G.R. No. L-15811 - IN RE: Manuel vs. Republic

Background and transaction
In November 1980, private respondent Encarnacion Penalosa entrusted her 1976 Ford Escort to petitioner Lauro Santos for carburetor repair, agreed to cost P300.00; within a week Santos persuaded Penalosa to have the car repainted by him for P6,500.00 to be completed within two months.
After two months, when Penalosa went to Santos’ repair shop at MacArthur Highway, Malabon to retrieve the car, Santos refused delivery unless she paid P634.60 for the repairs; she left to get the money, returned and could not find Santos, waited five hours; subsequent visits revealed Santos had abandoned the shop and the car could not be recovered.

Preliminary police action and civil instruments
Penalosa filed a complaint for carnaping with the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group at Camp Crame; that case was dismissed after Santos presented a Deed of Sale with Right of Repurchase purportedly showing Penalosa had sold the vehicle to him.
The Deed of Sale presented by Santos was later shown at trial to be suspicious: it contained alterations and deletions not initialed, two cancelled paragraphs, a crossed-out name and address replaced by Santos’ name, and it was not notarized.

Criminal prosecution and lower court proceedings
On October 26, 1982, an information for estafa was filed against Santos in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City based on Penalosa’s complaint.
After trial the RTC found Santos guilty as charged and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional and ordered indemnification of P38,000.00 (value of the car).

Appellate proceedings prior to the Supreme Court
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed conviction but recharacterized the offense as qualified theft, sentencing Santos to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months (prision mayor to reclusion temporal) and ordered indemnity of P20,000.00.
Santos defended on several grounds: alleged inconsistencies in Penalosa’s testimony; assertion that Penalosa sold the car to him (relying on the Deed of Sale with Right of Repurchase); claimed payment to Penalosa (P6,000.00) and alleged involvement of a third party, Domingo Corsiga, whom he did not present as witness.

Facts developed at trial relevant to credibility and proof
The Court found the alleged deed to be spurious and pointed to lack of notarization, uninitialed alterations, cancellations, and unexplained substitutions of names; there was no proof of the claimed payment to Penalosa and no corroboration from Domingo Corsiga despite Santos’ allegations that Corsiga was involved in the purported sale and redemption.
Santos’ own trial testimony was inconsistent: he at times declared the car belonged to him and that the right of repurchase expired after two months; he admitted he did not register the car in his name and even suggested he could cannibalize and sell its parts; he failed to produce Corsiga to corroborate his redemption story.

Legal and evidentiary issues
Whether the prosecution presented sufficient and credible evidence to support conviction for the offense charged.
Whether the Deed of Sale with Right of Repurchase presented by petitioner was authentic and sufficient to establish ownership by Santos or to negate criminal liability.

Substantive and procedural legal issues
Whether the correct characterization of the offense is estafa, theft, or qualified theft given the facts and the description in the information.
Whether the reclassification of the offense by the Court of Appeals to qualified theft was proper when the information charged estafa and did not allege the qualifying circumstance relied upon.
Proper computation of the penalty considering the value of the car (P38,000.00), applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Article 309 as applied), and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, including whether proven circumstances should be treated as qualifying or aggravating.