G.R. No. 141980. December 7, 2001.
Carmelito A. Montano, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Carmelito A. Montano, as general manager of Legarda Pine Home, entered into separate “Reservation of Offer to Purchase” contracts with Dra. Rosario Ballecer and Lourdes Ballecer for two townhouse units. The contracts stipulated that possession would be delivered one year from October 1, 1988. The complainants paid substantial down payments. A subsequent Contract to Sell was also executed covering the same units with a similar delivery stipulation.
Despite the lapse of the stipulated period, Montano failed to deliver the townhouse units or return the down payments despite demands. Consequently, two informations for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code were filed against him. The Regional Trial Court convicted Montano on both counts, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the informations sufficiently informed Montano of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and (2) whether his liability is merely civil for breach of contract, or criminal for estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction, with a modification on the penalty. On the first issue, the Court held that the informations adequately informed Montano of the charges. The informations alleged that by means of false manifestations, he fraudulently represented that Legarda Pine Home was a duly organized corporation capable of delivering the units, thereby inducing the complainants to part with their money. The specific promise of delivery, which he failed to fulfill, was integral to this fraudulent scheme and was proven during trial. The variance between the allegations and the proof did not violate his right to be informed, as the core fraudulent act was properly alleged.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the facts established criminal estafa, not mere civil liability. All elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) were present: (a) Montano made false pretenses by misrepresenting the corporate status and capability of Legarda Pine Home; (b) such fraudulent pretenses were made prior to or simultaneous with the receipt of money; (c) the complainants were induced to part with their money due to these pretenses; and (d) the complainants suffered damage. His failure to deliver the units or return the money, despite demands, confirmed fraudulent intent at the time of the transaction, elevating the breach beyond a simple contractual dispute.
The penalty was modified. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term was set within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense (prision correccional minimum to medium), without considering the amounts involved as a modifying circumstance for the minimum. The maximum term was correctly based on the prescribed penalty, considering the amounts exceeded P22,000.00. Thus, the indeterminate penalty was set at four years and two months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each count.