G.R. No. 149588; August 16, 2010
FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS and CARMELITA C. LLAMAS, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, BRANCH 66 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Francisco and Carmelita Llamas were convicted of “Other Forms of Swindling” under Article 316(2) of the Revised Penal Code for selling a parcel of land to Conrado Avila in 1978 while it was mortgaged, without disclosing the encumbrance. The Regional Trial Court of Makati found them guilty in 1994, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 1999. Their petition for review to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 141208) was denied in 2000 for failure to state material dates, rendering the conviction final. After an arrest warrant was issued, they filed a petition for annulment of judgment, which the Supreme Court initially denied in a 2009 Decision, citing that annulment is unavailable in criminal cases per People v. Bitanga.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners’ conviction for “Other Forms of Swindling” under Article 316(2) of the Revised Penal Code should be upheld despite the procedural lapses in their appeal, considering the substantive merits of their case.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the Motion for Reconsideration and acquitted the petitioners. While acknowledging their procedural missteps, the Court exercised its equity jurisdiction pro hac vice, considering their advanced age, the protracted litigation, and the impending deprivation of liberty. On the merits, the Court re-examined the essential elements of the crime. For swindling under Article 316(2), the act of disposing of encumbered property must be committed “to the damage of another.” The Court found that neither the trial court nor the appellate court made any factual finding that the private complainant, Avila, actually suffered damage. The records indicated that Avila maintained possession and control of the property, and his dominion was not disturbed. The delay in delivering the title was the subject of a separate civil case decided in the petitioners’ favor. Since the prosecution failed to prove the element of damage—a requisite for the crime of estafa—the petitioners’ guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and entered a judgment of acquittal.