Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-12-2333)
Key Dates
Alleged receipt of jewelry: August 4, 2007. RTC Judgment of conviction: September 30, 2010. Motion to reopen filed October 14, 2010; RTC Order partly granting reopening: January 6, 2011; RTC Order affirming judgment: April 18, 2011. CA Decision affirming conviction: January 11, 2016; CA Resolution denying reconsideration: April 14, 2016. Supreme Court decision resolving the petition: January 22, 2018.
Applicable Law and Procedural Rules
Substantive crime charged: Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. Procedural rule on reopening criminal proceedings: Section 24, Rule 119 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Relevant jurisprudence cited includes Cabaries v. Maceda on the parameters for reopening and Cheng v. People on the elements of estafa. Penal modification statute: Republic Act No. 10951 (adjustment of values and penalties), applied retroactively insofar as it is favorable to the accused. The 1987 Philippine Constitution is the governing charter applicable to this case.
Factual Allegations and Documentary Basis
The Information alleges that on August 4, 2007 petitioner received several pieces of jewelry on consignment from FariAas with an aggregate value of P439,500.00, under an express obligation to remit proceeds of sale or return unsold items not later than August 11, 2007. A document described as a jewelry consignment agreement bearing Rivac’s signature was introduced by the prosecution. After the agreed period lapsed, the prosecution alleges Rivac failed to return the jewelry or remit proceeds despite repeated demands; FariAas sent a demand letter and, upon an attempted debtor offer of a titled parcel as partial payment, rejected it because the property was involved in a dispute.
Petitioner’s Version and Trial Plea
At arraignment Rivac pleaded not guilty and asserted that her liability, if any, was civil rather than criminal. Her account, consistently maintained at trial and in later proceedings, was that she obtained a loan from FariAas for her husband’s dialysis: she allegedly delivered Original Certificate of Title No. 0-936 and supporting documents as collateral, received P150,000, and signed a blank consignment document as security. She contended she paid interest for several months but did not repay the principal; she was later demanded to pay P280,000 plus interest and informed that the collateral might be foreclosed.
RTC Proceedings, Findings and Initial Judgment
The RTC, in its September 30, 2010 Judgment, convicted Rivac of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b), sentencing her to an indeterminate term of imprisonment and ordering payment of P439,500.00 plus costs. The RTC reasoned that the prosecution established the essential elements: receipt of the jewelry under consignment (as evidenced by the consignment document with Rivac’s signature) and failure to return the jewelry or remit proceeds after the seven-day period, to the prejudice of FariAas. The RTC rejected Rivac’s explanation that the document reflected a loan transaction subject to collateral, invoking the parol evidence rule to bar evidence attempting to modify the written consignment document.
Motion to Reopen and Re-taken Testimony
Before the judgment became final, Rivac moved to reopen the proceedings to present additional witnesses. The RTC, by order dated January 6, 2011, partially granted the motion to the extent of allowing FariAas to clarify her testimony, on account of an apparent revision in recollection, but denied reopening as to another witness for lack of justification for nonproduction at trial. Upon recall, FariAas purportedly “clarified” that the consignment document never became effective because she had not allowed Rivac to take the jewelry pending repayment of the outstanding loan, effectively offering a recantation of her earlier testimony.
Legal Framework for Reopening Criminal Proceedings
Section 24, Rule 119 permits reopening of criminal proceedings at any time before finality of the judgment of conviction to avoid a miscarriage of justice, subject to hearing and termination of additional proceedings within thirty days. Cabaries v. Maceda and related jurisprudence set forth that reopening may be allowed even after promulgation but before finality, provided it serves the paramount interest of justice and is exercised without abuse of discretion. The requirements include that the reopening be before finality, be ordered after hearing, aim to prevent miscarriage of justice, and that further evidence presentation be completed within the statutory period.
Court of Appeals’ Ruling and Its Reasoning
The CA affirmed the conviction in its January 11, 2016 Decision. The CA opined preliminarily that the RTC erred in reopening the proceedings because its judgment had already been promulgated, equating such reopening to a prohibited new trial. On the merits the CA nonetheless found that all elements of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) were present and regarded FariAas’s subsequent recantation as inherently unreliable and insufficient to overturn her earlier testimony.
Supreme Court’s Assessment of the Reopening
The Supreme Court held that the CA erred in concluding the RTC improperly reopened the proceedings. Emphasizing the plain language and purpose of Section 24, Rule 119 and the Cabaries formulation, the Court confirmed that a motion to reopen is permissible after promulgation and before finality of judgment when necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The RTC therefore acted within the parameters of the rule in allowing FariAas to clarify her testimony.
Elements of Estafa Under Article 315(1)(b) and Their Application
Article 315(1)(b) penalizes misappropriation or conversion to the prejudice of another of money, goods, or other personal property received in trust, on commission, for administration, or under an obligation to return. The elements are: (a) receipt of property under such trust, commission, administration, or other obligation; (b) misappropriation or conversion, or denial of receipt; (c) prejudice to another; and (d) demand by the offended party for return. Applying these elements, the Court found: (a) the consignment document and circumstances established receipt of jewelry by Rivac on consignment; (b) Rivac failed to return the items or remit proceeds after the agreed seven-day period and gave no satisfactory account, which raises the legal presumption of misappropriation; (c) FariAas suffered prejudice in the aggregate amount of P439,500.00; and (d) FariAas made demand for compliance.
