Case Summary (G.R. No. 215132)
Facts of the Transaction
Petitioners, purporting to be the owners of a 450-sqm lot in Baguio City, presented a photocopy of TCT No. T-2135 allegedly in their names. They claimed Elena and “Virginia Dulay” were the same person and offered the property at ₱950,000, with ₱150,000 down and ₱30,000 monthly installments. Complainants paid a total of ₱707,000 but never received title. Inquiry at the Registry of Deeds revealed that the real registered owners were the late spouses Isidro and Virginia Dulay and that petitioners held no color of title.
Procedural History
- RTC denied petitioners’ motion to quash, tried the case on estafa under Article 315(2)(a), and found them guilty.
- CA affirmed with modification, adding 6% interest on damages from decision’s finality.
- Petitioners filed SC petition for certiorari; SC resolved in 2021.
Issues Presented
- Whether petitioners committed estafa under Article 315(2)(a) despite complainants’ knowledge that title had not yet been transferred.
- Whether the correct charge was estafa under RPC Article 316(1) carrying a lower penalty.
RTC Ruling
The RTC held that petitioners executed false pretenses and fraudulent acts—misrepresenting themselves as registered owners—to induce payment of ₱707,000. It sentenced them to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years 2 months prision correccional (minimum) to 20 years reclusion temporal (maximum).
CA Ruling
The CA denied the appeal, affirmed the RTC conviction, and modified civil liability by imposing 6% per annum interest on damages from the finality of its decision until full payment.
Elements of Estafa by Deceit Established
- False pretenses/fraudulent acts: Petitioners claimed ownership, processing of title reconstitution, identity as the Dulays on the real TCT, and alternative hereditary claims.
- Prior or simultaneous execution: Misrepresentations preceded or accompanied payment demands.
- Reliance: Complainants entrusted ₱707,000 based on those misrepresentations.
- Damage: Complainants suffered pecuniary loss.
Distinction from Other Swindling (Article 316)
Article 316(1) requires an act of dominion or ownership (e.g., conveyance, mortgage) over real property. Petitioners only pretended ownership and sold the lot; they never exercised true dominion beyond misrepresentation. Hence, Article 315(2)(a) applies.
Penalty Adjustment under RA 10951
- Amount involved: ₱707,000 (over ₱40,000 but not exceeding ₱1,200,000)
- Revised penalty: arresto mayor (maximum) to prision correccional (minimum)
- Indeterminate sentence: 2 months 1 day arresto mayor (mini
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 215132)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed before the Supreme Court challenging:
• April 29, 2014 Decision and October 15, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33777
• These had affirmed with modification the RTC of Agoo, La Union Branch 32’s September 14, 2010 Decision in Criminal Case No. A-5180. - Petitioners’ Motion to Quash the Information under Article 316(1) RPC was denied by the RTC (December 19, 2007).
- Both lower courts convicted petitioners of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
Factual Background
- Petitioners (spouses Dulay) purported to own and sell a 450-sqm lot in Baguio City to spouses Dulos for ₱950,000.
- Terms of sale: down payment ₱150,000; ₱30,000 monthly for two years; title to be delivered once payments reached ₱450,000.
- Petitioners produced a photocopy of TCT No. T-2135 registered in “Isidro and Virginia Dulay,” claiming Virginia and Elena are the same person.
- Spouses Dulos paid a total of ₱707,000 but never received title or copy thereof.
- Investigation revealed real registered owners “Isidro and Virginia Dulay” were deceased, their namesake and daughter (Carmencita) still alive; petitioners held no title.
RTC Ruling
- Convicted petitioners of estafa by false pretenses under Art. 315(2)(a) RPC.
- Sentence imposed: indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional (minimum) to 20 years of reclusion temporal (maximum).
- Found all elements of estafa by deceit established beyond reasonable doubt.
CA Ruling
- Affirmed RTC conviction and sentence.
- Modified civil liability: ordered payment of 6% interest per annum on actual damages (₱707,000) from finality of decision until full payment.
- Reaffirmed that petitioners misrepresented ownership and induced complainants to pay ₱707,000.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether petitioners are guilty of estafa when complainants k