Cornejo, Sr. v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Alfredo R. Cornejo, Sr., a City Public Works Supervisor in Pasay City, was accused of Estafa for defrauding complainant Beth Chua. Cornejo allegedly misrepresented his authority to inspect private buildings, claiming a mandatory measurement service for a fee, and assuring Chua she could not be ejected during this process. He collected P100.00 from Chua for this purported service, which was part of a larger scheme involving his nephew, Rogelio Alzate Cornejo, who took measurements and a receipt. Procedural History: Following an entrapment operation where Cornejo was apprehended receiving P50.00 from Chua, the case was referred to the City Fiscal. The Sandiganbayan subsequently found Cornejo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa, aggravated by the use of public position, sentencing him to imprisonment, perpetual special disqualification, and to indemnify the complainant. This decision is now under review. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Sandiganbayan's decision, arguing grave abuse of discretion. His main contentions include the selective consideration of evidence, the admission of an unauthorized certification without the author testifying, the erroneous finding of deceit and lack of authority, and the mischaracterization of his arrest as entrapment rather than a setup. A supplemental petition raises issues of due process, lack of preliminary investigation, defective information, political motivation, and a prejudicial question.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in its findings and rulings. Whether the petitioner committed Estafa by swindling through misrepresentation of authority. Whether Exhibit B, a certification from the City Engineer, was admissible in evidence without the author testifying, and whether the petitioner had the authority to conduct inspections and investigations of privately-owned buildings. Whether the arrest of the petitioner constituted a lawful entrapment or illegal instigation. Whether the petitioner was deprived of due process due to alleged procedural irregularities. Whether the pendency of Civil Case No. 6302-P constituted a prejudicial question. Whether the element of deceit was present and the nature of the offense was correctly determined.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Sandiganbayan in toto. The petitioner was found guilty of Estafa, aggravated by the circumstance of advantage of public position.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged grave abuse of discretion and selective consideration of testimony: The Court held that the complainant's testimony, when taken in its entirety, supported the finding of deceit. Her belief in the petitioner's misrepresentations, induced by his pleasant demeanor and warning of penal sanctions under the Building Code, led her to agree to the services and part with her money. The services rendered were an integral part of the petitioner's modus operandi to conceal the swindle. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court's assessment of the complainant's credibility. On the petitioner committing Estafa by swindling through misrepresentation of authority: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the petitioner employed criminal deceit by falsely holding himself out as authorized to inspect private buildings. This misrepresentation induced the complainant to agree to the measurement and plan preparation for a fee. The assurance of preventing eviction further solidified the deceitful scheme. The Court reiterated that the gravamen of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 4, sub-paragraph 2(a) is the employment of deceitful schemes to defraud another. On the admissibility of Exhibit B and the petitioner's authority: The Court found no reversible error in admitting Exhibit B, the certification from the City Engineer. It was not offered to prove the truth of the facts stated therein but to show that such a statement was made, which is not covered by the hearsay rule. Furthermore, the finding of lack of authority was based not solely on Exhibit B but also on statutory provisions (R.A. No. 5185 and P.D. No. 549) which confined the functions of a City Public Works Supervisor to public works projects financed by local funds, excluding private buildings. The Court agreed with the trial court that the petitioner's position did not grant him authority to inspect private buildings. On the arrest as entrapment: The Court ruled that the police's actions constituted a lawful entrapment. The petitioner had already committed the deceit and defrauded the complainant of her money before the arrest. His return to the complainant's house was a continuation of the unlawful scheme, which was already consummated in contemplation of law. The police strategy merely facilitated the apprehension of the petitioner in the act of receiving the payoff money. On procedural due process and other grounds: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's supplemental petition. The allegations of lack of preliminary investigation were overcome by the presumption of regularity. The information was not found defective. The claim of political motivation was irrelevant to the case. The Court concluded that the petitioner was not deprived of his constitutional right to due process. On the issue of prejudicial question: The Court noted that the issue of prejudicial question was raised too late in the proceedings. On the element of deceit and the nature of the offense: The Court reiterated that the gravamen of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 4, sub-paragraph 2(a) is the employment of deceitful schemes to defraud another.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's decision finding the petitioner guilty of Estafa by swindling, holding that the misrepresentation of authority to conduct inspections of private buildings, coupled with the assurance of preventing eviction and the subsequent collection of fees for services rendered as part of the modus operandi, constituted deceit sufficient for conviction. The Court also clarified the scope of authority of a City Public Works Supervisor and upheld the admissibility of a certification despite the author not testifying, as it was offered to prove the statement was made, not its truth. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the police's actions constituted a lawful entrapment, not instigation, as the crime was already consummated.