Celino v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 14, 1981, an information for estafa was filed against Zosimo Celino, Ricardo Celino, and Requerido Celino. The information alleged that the accused, conspiring and confederating, falsely pretended to possess power and influence to recover hidden treasures from the yard of Jose Tan Kapoe. They induced Kapoe to believe this and demanded P50,230.00, which they received in trust, and subsequently misappropriated for their own benefit, causing damage to Kapoe. Procedural History: Ricardo Celino and Zosimo Celino pleaded not guilty. Requerido Celino remained at large. The case against Zosimo Celino was dismissed as he died during the proceedings. Ricardo Celino proceeded to trial. The trial court found Ricardo Celino guilty of estafa under Article 315, No. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment and to return P41,300.00 to the complainant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The Petition: Ricardo Celino filed a petition for review, alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in not applying the law and jurisprudence and in arriving at a conclusion contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. He contended that the transaction was a 'joint venture' and any liability was civil in nature.
Issue(s)
Whether the acts of the petitioner constitute estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the transaction between the petitioner and the complainant was a joint venture, rendering any liability civil in nature.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming Ricardo Celino's conviction is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code: The Court held that the evidence conclusively showed that Ricardo Celino, along with his sons, led the complainant to believe in the existence of a hidden treasure. They employed false pretenses, including the involvement of a dwarf whose spirit supposedly entered Zosimo, to direct digging operations and to convince the complainant to give them money. The complainant parted with P50,230.00 based on these false pretenses. The Court found that these acts constitute swindling as defined and punished under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes defrauding another by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, or imaginary transactions. The Court cited People v. Scott and U.S. v. de los Reyes as cases with similar facts where the acts were classified as estafa. On the issue of joint venture: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention that the transaction was a joint venture. No evidence was adduced by the petitioner to support this claim. The facts clearly demonstrated that the petitioner and his sons pretended to possess the power to find hidden treasure to defraud the complainant. Therefore, the liability was not merely civil, and the case of U.S. v. Clarin, cited by the petitioner, was deemed not applicable because its factual basis was different.
Main Doctrine
The act of falsely pretending to possess power or influence to recover hidden treasures and inducing a person to part with money based on such pretense constitutes estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.