Case Digest (G.R. No. 124513)
Facts:
Roberto Erquiaga and Glenn Orosco v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Naga City, and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 124513, October 17, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.The criminal case arose from transactions in May 1989 involving Honesta P. Bal, a bookstore owner, and persons who introduced themselves as representatives of a firm called Taiwanese Marine Products: Manuel Dayandante a.k.a. Manny Cruz, Pastor Lawas a.k.a. Rodolfo Sevilla, and respondents herein Roberto Erquiaga (a.k.a. "Mr. Guerrero") and Glenn Orosco (a.k.a. "Rey"). The group solicited Honesta to buy sealed cans ostensibly containing a marine preservative, promising resale at a profit. Initial small purchases were made and resold; encouraged, Honesta bought 215 cans on May 24, 1989 for P322,500, borrowing the sum from Jose Bichara at 10% interest. Erquiaga purportedly advanced P5,000 as earnest money and promised to shoulder the interest.
Soon after the payment, Dayandante, Lawas, Erquiaga and Orosco disappeared. An NBI forensic examination revealed the sealed cans contained only ordinary starch. The NBI uncovered similar "negosyo" confidence operations in other cities. On December 4, 1989, an Information for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code was filed against Erquiaga, Orosco, Lawas and Dayandante; Dayandante was later apprehended and tried separately, Lawas remained at large.
At the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, Naga City, Erquiaga and Orosco pleaded not guilty. On March 31, 1993 the RTC found them guilty of estafa and ordered indemnity of P322,500 plus interest and sentenced them under the Indeterminate Sentence Law; the RTC’s dispositive judgment is set out in the record. The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. No. 14904 affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the penalty, setting the minimum at four years and two months of prision correccional and the maximum at twenty years reclusion tempo...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the conspiracy to commit estafa and the consummation of estafa adequately proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution?
- May the disappearance/flight and other circumstantial acts of the accused be considered as evidence supporting conspiracy and guilt without violating the presumption of innocence?
- Are the accused duty bound to prove their innocence once charged?
- Can the loss sustained in a consummated sale be converted into compensatory damages in a criminal estaf...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)