G.R. No. 184320 July 29, 2015
Clarita Estrellado-Mainar vs. People of the Philippines

FACTS

Sometime in February 2005, petitioner Clarita Estrellado-Mainar offered to sell portions of land in Matina Aplaya, Davao City to Eric Naval. She represented that the title had no problems and the area would be segregated from the mother title. On March 24, 2003, they executed an Agreement to Buy and Sell for a 200-square meter portion of land covered by TCT No. T-19932, which represented part of her share in her deceased father’s estate. Naval paid a down payment totaling ₱100,000.00 and, after receiving an Authorization from the petitioner, built a house on the land. On June 3, 2005, representatives from JS Francisco & Sons, Inc. demolished Naval’s house. Naval then discovered the lot was subject to a dispute between the petitioner’s family and JS Francisco. Naval demanded the return of his payment and compensation for the demolished house, but the petitioner refused. The prosecution charged the petitioner with other forms of swindling under Article 316(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The MTCC found her guilty under Article 316(2) and sentenced her to imprisonment, fines, and damages. The RTC affirmed the decision. The CA dismissed her petition for review for failure to comply with procedural rules, specifically for not attaching required exhibits.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review based on procedural technicalities.
2. Whether the courts a quo erred in convicting the petitioner under Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code when the Information charged her under paragraph 1.
3. Whether the petitioner misrepresented the subject land as free from lien or encumbrance.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court found that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for procedural non-compliance. The petitioner failed to attach exhibits “03” to “05” (TCT No. T-36431, Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Renunciation of Shares, Donation and Deed of Absolute Sale, and Agreement to Buy and Sell) to her petition as required under Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, despite being given an opportunity to rectify the omission. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege requiring strict compliance with procedural rules.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was improperly convicted under Article 316(2). The Information specifically charged her under Article 316(1), which penalizes altering boundaries or pretending to own real property. Article 316(2) penalizes disposing of property as unencumbered despite knowing it is encumbered. Conviction under a paragraph not alleged in the Information violates the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The variance between the allegation and the proof is fatal, as the elements of the two paragraphs are distinct.
3. On the substantive issue, the Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to prove the petitioner’s guilt under Article 316(1). The prosecution failed to establish that the petitioner pretended to be the owner of the property at the time of the sale. Evidence showed that the property was still registered in her name under TCT No. T-19932, and the adverse claim by JS Francisco & Sons, Inc. was only annotated on October 29, 1998, based on a deed of sale that was not officially registered. The petitioner’s representation that the title had “no problems” and that segregation was pending did not constitute the pretense of ownership required under Article 316(1). The elements of deceit and damage were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted the petitioner.