People v. Lorenzo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Romeo G. Lorenzo was charged with estafa under Article 315, Par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code for defrauding private complainant Myrla M. Minggoy of ₱150,000.00. Lorenzo offered to sell his rights over a house and lot, representing that he had legal rights and interest over it. Minggoy inspected the property and met Nora Lorenzo, whom petitioner introduced as his wife. Petitioner claimed the property was mortgaged with GSIS and that Minggoy would have to continue the payments. Minggoy, after verifying the substantial arrears in petitioner's GSIS account, paid petitioner ₱150,000.00. However, when Minggoy attempted to occupy the property, petitioner refused to vacate. Minggoy discovered that the Deed of Conditional Sale with GSIS had already been cancelled due to petitioner's failure to settle his account. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, found petitioner guilty of estafa and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty and to indemnify the private complainant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto, and subsequently denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals' decision, alleging errors in convicting him based on uncorroborated testimony, despite fraud in the execution of documents, absence of deceit, and the order of indemnification.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting petitioner on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the private complainant. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting petitioner despite the presence of fraud in the execution and signing of the deeds of conveyance. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting petitioner of estafa under Article 315, Par. 2(a) notwithstanding the absence of deceit. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering petitioner to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of ₱150,000.00.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the petitioner for estafa but modified the decision by deleting the order of indemnification of ₱150,000.00 to the private complainant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of uncorroborated testimony: The Court found that the evidence on record, consisting of both testimonial and documentary evidence, sufficiently supported the findings of the lower courts. The testimony of the private complainant was corroborated by other evidence. The Court emphasized that it would not assess and evaluate all over again the evidence presented by the parties, particularly when the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals coincide. On the issue of fraud: The alleged fraud in the execution of documents was not given credence in light of the petitioner's own admissions and the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. On the conviction for estafa and the absence of deceit: The Court held that the elements of estafa under Article 315, Par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code were present. Petitioner made false pretenses and fraudulent representations by offering to sell his rights over a property that had already been subject to a cancelled Deed of Conditional Sale with the GSIS. The private complainant relied on these misrepresentations and parted with ₱150,000.00, suffering damage as she was unable to gain possession of the property. The Court found that deceit was clearly present in the petitioner's actions. He knowingly misrepresented his ownership and rights over the property, inducing the private complainant to part with her money. The evidence showed that petitioner's representations were false at the time they were made, and that he intended to defraud the complainant. The cancellation of the Deed of Conditional Sale with the GSIS prior to the transaction with the complainant constituted the false pretense and fraudulent act. The Court found the evidence on record, including the testimonies of the private complainant and a GSIS representative, to be credible and sufficient to support the conviction. Petitioner's defense of denial and alibi was found to be without basis and unsupported by concrete evidence. The Court reiterated the doctrine that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are accorded great respect and even finality, and that it is not the Court's function under Rule 45 to reevaluate the evidence, especially when the findings of both lower courts coincide. On the order of indemnification: The Court granted the petition in part regarding the indemnification. It noted that the private complainant had filed a separate civil action for the recovery of the ₱150,000.00, which was subsequently dismissed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40468. The dismissal was due to the complainant's failure to appear at the pre-trial conference and file her pre-trial brief, leading to her being declared non-suited. The Court found that the dismissal was with prejudice, as there was no evidence to indicate otherwise. Therefore, the dismissal of the civil case barred the recovery of civil indemnity in the criminal case, as per the Rules of Court and established jurisprudence. The Court cited Ace Haulers Corp. v. Court of Appeals and Elcano v. Hill in support of the principle that an offended party is entitled to only one award of damages.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of a civil case with prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to appear at the pre-trial conference bars the recovery of civil indemnity by the offended party in the criminal case, as the civil case was not decided on the merits and no judgment was rendered.