Case Summary (G.R. No. 189077)
Applicable Law
The relevant law governing the offense in question is Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes acts of deceit that lead to the misappropriation and conversion of another’s property.
Facts of the Case
Bernardo was charged with three counts of estafa in connection with loans obtained from Lucy R. Tanchiatco, amounting to P50,000, P75,000, and P200,000, through false representations regarding her ownership of certain properties and the falsification of a check. The prosecution's case rested on Tanchiatco’s testimony, which indicated that Bernardo misrepresented her financial standing and ownership of assets to induce Tanchiatco to lend her money.
Trial Proceedings
During the trial in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, the prosecution presented four witnesses, including Tanchiatco. The prosecution established that Bernardo falsely endorsed a bank check belonging to a third party and misrepresented her ownership of market stalls as collateral for loans. Bernardo denied guilt, arguing the absence of deceit, asserting the legitimacy of her actions.
RTC Ruling
On February 27, 2006, the RTC found Bernardo guilty in Criminal Case No. 02-120, stating that her actions constituted estafa as she misrepresented the authenticity of the check to gain funds unlawfully. However, Bernardo was acquitted in the other two cases where it deemed the affidavits of waiver irrelevant to the transactions and thus merely civil in nature.
Court of Appeals Decision
Bernardo appealed her conviction, arguing that the conviction was based solely on Sadie's testimony, which she claimed lacked corroboration. The Court of Appeals (CA) rejected her appeal on September 22, 2008, asserting that Sadie’s testimony sufficiently established Bernardo's guilt. The CA determined that there was ample evidence of deceit in Bernardo's actions leading to her conviction for estafa.
Finality and Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment
After failing to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period, the CA’s decision became final and executory on October 11, 2008. Bernardo, represented by new counsel, later filed a Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment, arguing that the delay was due to inadvertence on the part of her former lawyer's staff. The CA dismissed this motion as it deemed the counsel's negligence was binding on Bernardo.
Legal Principles on Finality of Judgments
The Supreme Court emphasized the principles of finality and immutability of judgments, asserting that such a decision cannot be modified after becoming final except in rare cases to prevent miscarriages of justice. The principle hold
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 189077)
Case Overview
- The case is a Petition for Certiorari regarding the September 22, 2008 Decision and May 13, 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 30290.
- Petitioner Lina M. Bernardo was convicted of estafa by means of false pretenses under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
- The conviction became final due to Bernardo's failure to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period.
Facts of the Case
- Bernardo faced three counts of estafa in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, Pampanga, under Criminal Case Nos. 02-120, 02-121, and 02-122.
- The details of each Criminal Case are as follows:
- Criminal Case No. 02-120: Bernardo induced complainant Lucy R. Tanchiatco to rediscount a falsified check worth P50,000.
- Criminal Case No. 02-121: Bernardo obtained a loan of P75,000 by misrepresenting ownership of property through a falsified affidavit.
- Criminal Case No. 02-122: Bernardo secured another loan of P200,000 under similar fraudulent pretenses.
Proceedings and Testimonies
- Bernardo pleaded "not guilty" and trial ensued with the prosecution presenting four witnesses, while the defense waived its right to present evidence.
- Tanchiatco testified about her history with Bernardo since 1982 and detailed numerous transactions where Bernardo misrepresented her financial capability and the authenticity of her collateral.
- Testimony from Marcial Sadie, the supposed issuer of the fraudulent check, confirmed that the check was never issued by him and his signature was forged.
- The RTC found Bernar