G.R. No. 252839 . November 10, 2021
CONSOLACION P. MARCOS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, GERMAN YAP, ANDRES DUCA, AND OSCAR MIRAVALLES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On January 25, 2008, an Information was filed charging Consolacion P. Marcos (Consolacion), Leonilo Marcos, Pedro Molera, and Nilo Santos with Other Deceits under Article 318(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that sometime in February 1985, in Quezon City, the accused, as owners/developers of L&C Marketing and Development Corporation and P.P. Molera Realty, Inc., conspired to defraud several persons, including respondents German Yap, Andres Duca, and Oscar Miravalles. They induced the complainants to buy low-cost housing units in Ireneville IV Subdivision, Biñan, Laguna, by accepting reservation and equity fees, despite knowing the representations were false and the units were defective and located on a water basin, causing flooding and eventual foreclosure by the SSS.
Consolacion pleaded not guilty. The case against Leonilo was dismissed due to his death, while Molera and Santos were not apprehended. Consolacion moved to dismiss on grounds of prescription, arguing the crime was allegedly committed in 1985 but the complaint was filed only in 2004. The trial court denied the motion, ruling the crime was discovered only in 2000.
During trial, the prosecution witnesses (Yap, Duca, Miravalles) testified that in 1985, an agent of L&C Marketing offered them house and lots. They met Consolacion, the corporate treasurer, who guaranteed automatic SSS loan approval due to her connections. They paid down payments, were shown model units in a developed area, and their loan applications were facilitated. They moved in by June 1985 but experienced severe flooding in July 1985 and October 1986, later learning their area was a water basin. In 2000, they discovered that as early as 1982, Molera Realty had been sued for violating P.D. No. 957 (Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree) for substandard development, and Pedro Molera was convicted in 1990. They reported to the House Committee on Good Government, leading to an HLURB inspection which found violations and issued a Notice of Violation to L&C Marketing in 2000.
Consolacion, as sole defense witness, denied involvement in the sales, meeting the private respondents, or knowledge of the prior conviction, claiming her deceased husband managed the company.
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) found Consolacion guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing her to four months imprisonment, a P300,000 fine, and damages. The MeTC held that Consolacion committed fraud through enticement, concealment of the subdivision’s condition, and non-disclosure of the prior P.D. No. 957 case. It also ruled it had jurisdiction as an essential ingredient of the crime (loan application facilitation) occurred at the SSS building in Quezon City. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the conviction with modification, deleting moral damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, holding the crime was a continuing one discovered only in 2000, thus not prescribed, and that venue was properly laid in Quezon City.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Consolacion P. Marcos’s conviction for the crime of Other Deceits under Article 318(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the Petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the assailed CA Decision and Resolution, and ACQUITTED Consolacion P. Marcos.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of Other Deceits under Article 318(1) beyond reasonable doubt. The crime requires: (1) the accused defrauded another by means of deceit; (2) the damage or prejudice caused did not exceed P200,000 (now P1,200,000 under R.A. No. 10951 ); and (3) the accused committed the deceit after the effective date of the RPC. The element of deceit was not established. Deceit involves the false pretense of fictitious transactions or the use of other similar deceits to induce another to part with property. The evidence showed the transaction was real—the complainants actually received house and lots, moved in, and occupied them for years. The alleged fraud pertained to the quality and location of the units (being flood-prone and on a water basin) and the non-disclosure of the prior P.D. No. 957 case. However, these constitute breach of contractual warranties or hidden defects, which are civil in nature and governed by the Civil Code, not the criminal act of deceit under the RPC. The alleged guarantee of automatic SSS loan approval was also not proven to be false, as the loans were indeed approved and released. The Court found no evidence that Consolacion employed false pretenses or fictitious transactions to induce the sale. Consequently, her criminal liability was not proven. Given this disposition, the Court found no need to discuss the other issues of prescription and venue.