Nanzan v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Maycel Balucero Nanzan (Nanzan) and co-accused were charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Information alleged that they conspired to defraud Oaña Credit Solutions, Inc. (Oaña Credit) by misrepresenting that they would cause the release of the proceeds of a pre-approved loan with PS Bank to Oaña Credit, which would then be used to pay a bridge financing loan granted by Oaña Credit. This representation was false, as they intended to keep the proceeds for themselves. Oaña Credit released PHP 2,565,325.00 to Nanzan. Nanzan and her co-accused allegedly misrepresented that spouses Alterado had a pre-approved loan with PS Bank, which Nanzan would use to secure the release of her mortgaged property and facilitate its sale to Rodella Alterado. A PS Bank supervisor confirmed the pre-approved loan. A Loan Agreement was executed with Nanzan as borrower, Oaña Credit as lender, and spouses Alterado as beneficiaries. The agreement stipulated that the debt would be paid from the PS Bank loan proceeds. Rodella Alterado agreed that the loan proceeds would go to Nanzan, who would then remit them to Oaña Credit. Oaña Credit released the loan amount to Nanzan. The PS Bank loan proceeds were released to spouses Alterado and then conveyed to Nanzan, who executed a Deed of Assignment of Loan Proceeds in favor of Oaña Credit. However, Oaña Credit never received these proceeds. Nanzan issued a check to Oaña Credit, which was dishonored for insufficient funds. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially raffled the case to Branch 146, then to Branch 62, and finally to Branch 138 of Makati City. Nanzan refused to enter a plea, and the court entered a plea of "not guilty." Mediation failed. Nanzan filed a demurrer to evidence, which was denied. She moved for the inhibition of the presiding judge, leading to the case being raffled to Branch 138. Nanzan waived her right to present evidence, stating it would be inconsistent with her position of civil liability only. The RTC found Nanzan guilty of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC and sentenced her to an indeterminate prison term and ordered her to indemnify Oaña Credit. The case against the co-accused who remained at-large was archived. Nanzan's motion for reconsideration was denied. She appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC's decision but modified Nanzan's criminal liability to other deceits under Article 318 of the RPC, sentencing her to a lower penalty and imposing a fine. Nanzan's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the instant petition. The Petition: Nanzan filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in finding her guilty of other deceits under Article 318 of the RPC, particularly by allegedly ignoring the existence of a real estate mortgage that would have negated her criminal liability.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioner Nanzan guilty of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the existence of a real estate mortgage, even if not formally offered as evidence, could negate criminal liability for deceit.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated March 15, 2022, and the Resolution dated July 6, 2022, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 43447 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Maycel Balucero Nanzan is found GUILTY of the crime of other deceits, as defined under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. She is sentenced to suffer the penalty of two months and one day to four months of arresto mayor in its medium period, and to pay a fine of PHP 2,565,325.00. Pursuant to paragraph 1, Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, she is likewise subject to subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay the fine. Petitioner Maycel Balucero Nanzan is further ORDERED to PAY private complainant Oaña Credit Solutions, Inc. actual damages in the amount of PHP 2,565,325.00 plus compensatory interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of extrajudicial demand on September 24, 2013, until full payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioner Nanzan guilty of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code: The Court held that the CA did not err in finding Nanzan guilty of other deceits under Article 318 of the RPC, even though she was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a). This is permissible under the variance doctrine in Section 4, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as Article 318 is considered necessarily included in a charge under Article 315, paragraph 2(a). The elements of Article 318 were sufficiently proven: (a) Nanzan made false pretenses to Oaña Credit regarding the payment of the bridge financing loan from PS Bank proceeds, which was integrated into the Loan Agreement; (b) these false pretenses were made during the application process, inducing Oaña Credit to extend the loan; and (c) Oaña Credit suffered damage and prejudice amounting to PHP 2,565,325.00 as a result, with Nanzan's misrepresentation being the sole cause for Oaña Credit to grant the loan. The fact that Nanzan received the PS Bank proceeds but never remitted them to Oaña Credit, and subsequently issued a dishonored check, further indicated her intent to defraud. On Whether the existence of a real estate mortgage, even if not formally offered as evidence, could negate criminal liability for deceit: The Court ruled that Nanzan's contention regarding the real estate mortgage could not be considered because it was never formally offered as evidence. The principle that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered is inviolable. Even assuming arguendo that a real estate mortgage existed as referenced in the loan agreement, its terms would need examination to determine if Oaña Credit relied on it instead of Nanzan's representations about the PS Bank proceeds. Nanzan's failure to present the mortgage or any substitutionary evidence, and her waiver of the right to present evidence, meant that the lower courts could not appreciate its existence or relevance. The gravamen of the offense is employing fraud or deceit to damage or prejudice another, which was sufficiently proven by the evidence on record, irrespective of the purported mortgage.
Main Doctrine
A conviction for other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code can be sustained even if the accused was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), based on the variance doctrine, provided all the elements of Article 318 are proven: (a) a false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense other than those in Articles 315, 316, and 317; (b) such pretense was made prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; and (c) the offended party suffered damage or prejudice as a result, with the false statement or representation being the sole motive for the complainant to part with their property. The failure to formally offer evidence, such as a real estate mortgage, prevents its consideration by the court.