GR 147782; (June, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 147782; June 25, 2008
JUANITA A. AQUINO, petitioner, vs. TERESITA B. PAISTE, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Juanita Aquino, along with Elizabeth Garganta and another woman, repeatedly visited respondent Teresita Paiste to convince her to purchase a gold bar from a certain Arnold. Over several days in March 1991, they escorted Paiste to Angeles City to meet Arnold and view the bar, ultimately persuading her to buy it for PHP 50,000. Upon testing, the bar was found to be fake. Paiste confronted Aquino, who initially disclaimed involvement.
Subsequently, Aquino and Paiste executed an “Amicable Settlement” at the NBI, where Aquino, in the presence of counsel, admitted fault and agreed to repay half the swindled amount in installments. The document contained a waiver of her right to counsel. A criminal Information for estafa was later filed against Aquino, Garganta, and others, alleging conspiracy. Only Aquino was arraigned and tried.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Aquino’s conviction for estafa based on conspiracy.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centered on proving conspiracy through overt acts and the admissibility of the amicable settlement as an admission. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence but can be inferred from the concerted actions of the accused pointing to a common purpose. Aquino’s active role—introducing the scheme, persistently accompanying Paiste, and pressing for the sale—constituted clear, collective action with Garganta to defraud.
The amicable settlement was correctly admitted as evidence. Aquino argued it was an inadmissible extrajudicial confession obtained during custodial investigation without proper waiver of rights. The Court ruled it was not a confession but a voluntary admission against interest, executed with the assistance of counsel as evidenced by the waiver. As a private document acknowledging a partial civil liability arising from the fraud, it was admissible under the rules of evidence. This admission, coupled with her overt acts, substantiated her conspiratorial participation in the estafa beyond reasonable doubt.