G.R. No. 174698 - Tamayo vs. People

An Information was filed on August 15, 1994 before the Tarlac City RTC charging Aurora Tamayo and her friend Erlinda Anicas with estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
The charge arose from an alleged fraudulent scheme where the accused, under the guise of being jeepney assemblers, persuaded Mr. and Mrs. Pedro Sotto to pay a total of ₱120,000.00 for the assembly of a passenger jeep, purportedly at a total purchase price of ₱210,000.00.

Testimonies of the spouses Sotto detailed that in May 1993, petitioner and Anicas first approached them as jeep assemblers and, during a subsequent visit on June 1, 1993, presented a Malaguena-type jeep as proof of their capability.
The spouses Sotto made a series of partial payments amounting to ₱120,000.00 (with specific disbursements on June 2, 4, 7, 24, and 30, 1993).
When the spouses later inquired about the progress and requested an inspection of the vehicle, petitioner evaded accountability by claiming the jeep was being assembled in Laguna and refusing to accompany Pedro Sotto for inspection.

Spouses Sotto, suspicious of the delay, engaged a lawyer who sent demand letters to petitioner and Anicas, requesting the return of the money.
Following their failure to repay, a formal complaint for estafa was filed.
Documentary evidence, including receipts and correspondence (demand and reply letters), was presented by the prosecution to authenticate the partial payments and to corroborate the spouses’ claims.

Petitioner’s sole testimony asserted that she merely acted as an intermediary by introducing Pedro to a mechanic, Ernesto Ravana, who had agreed to assemble the jeep for ₱120,000.00.
She explained that after receiving ₱60,000.00 from Pedro (subsequently turned over to Ravana), Pedro later decided to cancel the assembly project, prompting her to commit to reimburse him the said amount.
Petitioner claimed that a compromise agreement was reached with Pedro, evidenced by a handwritten receipt, ostensibly extinguishing any further liability.

On October 24, 1997, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting petitioner of estafa, imposing an indeterminate penalty ranging from a minimum of 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day of prision correccional to a maximum of 17 years of reclusion temporal, along with an order to pay actual and moral damages to the spouses Sotto.
The Court of Appeals, on April 22, 2004, affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
A Resolution on December 13, 2005 declared the appellate decision final and executory as of June 1, 2004.
Subsequent orders were issued for the execution of the judgment, including an arrest order dated June 13, 2006, and a motion by petitioner seeking suspension of the execution based on her claim of a compromise with Pedro.

On November 2, 2006, petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court, questioning whether the final and executory Decision of the Court of Appeals could be modified or set aside due to the alleged compromise with Pedro.
Petitioner argued that the settlement (i.e., the reimbursement of ₱120,000.00 and Pedro’s purported agreement to dismiss charges) should render the execution of the judgment unjust and inequitable.
She also contended that her former counsel’s failure to present evidence of this compromise before the Court of Appeals should not be held against her.

Whether the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed petitioner’s conviction and had become final and executory, can be modified or set aside in view of an alleged compromise agreement with the offended party.
Whether the alleged compromise, even if established, extinguishes petitioner’s criminal liability for estafa, considering that estafa is a public offense.
Whether any error in the imposition of the penalty (specifically the inclusion of an additional day in the minimum term) can be corrected after the judgment has attained finality.
The extent to which the negligence or mistake of petitioner’s counsel may affect the execution of a final judgment.