Case Digest (G.R. No. 215132)
Facts:
Spouses Isidro Dulay III and Elena Dulay, Petitioners, were charged with and convicted of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code for selling a 450-square meter lot in Baguio City to spouses Isabelo and Hilaria Dulos, receiving installment payments totaling P707,000 while the Torrens title (TCT No. T-2135) showed different registered owners. The RTC found them guilty; the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification for interest, and petitioners sought review in this Court.
Issues:
- Whether or not petitioners are guilty of the crime of estafa when the private complainants were aware that the subject property was not in petitioners' names at the time of the transaction?
- Assuming deceit, whether petitioners were correctly convicted under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code instead of estafa under Article 316(1) of the Revised Penal Code?
Ruling:
The Court affirmed the conviction of petitioners for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, holding that they falsely pretended ownership and induced the spouses Dulos to part with P707,000. The Court modified the penalty under RA 10951, sentencing petitioners to an indeterminate term of two months and one day of arresto mayor as minimum to one year and one day of prision correccional as maximum, and ordered interest on the P707,000 computed as stipulated in the decision.
Ratio:
The Court found that the elements of estafa by deceit were established: petitioners made false pretenses (claiming they were the registered owners and that title reconstitution was underway), these misrepresentations were made prior to or simultaneous with the fraud, the spouses Dulos relied on them and parted with money, and suffered damage. The Court rejected petitioners' reliance on buyers' alleged knowledge of unregistered title because TCT No. T-2135 was never in petitioners' names and concealment and conflicting explanations evidenced deceit. The Court distinguished Article 316(1) as applying where the offender exercised acts of dominion or ownership beyond mere false pretenses, which was absent here, and applied RA 10951 to adjust the penalty and directed specific interest computations.
Doctrine:
- The elements of estafa by deceit under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) false pretense or fraudulent act, (2) made prior to or simultaneous with the fraud, (3) reliance by the victim, and (4) resulting damage.
- (Get Pro to unlock 5 more doctrines)