G.R. No. 77569 - Celino vs. Court of Appeals

On August 14, 1981, the First Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Laguna filed an information for estafa before the Court of First Instance, Eight Judicial District, Branch IV, Calamba, Laguna.
The information charged three accused—Zosimo Celino, Ricardo Celino, and Requerido Celino—with estafa under allegations of defrauding complainant Jose Tan Kapoe.

The prosecution alleged that starting on or about March 17, 1978 at Brgy. San Nicolas, Bay, Laguna, the accused, by means of false pretenses and deceit:

Conspired and confederated with each other to induce the complainant to believe in the recovery of a hidden treasure.
Falsely represented that a dwarf, allegedly possessing supernatural insight, was directing the digging operations through one of the accused (Zosimo Celino).

As a result of these misrepresentations, the accused obtained money from the complainant, totaling P50,230.00, which was later misappropriated for their personal use.

The three occasions when he was induced to part with money—first, second, and third time—with specified amounts (P10,000.00, P5,000.00, and an additional amount from a bank transaction).
The excavation at his property, where a jar claimed to contain treasure was produced, but later found to hold only worthless items such as newspaper, comics, rocks, and soil.
The instruction to visit a church for three consecutive days as part of the fraudulent scheme.

Other prosecution witnesses, including Feliciano Batitis (employee-overseer), Ricardo dela Cruz (driver), and Pat. Jose Batacan (investigator), corroborated the complainant’s account:

Testimonies confirmed the series of deceptive transactions and the physical evidence of digging and the jar found at the complainant’s premises.
Specific details such as the use of a white envelope, instructions not to tamper with the money-enveloped contents, and the location (a room under the stairs) where the jar was kept.

No discussion or agreement regarding a hidden treasure occurred between him and the complainant.
The complainant’s anger stemmed from a personal dispute regarding money allegedly given to his son, Zosimo, which Ricardo denied knowledge of.
The inclusion of his name in the case was a result of accusations by witnesses he claimed were biased due to their employment relationship with the complainant.

Gualberto Libres, a neighbor, testified that on occasions when the complainant sought Zosimo, he never mentioned Ricardo.

The trial court found Ricardo Celino guilty beyond reasonable doubt for his role as co-principal in the commission of estafa under Article 315, No. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
Sentencing imposed on Ricardo Celino was imprisonment ranging from a minimum of two years, eleven months, and ten days (prision correccional) to a maximum of eight years (prision mayor), in addition to an order to refund P41,300.00 to the complainant and pay litigation costs.
The Court of Appeals later affirmed the trial court’s decision.
The case was ultimately elevated for review, with two primary errors alleged by the petitioner:

The appellate court’s alleged failure to apply appropriate legal provisions and jurisprudence.
An erroneous conclusion that was allegedly contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not applying the appropriate provisions of law and the established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court pertinent to the case.

The petitioner contended that the appellate court should have invoked specific legal precedents to support a different outcome.

Whether the Court of Appeals erroneously arrived at a factual conclusion that was inconsistent with the evidentiary record.

The petitioner argued that the facts as presented did not support his conviction and that the crimes committed should be viewed under a civil, rather than criminal, light—specifically alleging a “joint venture” rather than one of blatant deceit.