Facts:

The case involves Juan Castillo (alias Juan de Castillo), the petitioner, who was convicted of estafa by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. The conviction was based on Article 316, paragraph 6, of the Revised Penal Code, and he was sentenced to 2 months and 1 day of arresto mayor. The events leading to the conviction occurred during the intestate proceedings of the deceased Juan Castillo, specifically in civil case No. 6463 in the same court. As part of the proceedings, the petitioner executed a bond amounting to P1,000.00, serving as one of the sureties for the appointed administrator. To qualify as a surety, he presented Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9683, which was issued in his name and pertained to a parcel of land. However, before the bond was canceled and without obtaining judicial permission, he sold the land to Felipe V. Estrella for P450.00. The petitioner raised two main contentions: first, that the property sold was not specifically pledged in the bon...

Facts:

1. Background of the Case:

   • The petitioner, Juan Castillo, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija for the crime of estafa under Article 316, paragraph 6, of the Revised Penal Code.
   • He was sentenced to 2 months and 1 day of arresto mayor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

2. Role of the Petitioner:

   • In the intestate proceedings of the deceased Juan Castillo (civil case No. 6463), the petitioner executed a bond worth P1,000.00 as one of the sureties for the court-appointed administrator.
   • To qualify as a surety, he exhibited Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9683, which covered a parcel of land registered in his name.

3. The Alleged Crime:

   • Before the bond was canceled and without judicial authority, the petitioner sold the land to Felipe V. Estrella for P450.00.

4. Petitioner’s Defense:

   • The petitioner argued that:
     (1) The property sold was not specifically pledged in the bond, so he could not be convicted under Article 316, paragraph 6, of the Revised Penal Code.
     (2) There was no finding of actual damage, which is an essential element of estafa.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. On the First Issue:

   • The petitioner’s contention that the property was not specifically pledged in the bond is without merit. By exhibiting the Transfer Certificate of Title, he effectively guaranteed his obligation as a surety with the land described in the title.
   • The approval of the bond was based on his ownership of the land, and good faith required him not to dispose of it without court permission.

2. On the Second Issue:

   • Damage is an essential element of estafa. In this case, there was no express finding of actual damage to the estate of the deceased Juan Castillo.
   • Any potential damage was speculative, as the petitioner might have other properties to satisfy his obligations, and the other surety could cover any liability.
   • Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes a fine based on the value of the damage caused, implying that damage is a necessary element of the offense.

3. Distinction from Cited Cases:

   • The cases cited by the prosecution (U.S. vs. Goyenechea and U.S. vs. Malong) are not applicable because the properties in those cases belonged to the offended parties, whereas the land sold by the petitioner was his own property, not part of the estate.