CRESENCIO C. MILLA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and MARKET PURSUITS, INC. represented by CARLO V. LOPEZ, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Cresencio C. Milla represented himself as a real estate developer from Ines Anderson Development Corporation and offered to sell a Makati property to respondent Market Pursuits, Inc. (MPI), represented by its Financial Officer, Carlo V. Lopez. Milla showed Lopez a photocopy of TCT No. 216445 registered in the name of spouses Farley and Jocelyn Handog and a Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed by them in his favor. After Lopez verified the title with the Registry of Deeds, MPI purchased the property for ₱2 million, issuing an initial check for ₱1.6 million. In exchange, Milla gave Lopez a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated 25 March 2003, supposedly executed by the Handog spouses in favor of MPI, and the original Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 216445. Milla later gave a copy of a new TCT No. 218777, purportedly registered in MPI’s name, leading MPI to issue a second check for the ₱400,000 balance. When Milla failed to provide receipts for transfer taxes, Lopez verified with the Register of Deeds and discovered that TCT No. 218777 was non-existent and registered under a different name, and no transfer to MPI had occurred. Lopez demanded a refund, and Milla issued two checks for ₱1 million each, which were dishonored for insufficient funds. Two Informations for Estafa Thru Falsification of Public Documents were filed against Milla for falsifying the Deed of Absolute Sale and TCT No. 218777. The Regional Trial Court found Milla guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Milla filed a Petition for Certiorari, raising issues including negligence of counsel, novation, and the nature of the transaction.
ISSUE
1. Whether the negligence of counsel deprived Milla of due process of law.
2. Whether the principle of novation can exculpate Milla from criminal liability.
3. Whether the factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, should be reviewed on appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the Petition and affirmed the conviction.
1. On negligence of counsel: Milla was not deprived of due process. He was accorded full opportunity to be heard, having filed a Demurrer to Evidence and a memorandum. The alleged negligence of his former counsel did not rise to the level of gross negligence that would warrant a reopening of the case.
2. On novation: The principle of novation does not apply to extinguish criminal liability for estafa. The issuance of dishonored checks after the discovery of the fraud did not novate the original criminal act of estafa through falsification.
3. On review of factual findings: The factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and will not be disturbed on appeal. The elements of estafa through falsification of public documents were sufficiently proven.
The Court upheld the penalty imposed by the trial court and the order for Milla to pay MPI ₱2 million with interest and attorney’s fees.
