G.R. No. 246986 , April 28, 2021
Spouses Ricardo Tayamen, Jr. and Carmelita Tayamen, Petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Ricardo Tayamen, Jr. and Carmelita Tayamen were charged with Estafa under Article 316(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on or about February 29, 2012, in Manila, they willfully defrauded Ma. Mildred G. Bangit by disposing of a parcel of land in Dasmariñas, Cavite, in favor of Margarito G. Pacia for P800,000.00, despite having previously sold the same property to Bangit on March 16, 2011, for the same amount, to her damage and prejudice. Petitioners pleaded not guilty. The prosecution established that after Bangit fully paid for the property, petitioners failed to surrender the title and later sold the same property to another buyer. Despite a settlement agreement and issuance of checks by petitioners, the checks were dishonored, leading Bangit to revive the case. The defense claimed the deeds of sale were falsified and that they were coerced into acknowledging obligations. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) found petitioners guilty, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA). Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the Information was insufficient for failing to allege an express representation that the property was free from encumbrance.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioners can still question the sufficiency of the Information on the ground that it failed to charge an offense.
2. Whether the CA gravely erred in finding petitioners guilty of Estafa under Article 316(2) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the convictions.
1. On the sufficiency of the Information: The Court held that petitioners are barred from questioning the Information’s sufficiency for the first time on appeal. Under the Rules of Court, such a defect must be raised by a motion to quash before arraignment; failure to do so constitutes a waiver. The Court found the Information sufficient as it stated the acts constituting the offense—the double sale of the same property—which inherently involves deceit. The Information adequately informed petitioners of the nature and cause of the accusation against them, satisfying constitutional and procedural requirements.
2. On the guilt for Estafa: The Court ruled that all elements of Estafa under Article 316(2) were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (a) petitioners disposed of real property through a double sale; (b) such act caused damage to Bangit; and (c) deceit was employed, as the subsequent sale constituted a fraudulent representation that the property was free from encumbrance. The defense of forgery and denial were unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The Manifestation executed before the prosecutor’s office, acknowledging the obligation, further undermined petitioners’ claims. The penalty imposed by the lower courts was affirmed, and petitioners were ordered to indemnify Bangit the amount of P800,000.00.