FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218625. August 17, 2015.]
AMOR G. VILLEGAS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 17, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218625 (Amor G. Villegas v. People of the Philippines). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period; and the manifestation of the Public Attorney's Office, counsel for petitioner, that on August 4, 2015, petitioner informed counsel that a criminal case for violation of BP 22 is pending with the Regional Trial Court of Navotas City, Branch 54, and docketed as Criminal Case No. 11-14935 is NOTED.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the January 6, 2015 Decision 1 and May 28, 2015 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 36420 for failure of petitioner Amor G. Villegas (petitioner) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding her conviction for the crime of Attempted Estafa under paragraph 2 (a), Article 315, in relation to Articles 6, 51, and 61 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor and ordering her to pay the costs of suit.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner committed attempted estafa when: (a) she fraudulently represented herself to be the owner of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-29429 when in fact the said title does not exist in the records of the Registry of Deeds of Malabon City-Navotas and the Deputy Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City; and (b) such misrepresentation induced private complainant Marizon dela Cruz y Nuas to grant her an additional loan in the amount of P50,000.00. If not for the discovery of the fraud and the entrapment operation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation, petitioner would have performed all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of Estafa. 3
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 37-66. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Melchor Q.C. Sadang concurring.
2. Id. at 68-68-A. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Melchor Q.C. Sadang concurring.
3. The elements of estafa under paragraph 2 (a), Article 315 of the RPC are: (a) the accused used a fictitious name or false pretense that he possesses power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transaction, or other similar deceits; (b) the accused used such deceitful means prior to or simultaneous with the execution of the fraud; (c) the offended party relied on such deceitful means to part with his money or property; and (d) the offended party suffered damage. (See Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 199294, July 31, 2013, 703 SCRA 118, 126-127). In instances where only intent to cause damage and not the actual damage has been proven, the accused must be convicted only of attempted estafa. (Lateo v. People, 666 Phil. 260, 274 [2011]; citation omitted).