GR 159381; (March, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159381 March 26, 2010
DANILO D. ANSALDO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Danilo D. Ansaldo and his wife, Rosalinda Ansaldo, were charged with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document. The information alleged that on or about February 15, 1995, in Manila, they conspired to forge a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage by misrepresenting themselves as the registered owners, spouses Nina Z. Ramirez and Mariano Ramirez, of a lot covered by TCT No. 188686. They signed the deed simulating the signatures of the Ramirezes, had it notarized, and presented it to Nora L. Herrera. Believing the document to be genuine, Herrera delivered the mortgage consideration of ₱300,000 to the accused, who misappropriated the amount. The accused had obtained the owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT from Ramirez under the pretense of helping subdivide her property. Petitioner pleaded not guilty; his wife remained at large. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of falsification under Article 172(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified the conviction to the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document and increased the penalty.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting petitioner of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document to prosper, all elements of both crimes must be present. In this case, not all elements of falsification of a public document were established. Specifically, the element that the falsification was committed by a public officer or employee who took advantage of his official position was absent, as the petitioner was a private individual. The notary public who notarized the deed was not implicated as a conspirator. Consequently, the complex crime did not exist. However, all elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code were present: (1) false pretenses or fraudulent acts were executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (2) the offended party relied on the false pretense and was induced to part with her money; and (3) the offended party suffered damage. The petitioner, through deceit, caused Herrera to deliver ₱300,000 based on the forged mortgage. Therefore, the petitioner is guilty only of the simple crime of estafa. The Court sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum.