed false representations, which were in turn relied upon by Spouses Manarang. They were made to believe that she had the authority to sell the property, thus inducing them to part with their money, to their damage and detriment. The CA thus upheld the trial court's finding that petitioner was guilty of estafa.
THE ISSUE
Whether the CA committed reversible error when it upheld the RTC Decision in finding that the accused employed false pretenses or fraudulent representations concerning her authority to sell the subject lot and to accept payment on behalf of the lot owner.
OUR RULING
We deny the appeal and affirm the assailed CA Decision and Resolution in all respects.
In People v. Balasa we explained that the term fraud, in its general sense, encompasses "anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another." 4 It embraces "all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair way by which another is cheated." 5 On the other hand, 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 shall act upon it to his legal injury." 6 In the context of estafa as punished under the Revised Penal Code, the false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. 7 The person must be aware of the falsity of the representation and, despite such awareness, intentionally tempts another to act upon such portrayal in the manner reasonably contemplated. 8 The one induced, who must be ignorant of the falsity of the representations, must have relied on the truth thereof and, as a consequence, sustained injury. 9aESIDH
We see no cogent reason to reverse or modify the factual determination of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, with respect to the presence of false pretenses or fraudulent representations on the part of petitioner. She acknowledged in open court that she had known from the beginning that the subject lot was no longer owned by Spouses Regis, as she herself brokered the sale of the property to Mr. Go in 1991. 10 Nevertheless, from the testimonies on record, it was undisputedly established that petitioner had still represented to Spouses Manarang in 1994 that she could facilitate the sale of the lot between them and the original owners, Spouses Regis. 11 In fact, the signed Deed of Sale she presented to Spouses Manarang indicated that the sale would be between the latter and Spouses Regis. 12
In view of the representations of petitioner, Spouses Manarang decided to avail themselves of her services in order to acquire the land. Making it appear that she was empowered to receive payment for the property, she then accepted two checks from the couple in the total amount of P900,000 for the supposed sale of the farm lot. 13 She later on gave them assurances that there were no problems concerning the land, that the release of the certificate of title thereto was imminent, 14 and that the title would be transferred to their names. 15 In reality, they would not have any basis for claiming ownership over the property, since it had already been sold to another, person. It has been almost 20 years since the supposed sale, but petitioner has yet to fulfill her representations to Spouses Manarang.
The CA did not commit reversible error when it affirmed the RTC ruling, which rejected the contention of petitioner that she had been forthright in her dealings with Spouses Manarang. The facts show that she had direct knowledge of the prior sale and of the contents of the Deed of Sale issued to the spouses. Nevertheless, she failed to substantiate her claim that she informed them during the negotiations or even at the time she accepted the checks that there was a preceding transaction involving the same land between the original owners and Mr. Go. She never introduced Mr. Go to Spouses Manarang. 16 What was established was only the fact that the couple knew that the petition for the titling of the property was still pending with the Land Registration Authority. 17 Moreover, petitioner did not at all deny that two years after the supposed sale, she was confronted by Spouses Manarang about the latter's discovery of the prior sale to Mr. Go; and that she merely explained to them that the property had only been mortgaged to Mr. Go, when in fact she knew that there had been a sale. 18
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision dated 10 June 2008 and Resolution dated 15 September 2008 in CA-G.R. CR No. 30013 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. People v. Regis, CA-G.R. CR No. 30013 (CA, 10 June 2008), slip op., rollo at 39-54 (hereinafter CA Decision) and People v. Regis, CA-G.R. CR No. 30013 (CA, 15 September 2008), slip op., rollo at 65 (hereinafter CA Resolution). Both the Decision and Resolution were penned by CA Associate Justice (now Presiding Justice) Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Mendoza (now Associate Justice of this Court) and Arturo G. Tayag.
2. People v. Regis, Crim. Case No. 03-0741 (Las Piñas RTC Br. 198, 13 January 2006), slip op., rollo at 29-38 (hereinafter RTC Decision). The Decision was penned by Judge Erlinda Nicolas-Alvaro.
3. CA Decision, supra note 1, at 3-7, rollo at 41-45.
4. People v. Balasa, 356 Phil. 362, 382 (1998) (citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 1 [1996]; Alleje v. Court of Appeals, 325 Phil. 540 [1995]; People v. Castillo, 76 Phil. 72 [1946]). See also: Alcantara v. Court of Appeals, 462 Phil. 72 (2003).
5. Id.
6. Id. at 382-383.
7. Alcantara v. Court of Appeals, supra note 4 (citing People v. Chua, 373 Phil. 962 [1999]).
8. Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 514 Phil. 574 (2005).
9. Id.
10. RTC Decision, supra note 2, at 2-5, rollo at 30-33; Testimony of Emma Regis, TSN, 10 February 2005, pp. 11-14.
11. RTC Decision, supra note 2, at 2-5, rollo at 30-33.
12. RTC Decision, supra note 2, at 2-5, rollo at 30-33; Testimony of Carmencita Manarang, TSN, 29 April 2004, pp. 6-7; Testimony of Emma Regis, TSN, 10 February 2005, pp. 19-23.
13. RTC Decision, supra note 2, at 2-5, rollo at 30-33; Testimony of Carmencita Manarang, TSN, 29 April 2004, pp. 8-10; Testimony of Emma Regis, TSN, 10 February 2005, pp. 23-24.
14. Testimony of Emma Regis, TSN, 31 March 2005, p. 13.
15. RTC Decision, supra note 2, at 5-7, rollo at 33-35.
16. Testimony of Emma Regis, TSN, 31 March 2005, p. 9.
17. Testimony of Carmencita Manarang, TSN, 10 August 2004, p. 25; Testimony of Leoncio Manarang, TSN, 19 August 2004, pp. 11-12.
18. Testimony of Carmencita Manarang, TSN, 22 June 2004, p. 10.