G.R. No. 246986 - Spouses Tayamen vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 246986)

Factual Background

On March 16, 2011, the petitioners allegedly sold a 120-square meter parcel of land in Barangay Palapala, Dasmariñas, Cavite, then covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1028878, to Ma. Mildred G. Bangit for PHP 800,000.00. Despite purported full payment, the petitioners allegedly failed to deliver the title and, after repeated demands, executed an undertaking dated December 22, 2011 to turn over the title but did not comply. An information later alleged a subsequent sale of the same property to Margarito G. Pacia on February 29, 2012 for PHP 800,000.00, with the Registry of Deeds issuing a new certificate in Pacia’s name.

Procedural Posture

An Information dated December 3, 2013 charged the petitioners with Estafa under Article 316 (2) of the Revised Penal Code. The petitioners pleaded not guilty, underwent pretrial, and proceeded to trial. The MeTC convicted petitioners on April 7, 2017. The RTC affirmed the conviction on November 29, 2017 and denied reconsideration on March 6, 2018. The petitioners filed a petition for review under Rule 42 before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition and affirmed the conviction on November 6, 2018; its denial of reconsideration followed on May 7, 2019. The petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.

Version of the Prosecution

The People of the Philippines alleged that the petitioners sold the subject lot to Bangit for PHP 800,000.00, received full payment but withheld the title, and then disposed of the same property to Spouses Pacia on February 29, 2012. The prosecution asserted that petitioners knew of the prior sale and encumbrance and that their subsequent conveyance defrauded Bangit to her damage of PHP 800,000.00. The prosecution relied on documents, notations of an undertaking, and the fact of registration in Pacia’s name.

Version of the Defense

The petitioners admitted acquaintance with Bangit and their prior loans from her but denied the genuineness or due execution of the Deed of Sale in Bangit’s favor and the later Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Spouses Pacia, asserting forgery and coercion. They submitted certifications from clerks of court for RTC Manila and Trece Martires that the alleged deeds were not among notarized submissions of the named notaries. Carmelita acknowledged a prosecutorial Manifestation reflecting terms of a purported settlement but denied alterations and the authenticity of markings. The petitioners contended that the transaction evidence presented by the prosecution did not prove the essential elements of Estafa under Article 316 (2).

Ruling of the Metropolitan Trial Court

The Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, Branch 5 found the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article 316 (2) in a Decision dated April 7, 2017. The MeTC concluded that the elements of Article 316 (2) were established, treated the parties’ Manifestation before the city prosecutor as an acknowledgment of the sale and obligations, found no convincing proof of forgery, and observed that petitioners admitted mortgaging the property to Spouses Pacia despite the asserted sale to Bangit. The MeTC imposed imprisonment and ordered payment of PHP 800,000.00 as indemnity.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 16 dismissed the petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the MeTC Decision on November 29, 2017. The RTC held that petitioners were duly informed of the charge and were accorded due process, that they waived defects in the Information by failing to raise them before arraignment, and that their assertions of denial and forgery lacked clear and convincing proof.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals dismissed the Rule 42 petition and affirmed the RTC judgment on November 6, 2018. The CA held that the petitioners waived any defects in the Information by not moving to quash before arraignment and by participating in proceedings; that the elements of Estafa were proven beyond reasonable doubt; that alleged variances in signatures did not establish forgery; and that the Manifestation before the city prosecutor constituted an implied admission supporting conviction. The CA maintained the award of civil indemnity ex delicto.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the key controversies as: whether petitioners may challenge the sufficiency of the Information on the ground it failed to charge an offense; and whether the CA erred in affirming conviction for Estafa under Article 316 (2) of the Revised Penal Code.

Petitioners’ Contentions before the Supreme Court

The petitioners asserted that the Information was fatally defective because it omitted the allegation that they made an express representation that the real property was free from encumbrance, an essential element of Article 316 (2). They urged that absence of that allegation meant the Information did not charge the crime alleged and that they could attack the sufficiency of the Information at any stage.