Credibility of Recanted Testimony and Its Effect
The Court applied settled principles regarding recantation: retractions of testimony given solemnly in court are viewed with disfavor because they are often unreliable and may be induced by improper motives after conviction. Jurisp
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-12-2333)
Case Citation and Panel
- Supreme Court Decision reported at 824 Phil. 156, Second Division, G.R. No. 224673, January 22, 2018.
- Decision penned by Justice Perlas-Bernabe.
- Concurrence by Carpio (Chairperson), Caguioa, Tijam, and Reyes, Jr., JJ.
- Designated additional member per raffle dated December 13, 2017: Justice Tijam.
Nature of the Case
- Petition for review on certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals Decision dated January 11, 2016 and Resolution dated April 14, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR No. 34247.
- Appellant / petitioner: Cecilia Rivac (hereafter “Rivac”).
- Respondent: People of the Philippines.
- Subject: Conviction for the crime of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and related procedural questions regarding reopening of criminal proceedings.
Accusation (Information) — Express Charges and Specifics
- Information filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Laoag City, Branch 14, charged Rivac with Estafa.
- Accusatory portion alleges that on or about August 4, 2007, in Laoag City, Rivac received for sale on consignment from Asuncion C. FariAas the following jewelry items with the stated values:
- One (1) set diamante — P125,000.00
- One (1) set heart shape with titus — P85,000.00
- One (1) pc. 7 days bangle — P80,000.00
- One (1) pc. bracelet w. charm — P55,000.00
- One (1) set rositas w. bagets — P45,600.00
- One (1) pc. charm tauco w. pendant — P48,900.00
- Total aggregate value: P439,500.00
- Alleged agreement: Rivac to remit proceeds of sale or return unsold jewelry to FariAas not later than August 11, 2007.
- Charge: Despite repeated demands, Rivac willfully misappropriated and converted the pieces to her own use, to the prejudice of FariAas, in the amount of P439,500.00.
Prosecution’s Allegations and Evidence
- Prosecution alleges receipt of jewelry for consignment evidenced by a document called the jewelry consignment agreement (consignment document), which contains Rivac’s signature.
- Alleged agreed period: seven (7) days to remit proceeds or return unsold items.
- After lapse of period, Rivac did not return the jewelry nor remit proceeds, prompting FariAas to send a demand letter.
- Rivac went to FariAas’s store and offered a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-936 as partial payment; FariAas refused because the property was involved in a land dispute and reiterated demand for return or cash payment.
Accused’s Defense and Version of Events
- Rivac pleaded “not guilty” and contended that liability was civil, not criminal.
- Rivac’s narrative:
- She sought a loan from FariAas for her husband’s dialysis; FariAas agreed.
- Rivac handed over OCT No. 0-936 and other documents as collateral to FariAas.
- FariAas gave her P150,000.00 and asked her to sign a blank consignment document.
- Rivac paid interest for several months but could not pay the entire loan.
- FariAas allegedly told her she would foreclose the collateral and later sent a letter demanding payment of principal amount P280,000.00 plus interest.
RTC Proceedings — Trial Court Findings and Judgment
- RTC Judgment dated September 30, 2010 (Presiding Judge Francisco R. D. Quilala) found Rivac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) RPC.
- RTC sentence imposed (as promulgated): imprisonment for indeterminate period of four (4) years and two (2) months prision correccional as minimum to twenty (20) years reclusion temporal as maximum.
- RTC ordered payment to FariAas of P439,500.00 and costs of suit.
- RTC reasoning and findings:
- (a) Rivac received the jewelry from FariAas, evidenced by consignment document containing her signature.
- (b) Rivac failed to return jewelry or remit proceeds after agreed seven (7)-day period, to FariAas’s prejudice.
- RTC did not credit Rivac’s assertion that she signed consignment document merely as proof of loan (parol evidence rule applied). Absent exceptions to the parol evidence rule, evidence could not modify/explain/add to terms of that written document.
- RTC observed that FariAas’s possession of OCT No. 0-936 resulted from Rivac’s offer of the same as partial payment, but FariAas decided against accepting it.
Motion to Reopen Proceedings — RTC Orders and Re-taken Testimony
- Rivac moved to reopen proceedings before judgment became final, citing intent to present testimonies of FariAas and Atty. Ma. Valenie Blando to prove the true nature of the transaction.
- RTC Order dated January 6, 2011 partly granted the motion:
- Allowed reopening insofar as FariAas’s testimony was concerned due to apparent revision of recollection that could not have been anticipated during trial.
- Denied reopening as to Atty. Blando’s testimony for lack of showing that Rivac could not present her during trial proper.
- Re-taken testimony of FariAas during reopened proceedings: she “clarified” she now remembered that the consignment document never became effective or enforceable because she did not allow Rivac to take the jewelry as Rivac had yet to pay outstanding loan plus interest.
- RTC, in an Order dated April 18, 2011, affirmed its assailed Judgment and held:
- FariAas’s post-judgment change of testimony was in the nature of a recantation and is disfavored.
- RTC noted various prior circumstances when FariAas could have made a correct recollection but did not: sending a demand letter, barangay conciliation, executing complaint-affidavit, paying filing fee, and testifying before the court.
- RTC found the retraction inconsistent with Rivac’s testimony and unworthy of credence.
Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution
- CA Decision dated January 11, 2016 (CA-G.R. CR No. 34247) affirmed Rivac’s conviction.
- CA preliminary ruling: RTC erred in allowing reopening because the RTC had already promulgated its judgment; CA likened RTC proceedings after promulgation to a new trial and found such reopening improper.
- On the merits, CA found elements o