G.R. No. 177944 December 24, 2008
JUDITH P. ORTEGA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Judith P. Ortega was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on or about September 5, 1998, in Cebu City, Ortega, by falsely pretending to be a real estate agent with connections to transfer names on tax declarations without a Deed of Sale, induced complainant Marilou Oljol Adorable to give her a total of P27,450.00 as processing fees. Ortega misappropriated the money and failed to return it despite demands.
The prosecution’s version, as presented by complainant Adorable and corroborated by her co-teacher Epifania Laranjo, was that in August 1998, Ortega offered to sell Adorable a 1,000-square-meter agricultural lot for P50,000.00 payable in installments. From September to December 1998, Ortega repeatedly collected various amounts from Adorable (P1,200.00, P6,000.00, P8,000.00, P4,000.00, P4,000.00, P500.00, and P750.00) for notarial documents, registry fees, capital gains tax, an approved plan, an affidavit, and titling, issuing handwritten receipts. Ortega eventually gave Adorable a Xerox copy of a tax declaration in her name, which the City Assessor’s Office later declared fake. Demands for repayment through the Lupong Barangay failed.
The defense presented Ortega as its lone witness. She claimed it was Adorable who sought her help to fabricate receipts to show creditors that loaned money was spent on processing a land title. Ortega alleged she issued receipts as dictated by Adorable and presented a document where Adorable admitted the scheme. Ortega denied knowing the landowner or having any connections in government offices. She also claimed a vital witness, Lila Chin, was never presented because her defense counsel was often absent.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Ortega of Estafa, sentencing her to an indeterminate penalty of 1 year, 8 months, and 21 days of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum, and ordering her to indemnify Adorable P27,450.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Ortega filed a petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s decision finding petitioner Judith P. Ortega guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that all elements of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code were present: (1) the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations; (2) such pretenses or representations were made prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the accused induced the complainant to part with her money or property; and (4) the complainant suffered damage. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and consistent, while Ortega’s defense of denial and frame-up was weak and unsupported. The Court also found no merit in Ortega’s claim regarding her absent witness, as she failed to properly substantiate this claim or demonstrate due diligence. The penalty imposed by the RTC, computed under the Indeterminate Sentence Law based on the amount defrauded (P27,450.00), was affirmed. The plea for leniency due to personal circumstances was acknowledged but could not override the application of the law.