Case Digest (G.R. No. 229332)
Facts:
Marcelino B. Magalona v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 229332, August 27, 2020, Supreme Court First Division, Reyes, A., Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Marcelino B. Magalona and co-accused Evedin Vergara were criminally charged with Estafa for allegedly conspiring to defraud private complainant Joel P. Longares of PHP 3,500,000.00 by means of false pretenses and fraudulent documents in February 2005. The prosecution alleged that Vergara, an account officer at Equitable-PCI Bank, introduced petitioner to Joel and represented that petitioner owned several real properties (including a condominium in Wack-Wack and Binangonan lots covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-220998 and T-334802) which would secure the loan; Joel released the funds but later discovered the Wack-Wack unit belonged to Timothy Sycip and the Binangonan titles were spurious, and his demand for payment was ignored.
On arraignment petitioner pleaded not guilty; Evedin was at large. During pre-trial the parties stipulated to, among other things, the existence of TCT Nos. 220998 and 334802 registered in petitioner’s name, a Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 8, 1970, and the parties’ affidavits. The prosecution’s evidence emphasized Vergara’s role in procuring the loan and petitioner’s alleged misrepresentations and conversion of the money. Petitioner’s defense narrated meetings involving a purported authorization by Paul Sycip and Tessie Daez, an initial partial release of P1,200,000.00 and later P300,000.00, the preparation of special powers of attorney and a promissory note (with some blanks) and asserted that the Binangonan properties were offered only after the loan was already released.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), in a Judgment dated September 10, 2014, acquitted on Estafa but convicted petitioner of Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to six months arresto mayor and to indemnify Joel P. Longares P300,000.00. Joel moved for partial reconsideration seeking a civil award of P3,500,000.00; the RTC in an Order dated March 12, 2015 denied petitioner’s motion but granted Joel’s partial motion and modified the civil award to P3,500,000.00, citing a promissory note and petitioner’s acknowledgment receipt as proof.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 37514. The CA, in a Decision dated August 26, 2016 (pened by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Justices Diamante and Salandanan-Manahan concurring), affirmed the RTC’s conviction for Other Deceits under paragraph 1 of Article 318 and upheld civil liability of P3,500,000.00, reasoning that although Vergara had instigated the deception, petitioner participated by leading Joel to believe he owned the Binangonan properties and had the capacity to pay. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 13, 2017.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the CA’s Decision and Resolution, arguing (1) lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt of the elem...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, may the Supreme Court review and re-evaluate the Court of Appeals’ and trial court’s factual findings in this case?
- Were the elements of the crime of Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code proved against petitioner?
- Was the RTC/CA justified in imposing civil liability of PHP 3,500,...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)