Prosecution’s Contentions before the Supreme Court

The prosecution countered that the alleged defect in the Information was formal and curable by amendment, that the petitioners waived any defect by failing to move to quash before arraignment and by actively participating in trial, and that the evidence established the elements of Estafa irrespective of the formal pleading.

Legal Principles on Motion to Quash and Sufficiency of the Information

The Court reviewed Rule 117, Secs. 3 and 9 and Rule 110, Sec. 6. It reiterated that an accused may move to quash prior to arraignment on enumerated grounds, including that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. The Court explained that failure to assert a ground for quashal before plea generally effects waiver, but that Section 9 excepts grounds in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of Section 3; the ground that the Information fails to charge an offense is thus not waived by pleading and may be raised later, even on appeal or motu proprio by the Court. The Court cited Naya v. Sps. Abing and Estrellado-Mainar v. People to underscore that an Information must allege every essential element of the charged offense.

Application to Article 316 (2) Estafa Elements

The Court set forth the essential elements of Estafa under Article 316 (2) as: (one) the thing disposed of is real property; (two) the offender knew the property was encumbered; (three) the offender made an express representation that the property was free from encumbrance; and (four) the disposition was to the damage of another. The Court held that the Information must specifically allege the express representation that the property was free from encumbrance to validly charge Article 316 (2).

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Holding on Sufficiency of the Information

A review of the Information revealed no allegation that petitioners expressly represented in the subsequent Deed of Sale to Pacia that the property was free from encumbrance. Citing Naya and Estrellado-Mainar, the Court concluded that the Information failed to charge an offense under Article 316 (2). The Court therefore determined that the MeTC committed reversible error in convicting the petitioners and that the RTC and the CA erred in affirming the conviction.

Disposition on Criminal Liability and Immediate Consequences

The

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 246986)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Spouses Ricardo Tayamen, Jr. and Carmelita Tayamen were the petitioners before the Court seeking review under Rule 45, Rules of Court of the conviction affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
People of the Philippines was the respondent in the criminal prosecution charging the petitioners with Estafa under Article 316 (2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The conviction arose from a Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court which was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and subsequently by the Court of Appeals.
The petitioners assailed the CA Decision dated November 6, 2018 and Resolution dated May 7, 2019 by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Key Factual Allegations

Ma. Mildred G. Bangit alleged that petitioners sold to her a 120-square-meter parcel of land on March 16, 2011 for Php800,000.00 then covered by TCT No. T-1028878.
Petitioners allegedly failed to deliver the title despite full payment and executed an undertaking dated December 22, 2011 to turn over the title but later reneged.
Petitioners allegedly conveyed the same parcel to Margarito G. Pacia on February 29, 2012 by a Deed of Absolute Sale which led to issuance of another certificate of title.
Bangit demanded restitution and filed a complaint for Estafa after settlement checks issued by Carmelita were dishonored.
Petitioners denied authenticity of the deeds and alleged forgery and coercion, relying on certifications from clerk offices that the questioned documents were not among notarized submissions.

Procedural History

The Metropolitan Trial Court convicted petitioners of Estafa and sentenced them to arresto mayor and ordered payment of Php800,000.00 in a Decision dated April 7, 2017.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Manila, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the MeTC Decision in a Decision dated November 29, 2017 and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 6, 2018.
The Court of Appeals denied relief in a Decision dated November 6, 2018 and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 7, 2019.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court by Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court.

Issues Presented

Whether petitioners could question for the first time on appeal the sufficiency of the Information on the ground that it failed to charge an offense.
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the conviction of petitioners for Estafa under Article 316 (2) of the RPC.

Ruling and Disposition

The Court granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari in part and reversed and set aside the Decision dated November 6, 2018 and the Resolution dated May 7, 2019 of the Court of Appeals.
Petitioners were acquitted of other forms of swindling or Estafa under Article 316 (2) of the RPC on the ground that the Information failed to charge an offense.
The Court ordered that if detained petitioners be immediately released unless held for another lawful cause, and that any bail bond paid be immediately returned.