G.R. No. 89319 October 12, 1993
JENG EVANGELISTA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jeng Evangelista was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 3(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that on April 12, 1984, in Quezon City, petitioner, conspiring with others, defrauded Virgilio Mercado by inducing him to capitalize a baccarat card game with a promise of sure win. Complainant Mercado was taught pre-arranged signals and tricks to cheat the other player, “Minong.” Believing the representations, Mercado gave P10,000.00 and US$350.00 (total P17,000.00) to petitioner and his companions, which were exchanged for chips. Initially winning, Mercado started losing when the signals stopped. He was not allowed to stop playing and was menaced into continuing. After losing, he was made to sign a letter before being allowed to leave. Petitioner pleaded not guilty; his co-accused remained at large. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner now assails his conviction, arguing his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and questioning the credibility of the complainant, who consented to the fraudulent scheme.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Jeng Evangelista is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa.
RULING
Yes, the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa. The Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. All essential elements of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 3(b) of the Revised Penal Code were present: petitioner employed deceit by assuring the complainant of a sure win through pre-arranged signals, causing the complainant to part with his money based on that false pretense, resulting in damage. The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the complainant’s consent to the fraudulent scheme discredits his testimony or absolves the petitioner. The complainant’s consent to defraud another (Minong) does not negate the fact that he himself was deceived and defrauded by the petitioner and his group. The doctrine of pari delicto, a civil law concept, does not apply in criminal cases; the State prosecutes crimes as an act against public order. The wrongful act of the offended party may only justify or mitigate the accused’s liability but does not preclude prosecution. The Court also upheld the trial court’s findings on witness credibility, finding no reason to overturn them. The petition was denied for lack of merit.