Tayamen v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Ricardo and Carmelita Tayamen (petitioners) were charged with Estafa under Article 316 (2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Information alleged that on February 29, 2012, petitioners, knowing that a parcel of land they previously sold to Ma. Mildred G. Bangit (Bangit) on March 16, 2011, for P800,000.00 was encumbered, disposed of the same property to Spouses Margarito and Virginia Pacia for P800,000.00. Bangit discovered the second sale upon inquiry with the Registry of Deeds after petitioners failed to surrender the title despite full payment and an undertaking to do so. Bangit filed a complaint for Estafa after petitioners failed to return the purchase price. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) found petitioners guilty of Estafa. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC's decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) also affirmed the conviction, holding that petitioners waived any defect in the Information by failing to quash it before arraignment and by participating in the proceedings. The CA also found that the crime of Estafa was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision. They argued that the Information was fatally defective for failing to allege an express representation that the property was free from encumbrance, an essential element of Estafa under Article 316 (2) RPC. They also reiterated their claim that the deeds of sale were spurious.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners can still question the sufficiency of the Information on the ground that it failed to charge an offense. Whether the CA gravely erred in finding petitioners guilty of the crime of Estafa under Article 316 (2) of the RPC; and whether civil liability ex delicto can arise from a defective information.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari in part. It reversed and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The petitioners, Spouses Ricardo Tayamen, Jr. and Carmelita Tayamen, were acquitted of the crime of Estafa under Article 316 (2) of the Revised Penal Code. The award of civil indemnity ex delicto was deleted, without prejudice to the filing of a separate civil action to claim civil liability ex contractu.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Questioning the Sufficiency of the Information: The Court ruled that petitioners could still question the sufficiency of the Information even on appeal. Pursuant to Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, failure to move to quash an information on the ground that it fails to charge an offense is not a waiver. Such a defect can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, and the appellate court is mandated to rule on any error, even if not assigned. The Court clarified that while defects in form or substance that can be cured by amendment are deemed waived if not raised before arraignment, the failure to charge an offense is a fundamental defect that cannot be waived. The Court cited Naya v. Sps. Abing and Estrellado-Mainar v. People in support of this principle, emphasizing that a person cannot be convicted of a crime not charged in the Information. On the Issue of Guilt for Estafa under Article 316 (2) RPC and Civil Liability: The Court found that the Information failed to charge the offense of Estafa under Article 316 (2) of the RPC. The essential elements of this crime include the disposal of real property with knowledge of an encumbrance and an express representation by the offender that the property is free from encumbrance, to the damage of another. A review of the Information revealed no allegation that the petitioners made an express representation that the subject real property was free from any encumbrance when they sold it to Spouses Pacia. The Court reiterated that criminal liability under Article 316 (2) arises from the deceit in the selling of the property where the seller expressly represented it as unencumbered. Since this crucial element was not alleged in the Information, the petitioners could not be convicted of the crime charged, regardless of the evidence presented. The Court noted that the Information did not allege the specific acts constituting the deceit required by the provision. The Court deleted the award of civil indemnity ex delicto, explaining that civil liability arising from Estafa is ex delicto, meaning it arises from the commission of a crime. However, since the Court found that no crime of Estafa was committed due to the defective Information, there was no delict from which civil liability ex delicto could arise. The Court clarified that the P800,000.00 consideration for the sale represented a contractual obligation (ex contractu). Therefore, any claim for this amount must be pursued through a separate civil action, subject to the rules on prescription, as the criminal court has no authority to award damages arising from a contract when the elements of Estafa are not proven.
Main Doctrine
A person cannot be convicted of a crime not charged in the body of the Information. The failure of an Information to charge an offense may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, as it is a non-waivable defect. Civil liability arising from a contract cannot be awarded in a criminal case where the elements of the crime of Estafa are not proven; a separate civil action must be filed for such claims.