G.R. No. 161515; June 8, 2011.
ELVIRA LATEO y ELEAZAR, FRANCISCO ELCA y ARCAS, and BARTOLOME BALDEMOR y MADRIGAL, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Elvira Lateo, Francisco Elca, and Bartolome Baldemor, along with two others at large, were charged with Estafa. The information alleged that on or about April 27, 1995, in Pasay City, they conspired to deceive Eleonor Lucero by falsely representing themselves as the true owners of a piece of land in Cavite, inducing her to part with ₱2,000,000.00, of which she actually gave ₱200,000.00 in marked money. Petitioners pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s evidence established that in 1994, petitioners Lateo and Elca proposed that Lucero finance the titling of 122 hectares of land in Muntinlupa allegedly owned by Elca. Lucero released about ₱4.7 million in staggered amounts. She was given documents, including certified true copies of titles in Lateo’s name, but upon verification in December 1994, she discovered the titles were actually registered in the names of other persons. Confronted, petitioners offered a five-hectare property in Bacoor, Cavite, instead, with Elca demanding an additional ₱2 million for the transfer. Verification with the Land Management Bureau revealed Elca only had a pending application for a sales patent over a four-hectare area. This prompted Lucero to file a complaint, leading to an entrapment operation on April 26, 1995, at Furosato Restaurant where petitioners were apprehended with marked money.
Petitioners presented a different version, claiming Lucero proposed to finance the titling, with specific profit-sharing terms. They alleged that a certain Oscar Lalota prepared falsified documents, disappeared with the money, and that the subsequent transaction for the Cavite property was a genuine sale agreement where Lucero offered an advance payment for titling. They claimed the entrapment occurred after the signing of a “Deed of Assignment” for the Cavite property.
The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioners of the complex crime of Estafa through falsification of public documents. The Court of Appeals modified the conviction to Attempted Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, finding that the deceit was employed to induce Lucero to deliver ₱2,000,000.00, but the execution was not consummated as she only parted with ₱200,000.00 during the entrapment. The CA sentenced each petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of 4 months and 20 days of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision correccional, as maximum. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioners’ conviction for Attempted Estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals with MODIFICATION to the penalty imposed.
The Court held that all elements of Attempted Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) were present: (1) the accused employed false pretenses or fraudulent acts; (2) such false pretenses or fraudulent acts were made prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party relied on the false pretenses or fraudulent acts and was induced to part with money or property; and (4) as a result, the offended party suffered damage. The Court found that petitioners’ false representation of ownership over the Cavite property (on which Elca had only a pending application) was a deceit employed to induce Lucero to deliver ₱2,000,000.00. The fact that she only delivered ₱200,000.00 during the entrapment meant the fraud was not consummated, hence the crime was only attempted.
Regarding the penalty, the Court modified the CA’s imposition. For the attempted crime of Estafa involving ₱200,000.00, the penalty prescribed by law for the consummated felony (under the Indeterminate Sentence Law and P.D. No. 818) is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum (4 years, 2 months, and 1 day to 8 years). Applying Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the attempt is two degrees lower. The penalty two degrees lower than prision correccional max to prision mayor min is arresto mayor min to prision correccional min (1 month and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed on each petitioner an indeterminate penalty of 1 month and 1 day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 1 year, 8 months, and 20 days of prision correccional, as maximum. The Court affirmed the order for petitioners to jointly and severally indemnify Lucero ₱200,000.00.