Case Digest (A.C. No. 10031)
Facts:
This is Cresencio C. Milla v. People of the Philippines and Market Pursuits, Inc., G.R. No. 188726, January 25, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Sereno, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Cresencio C. Milla (Milla) was charged with two counts of estafa through falsification of public documents after private respondent Market Pursuits, Inc. (MPI), through its Financial Officer Carlo V. Lopez, paid P2,000,000 for a Makati property Milla claimed to have authority to sell.In March 2003 Milla represented himself as a real estate developer and showed Lopez a photocopy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 216445 in the names of spouses Farley and Jocelyn Handog and a Special Power of Attorney allegedly executed in Milla’s favor. Convinced, MPI issued SBTC Check No. 154670 for P1,600,000 as partial payment; Milla gave Lopez a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale (dated 25 March 2003) and an original Owner’s Duplicate of TCT No. 216445. Milla later tendered a purported new TCT No. 218777 in MPI’s name and obtained the P400,000 balance via SBTC Check No. 15467111.
When MPI sought receipts for transfer taxes, Lopez checked with the Registry of Deeds and discovered that (1) the Registry had no record of the purported TCT No. 218777 in MPI’s name; (2) no transfer from the Handogs to MPI had been effected; and (3) TCT No. 218777 was actually registered in the name of Matilde M. Tolentino. Lopez demanded return of the P2,000,000; Milla thereafter issued Equitable PCI Checks Nos. 188954 and 188955 for P1,000,000 each, which were dishonored for insufficient funds.
MPI (through Lopez) filed a complaint on 4 August 2003. Informations for two counts of estafa through falsification of public documents were filed on 27 and 29 October 2003 and raffled to the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Makati City, Branch 146 (RTC Br. 146). After the prosecution rested, Milla, with leave, filed a Demurrer to Evidence which RTC Br. 146 denied on 26 January 2006; the court ordered him to present evidence but he failed to do so, and it treated his right to present evidence as waived while still allowing him to file a memorandum.
In its Joint Decision of 28 November 2006, RTC Br. 146 found Milla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of estafa through falsification of public documents and imposed indeterminate prison terms and civil liability for P2,000,000 plus interest and attorney’s fees. Milla appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Juan Enriquez, Jr., affirmed the RTC on 22 April 2009 and denied his motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated 8 July 2009.
Milla filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court challenging the CA Decision and Resolution (Rule 45 review), raising, inter alia, counsel’s negligence depriving him of due process, applicability of novat...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner deprived of due process by the negligence of his counsel?
- Can the principle of novation extinguish petitioner’s criminal liability in this case?
- Should the factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, be d...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)