People v. Lateo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The petitioners, Elvira Lateo, Francisco Elca, and Bartolome Baldemor, were charged with estafa. The information alleged that they conspired to defraud Eleonor Lucero by falsely representing themselves as the owners of land in Cavite and inducing her to part with P2,000,000.00, of which P200,000.00 was actually received. The underlying dispute stemmed from a prior failed transaction involving land in Muntinlupa, where petitioners had allegedly proposed financing the titling of land purportedly owned by Elca, leading Lucero to release approximately P4.7 million. Procedural History: Following their arraignment and plea of not guilty, the petitioners proceeded to trial. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 109, convicted them of attempted estafa on March 17, 1998. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. They appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed their conviction with modification as to the penalty imposed in its August 7, 2003 Decision. The CA subsequently denied their motion for reconsideration on January 12, 2004. The case reached the Supreme Court on petition for review. The Petition: The petitioners before the Supreme Court maintained their innocence, arguing that their conviction lacked factual and legal basis. They contended that Lucero was aware the Bacoor property was not yet titled and that they met her upon her invitation to receive P200,000.00 to facilitate the titling process. They sought acquittal and challenged the penalty imposed by the CA. The Office of the Solicitor General, while asserting the correctness of the conviction, recommended a modification of the penalty. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the CA's decision, finding no reversible error in the factual findings of the lower courts and ultimately sentencing the petitioners to four (4) months of arresto mayor for attempted estafa.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted estafa. Whether the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals is correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification as to the penalty. Petitioners Elvira Lateo, Francisco Elca, and Bartolome Baldemor were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted estafa and sentenced to suffer the penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the petitioners for attempted estafa: The Court affirmed the findings of the RTC and CA that the petitioners were guilty of attempted estafa. The Court reiterated that factual findings of the trial courts, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are entitled to great weight and respect, and no exceptions were present in this case. Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code defines estafa as committed by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts, including falsely pretending to possess property or engaging in imaginary transactions. The elements are: (1) a false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; (2) made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party relied on it and was induced to part with money or property; and (4) the offended party suffered damage. In this case, the petitioners' misrepresentation that Elca owned 14 hectares in Bacoor, Cavite, and offered a 5-hectare portion for an additional ₱2,000,000.00, constituted fraud and deceit, as Elca only had an inchoate right from an application to purchase Friar Lands, which was subject to protest and covered a smaller area. The entrapment prevented the consummation of the crime, thus constituting attempted estafa, where only the intent to cause damage, not the damage itself, needed to be proven. The Court cited Alcantara v. Court of Appeals and People v. Balasa in defining fraud and deceit. The Court also referenced Koh Tieck Heng v. People for the principle that in the absence of proof of damage, an offender would be guilty of attempted estafa. On the penalty imposed: The Court modified the penalty. For consummated estafa, the penalty depends on the amount defrauded. If consummated, Lucero would have been defrauded of ₱100,000.00, making the penalty prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, with an additional year for every ₱10,000.00 in excess of ₱22,000.00, not exceeding twenty years. For attempted estafa, the penalty is two degrees lower than that for the consummated felony, pursuant to Article 51 in relation to Article 61(5) of the RPC. This would be arresto mayor in its medium period to arresto mayor in its maximum period, or two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) months, plus one year for every ₱10,000.00 in excess, totaling seven years. However, the Court agreed with the OSG that imposing the additional incremental penalty of 7 years to the maximum period for attempted estafa would be inequitable. Therefore, the penalty was modified to four (4) months of arresto mayor.
Main Doctrine
Attempted estafa is committed when the offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, and where only the intent to cause damage and not the damage itself has been shown.