G.R. No. 199975 , February 24, 2020
LUIS T. ARRIOLA, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Luis T. Arriola was charged with Estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. The Information alleged that from April to June 2001, Arriola defrauded Ingeborg De Venecia Del Rosario by falsely representing himself as the authorized real estate broker of Pasencia G. Candelaria, with authority to sell her Tagaytay City lot and facilitate the issuance of a new title. Relying on these representations, Del Rosario delivered P437,000.00 as full payment to Arriola, who used the money for his own benefit. Arriola pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented Del Rosario and Atty. Mary Ann B. Roa as witnesses. Del Rosario testified that Arriola showed her an Authorization Letter, a certified copy of TCT No. 33184, and a fax transmittal from Candelaria (allegedly in Australia) authorizing him to receive payment. She paid the amount and signed a Deed of Absolute Sale prepared by Arriola. Arriola only provided photocopies and later a notarized copy, but failed to deliver the original TCT. Upon Del Rosario’s demand, Arriola promised in writing to return the money with interest and issued checks, but these were dishonored. Del Rosario contacted Candelaria in Australia, who denied authorizing the sale. Arriola’s direct examination was stricken off the record and his right to present evidence was deemed waived after he consistently failed to appear for cross-examination. The RTC convicted Arriola, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty and ordering him to return P437,000.00. Arriola paid this amount on October 15, 2007. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but deleted the indemnity. Arriola filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that the conviction was based on hearsay evidence, that he acted in good faith and returned the money, and that his defense should be credited under the equipoise doctrine.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Arriola’s conviction for Estafa based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court sustained Arriola’s conviction with modifications on the penalty. The Court held that the totality of circumstantial evidence sufficiently established his guilt for Estafa by means of deceit under Article 315, Paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. All elements of the crime were present: (1) Arriola made false pretenses or fraudulent representations by pretending to possess authority to sell Candelaria’s property and presenting fabricated documents; (2) such pretenses were made prior to or simultaneously with the fraud; (3) Del Rosario relied on the false pretenses and was induced to part with her money; and (4) Del Rosario suffered damage. The Court found that the evidence of deceit was not based solely on hearsay but on a combination of testimonial and documentary evidence, including the fabricated Authorization Letter, fax transmittal, and Deed of Absolute Sale, as well as the dishonored checks and Candelaria’s denial of authorization. Arriola’s subsequent payment did not extinguish his criminal liability. The Court modified the penalty imposed, applying the indeterminate sentence law and considering the amount involved. Arriola was ordered to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum.