G.R. No. 246986 - Spouses Tayamen vs. People

Petitioners, Spouses Ricardo Tayamen, Jr. and Carmelita Tayamen, were charged with the crime of Estafa under Article 316(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
The charge stemmed from an Information dated December 3, 2013, alleging that on or about February 29, 2012, in Manila, the petitioners unlawfully disposed of a 120-square meter parcel of land by selling it to Margarito G. Pacia, despite the property having been previously encumbered by a deed of sale in favor of Ma. Mildred G. Bangit.
The Information alleged that petitioners executed a Deed of Absolute Sale (evidenced by a document notarized by Atty. Wilfredo A. Ruiz) and later sold the same property to Pacia even though the property had already been conveyed to Bangit for the same amount of Php800,000.00.

On March 16, 2011, petitioners sold the subject property to Bangit for Php800,000.00.
Despite full payment, the petitioners failed to surrender the title, leading Bangit to secure an undertaking dated December 22, 2011 from the petitioners promising to turn over the title, which was subsequently reneged upon.
Petitioners allegedly sold the property a second time on February 29, 2012, to Spouses Margarito and Virginia Pacia.
After repeated demands, Bangit filed a complaint for Estafa due to non-refund of the purchase price; although a settlement was reached via several checks (which were later dishonored), resulting in the revival of the Estafa case.

Petitioners acknowledged the pre-existing loans they had secured from Bangit.
They contended that the deed of sale in favor of Bangit and the subsequent deed of sale to the Pacias were falsified, pointing to discrepancies in the notarized documents and certifications issued by the respective Clerk of Courts.
Petitioners also denied that the promissory notes and accompanying certifications were executed voluntarily, alleging that they were coerced.
Carmelita, while acknowledging the Manifestation prior to the Office of the City Prosecutor, denied any alterations in the document that purported to reflect their agreement.

The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila rendered a Decision on April 7, 2017 finding the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa with the following key findings:

All elements of Estafa under Article 316(2) of the RPC were proven, including the admission via the Manifestation of the sale and existing financial obligations toward Bangit.
Even though the petitioners denied the signatures on the Deeds, no supporting evidence of forgery was presented.
Notwithstanding any potential falsification of the deed with the Pacias, petitioners admitted to mortgaging the subject property.
The penalty imposed included arresto mayor for a period ranging from [two (2)] months and one day to three (3) months, fines of Php800,000.00, and joint and several civil liability to Bangit.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC’s decision on November 29, 2017, emphasizing that petitioners had been properly informed of the charges and that their defenses of denial and forgery were unsubstantiated.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC in its Resolution dated March 6, 2018.
The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed petitioners’ petition for review on November 6, 2018, upholding the earlier convictions and the civil award, and later denied a motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated May 7, 2019.

Petitioners elevated the issue to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
They objected on two core grounds:

That the Information was fatally defective as it did not allege that they expressly represented the subject property as free from encumbrance.
That the CA erred in affirming their conviction for Estafa under Article 316(2) of the RPC.

The prosecution argued that such defect in the Information was a mere formal defect correctable by amendment, and that petitioners’ failure to raise the objection earlier (prior to arraignment) constituted a waiver.

Whether the Information charged petitioners with an offense by failing to allege that they expressly represented that the property was free from any encumbrance.
Whether the failure to raise this defect before arraignment (as required under Section 3 and Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court) barred petitioners from raising the issue on appeal.

Whether the CA gravely erred in finding petitioners guilty of Estafa despite the alleged deficiency in the Information.
Whether the lower courts improperly fused criminal and civil actions by awarding civil liability ex delicto in a case where the fundamental elements of the crime of Estafa were not proven.