G.R. No. 189077. November 16, 2016
LINA M. BERNARDO, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER FOURTH DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Lina M. Bernardo was charged with three counts of estafa before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City. The charges stemmed from transactions with complainant Lucy R. Tanchiatco. In Criminal Case No. 02-120, Bernardo was accused of defrauding Tanchiatco by rediscounting a Consumer Bank Check for P50,000.00, which was dated December 31, 2000 and appeared to be issued by Marcial S. Sadie, Jr., but which she falsely represented as duly funded. In Criminal Case Nos. 02-121 and 02-122, she was accused of obtaining loans totaling P275,000.00 by presenting affidavits of waiver for market stalls, falsely representing she owned them and that they could be transferred as security, when the signatures of the purported owners were forged. Bernardo pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented witnesses, including Tanchiatco and Sadie. Tanchiatco testified that she rediscounted the check and gave the loans based on Bernardo’s false representations about the check’s validity and her ownership of the market stalls. Sadie testified that the check was falsified, his signature was forged, and his account was closed. The defense waived its right to present evidence. The RTC convicted Bernardo in Criminal Case No. 02-120 for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, finding she knowingly offered a falsified check for rediscounting, inducing Tanchiatco to part with her money. The RTC acquitted her in Criminal Case Nos. 02-121 and 02-122. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Bernardo’s conviction became final after she failed to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period, and an entry of judgment was made. She filed a Petition for Certiorari asking for the entry of judgment to be recalled.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the conviction of petitioner Lina M. Bernardo for estafa in Criminal Case No. 02-120, and whether the entry of judgment should be recalled.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Bernardo’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision within the reglementary period rendered the judgment final and executory. The entry of judgment was a ministerial consequence of this finality. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA, as its decision was based on the evidence and applicable law. The CA correctly affirmed the RTC’s finding that all elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) were present: Bernardo made false pretenses (representing a falsified check as genuine and funded), such pretenses were made prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, Tanchiatco relied on these pretenses and was induced to part with her money, and Tanchiatco suffered damage. The Court also ruled that the proper remedy against the CA’s affirmance of conviction was an appeal to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Since the judgment had attained finality, the Court had no jurisdiction to review the merits. The entry of judgment was proper and could not be recalled.