G.R. No. L-4991, THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMILIO PIMENTEL, defendant-appellant, March 12, 1910.

FACTS:
Emilio Pimentel was accused and convicted of estafa by the Court of First Instance of Ambos Camarines. The information alleged that on August 15, 1907, Pimentel promised Zacarias Riesa that he would obtain a certificate of title for Riesa’s land from the Court of Land Registration. A few days later, Pimentel delivered a document to Riesa, claiming it was the certificate of title for his land and was worth P150. Taking advantage of Riesa’s ignorance, Pimentel maliciously took P150 from Riesa, consisting of a carabao valued at P120 and a P30 promissory note. In reality, the document delivered was not a certificate of title, but merely a sworn statement by Riesa (and two witnesses) before a notary public regarding his possession of the land. Pimentel appealed, questioning only the sufficiency of the evidence.

ISSUE:
Is the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction for estafa?

RULING:
Yes, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction for estafa. The Court found that the allegations in the information were sufficiently proven. Pimentel intentionally made false representations to Riesa, stating that the document he presented was a certificate of title, despite knowing its true nature. Riesa, being ignorant and unable to read, relied entirely on Pimentel’s deceitful statements and was thereby induced to part with his property (the carabao and promissory note). The document Riesa received was clearly not the certificate of title Pimentel had promised. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, with costs against the appellant.