Case Digest (G.R. No. 246986)
Facts:
Spouses Ricardo Tayamen, Jr. and Carmelita Tayamen, petitioners, v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 246986, April 28, 2021, Supreme Court Third Division, Delos Santos, J., writing for the Court.In an Information dated December 3, 2013, the Manila Senior Assistant City Prosecutor charged petitioners with Estafa under Article 316(2) of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly selling a 120-square-meter parcel of land on March 16, 2011 to Ma. Mildred G. Bangit for ₱800,000, then later disposing/conveying the same property to Margarito G. Pacia on February 29, 2012. The Information alleged prejudice to Bangit in the amount of ₱800,000.
At arraignment petitioners pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 5, where the prosecution presented Bangit’s testimony, documentary evidence including deeds, and a manifestation executed before the prosecutor; petitioners denied the signatures on the deeds and asserted forgery and coercion as to promissory notes. The MeTC, in a Decision dated April 7, 2017, found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article 316(2) and sentenced them and ordered payment of ₱800,000 civil indemnity.
Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16, Manila. In a Decision dated November 29, 2017, the RTC dismissed the appeal, affirmed the MeTC conviction, and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 6, 2018. Petitioners then filed a petition for review under Rule 42 before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated November 6, 2018, denied the petition and affirmed the RTC, reasoning among others that petitioners waived formal defects in the Information and that the elements of Estafa were proven; its Resolution denying reconsideration was dated May 7, 2019.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioners waive the right to challenge the sufficiency of the Information for failure to allege an express representation that the real property was free from encumbrance?
- Was petitioners’ conviction for Estafa under Article 316(2) of the Revised Penal Code supported by an Information that alleged all essential elements of that offense and by p...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)