G.R. No. 161651 - Lateo y Eleazar vs. People

Complainant: Eleonor Lucero
Criminal Charge: Attempted estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code

Sometime in 1994, petitioners proposed that Lucero finance the titling of 122 hectares of land located in Muntinlupa, allegedly owned by petitioner Elca.
It was represented that portions of the land would be appropriately titled and later assigned to Lucero, with an offer of 70 hectares in exchange for the advances received.
Documents involved included a Deed of Sale supposedly dated March 27, 1987 and an irrevocable Special Power of Attorney executed in favor of Lucero.
Lucero later discovered discrepancies when verified with the Registry of Deeds; titles allegedly issued in the name of petitioners were in fact registered to third parties.

After the discovery of the fraudulent titles in the Muntinlupa transaction, petitioners proposed a substitute property.
The substitute involved a 5-hectare property in Bacoor, Cavite, which was meant to replace the defrauded Muntinlupa parcel.
Petitioners, particularly Elca, demanded an additional P2,000,000.00 in connection with the transfer, despite the property not being duly titled (Elca’s right derived only from a pending application on Friar Lands covering a lesser area).
Misrepresentations regarding the ownership status of the Bacoor property were made, intended to induce Lucero’s reliance.

Lucero, after confronting the petitioners for her money, filed a complaint with the Task Force Kamagong of the PACC.
On April 26, 1995, an entrapment operation was conducted at Furosato Restaurant in Pasay City.
During the operation, petitioners were apprehended with marked currency (100-peso bills amounting to P100,000.00) in relation to the preparation of a Deed of Assignment allegedly formulated to facilitate the fraudulent transaction.

The RTC of Pasay City, Branch 109, conducted its trial on the merits.
On March 17, 1998, the RTC found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted estafa, sentencing them to an imprisonment term of ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years.
A motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners was denied on December 28, 1998.

Petitioners appealed on several grounds including the sufficiency of evidence and the appropriateness of the penalty imposed.
The CA affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, reducing it to an indeterminate penalty spanning from six (6) months of arresto mayor as a minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as a maximum.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration before the CA was likewise denied on January 12, 2004.

The Supreme Court, in its decision dated June 1, 2011, affirmed the decisions of both the RTC and the CA.
It upheld the factual findings which established that petitioners committed attempted estafa through fraudulent misrepresentations related to both the Muntinlupa and Bacoor transactions.

Whether the petitioners, by misrepresenting their ownership status and by substituting a property not legitimately theirs, committed the felony of estafa.
Whether the evidence sufficiently established that petitioners employed fraudulent means to induce Lucero into parting with her money.

Whether the incomplete consummation of the fraudulent act (due to the intervention of law enforcement) qualifies the crime as attempted estafa rather than consummated estafa.
Whether the elements of deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation were proven sufficiently in both the initial and subsequent transactions.

Whether the modification of the penalty from the RTC’s sentencing to that imposed by the CA is proper.
Whether the incremental penalty based on the amount involved (considering the transaction was not consummated) should have been imposed or waived.