Case Digest (G.R. No. 152481)
Facts:
Ma. Anacleta Rachelle Paguirigan y Cueto v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 255308, February 12, 2024, Supreme Court Second Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ma. Anacleta Rachelle Paguirigan y Cueto (Anacleta) was criminally charged by private complainant Elizabeth Delos Trinos with two counts of estafa through false pretenses under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case Nos. 16‑03867 and 16‑03868 (filed February 26, 2016). The Informations alleged that Anacleta, representing herself as a licensed developer and owner/general manager of AJ Construction & Dev’t Co., induced Elizabeth to buy a house and lot and thereby obtained money by fraudulent representations.
The factual background shows two transactions. In 2008 the parties executed a contract to sell a lot on Spud St., East Fairview, Quezon City; the contract expressly named Alfredo A. Rosanna as the vendor and identified Anacleta as his representative, and Elizabeth paid ₱100,000 as initial payment; the sale did not push through because the owner sold the property to another buyer. In 2009 the parties executed another contract to sell a different lot on Winston St.; Elizabeth paid ₱780,000 but the bank denied her housing loan and the sale failed; Elizabeth later demanded refund of the total ₱880,000. Anacleta issued checks to effect refund but those checks bounced.
At trial before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 225, Quezon City (Crim. Case No. R‑QZN‑16‑03867‑CR for the Spud St. transaction and R‑QZN‑16‑03868‑CR for the Winston St. transaction), Anacleta pleaded not guilty and asserted she was the general manager of a duly registered construction company and had been acting as a representative of property owners; she also claimed she instructed that her refund checks be deposited only after notice of sufficiency of funds. On July 20, 2018, the RTC convicted Anacleta in Criminal Case No. 16‑03867, finding she falsely pretended to be the owner in the first transaction (sentenced for estafa) but acquitted her in Criminal Case No. 16‑03868 for failure of proof; the RTC nevertheless held her civilly liable to return a total of ₱780,000 (with interest).
Anacleta appealed to the Court of Appeals (Special Eight Division) in CA‑G.R. CR No. 42175. On January 24, 2020 the CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction in the first case (though it modified the penalty), finding that Anacleta misrepresented she had the power to transfer the lot and failed to produce a Special Power of Attorney. Reconsiderat...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner deprived of her constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation by a material variance between the allegations in the Information and the prosecution proof?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of estafa by false pretenses (Art. 315(2)(a), RPC)?
- Does civil liability in favor of the private complainant survive despite petitioner’s acquittal, and is the judicial ad...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)