GR 159280; (May, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159280 ; May 18, 2004
AUGUSTO SIM, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and The PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Augusto Sim, Jr. and co-accused Elison Villaflor were charged with estafa. Villaflor, a long-time acquaintance of private complainant Jay Byron Ilagan, informed Ilagan of a vehicle for sale. Sim provided a Nissan Pathfinder to Villaflor, representing it as having been received from a debtor. Ilagan agreed to purchase it for P480,000.00, paid via checks, and received photocopies of registration documents in the name of a certain Henry Austria. A deed of sale was later presented, and new registration papers in Ilagan’s name were issued.
Subsequently, the vehicle was apprehended by authorities as a “hot car,” having been stolen from its real owner, Golf Construction of the Philippines, Inc. Its motor and chassis numbers were tampered. Ilagan’s payment, deposited in Sim’s account, was not returned. The Regional Trial Court convicted Sim and Villaflor of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified the conviction to estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a).
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly convicted petitioner Augusto Sim, Jr. of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
Yes, the conviction under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) is correct. The legal logic centers on the distinction between the two modes of estafa. Paragraph 1(b) pertains to estafa with abuse of confidence, involving misappropriation or conversion of goods or funds received in trust. Paragraph 2(a) involves estafa through false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.
The evidence established that Sim, through Villaflor, employed false pretenses by misrepresenting that he could legally sell the vehicle and by furnishing forged registration documents to Ilagan. These deceitful acts were executed prior to and for the purpose of inducing Ilagan to part with his money. The subsequent discovery that the vehicle was stolen confirms the fraudulent intent from the outset. Since the fraud was accomplished through deceit (false manifestations) rather than a breach of trust over goods or funds already received, the crime properly falls under paragraph 2(a). The penalty imposed, an indeterminate sentence of four years and two months of prisión correccional as minimum to twenty years of reclusión temporal as maximum, plus indemnity, is affirmed as it conforms to the prescribed penalty for the amount defrauded exceeding P22,000.00.