Case Digest (G.R. No. 146770)
Facts:
Orlando P. Naya v. Sps. Abraham and Guillerma Abing and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 146770, February 27, 2003, the Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Orlando P. Naya owned in fee simple a parcel in Talisay, Cebu (Lot 2049-B, TCT No. 65042). On December 14, 1987 he and respondents Abraham and Guillerma Abing executed a Contract to Sell covering two parcels (total 400 sq. m.) for P60,000, with a P20,000 downpayment and monthly installments of P1,015.74 for five years; the contract obligated petitioner to execute a final Deed of Sale and deliver title upon full payment. Guillerma Abing paid P20,000 down and thereafter regularly remitted larger monthly payments; receipts issued by petitioner and his agent Loreta Bacaltos show cumulative payments of P54,000.
Unknown to the Spouses, petitioner executed a Deed of Absolute Sale on January 13, 1989 conveying Lot 2049-B and other lots to William Po for P200,000; a new title (TCT No. 67775) in Po’s name was registered December 5, 1989. Despite this, petitioner continued to accept payments and on December 27, 1989 consented to the Spouses’ construction of a fence (hollow blocks costing P40,000). During construction Po evicted the Spouses.
On February 28, 1992 Guillerma executed an affidavit and, through counsel, filed a criminal complaint for estafa against petitioner and Loreta Bacaltos. After preliminary investigation, an Information charging estafa under Article 316(2) of the Revised Penal Code was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu City, which admitted the prosecution’s documentary evidence and, after the accused’s counsel failed to appear for presentation of defense evidence, declared the accused to have waived his right to present evidence. On June 23, 1994, the RTC convicted petitioner of estafa under Article 316(2), sentenced him to imprisonment and ordered payment of P92,000 plus consequential damages and other amounts.
Petiti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner properly charged and convicted of estafa under Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code when the Information did not allege an express representation that the property was free from encumbrance?
- If the conviction is reversed for lack of a proper charge, is petitioner nevertheless civilly liable to the Spouses for actual, moral, exemplary damages and attorneys...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)