Lateo vs. People

Attempted estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code is established when the accused falsely pretends to possess property, the offended party relies on that representation, and the accused commences the commission of estafa but fails to perform all acts of execution due to a cause other than spontaneous desistance; only the intent to cause damage, not actual damage, need be shown. The penalty for attempted estafa is two degrees lower than that for consummated estafa, but the additional incremental penalty based on the amount involved may be declined when inequitable because the crime was only attempted.

Petitioners Elvira Lateo, Francisco Elca, and Bartolome Baldemor were jointly charged with Orlando Lalota and Nolasco de Guzman under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the fraud. Eleonor Lucero was the private complainant. The prosecution’s case concerned two related real-property transactions—an earlier titling arrangement over land in Muntinlupa and a subsequent offer of land in Bacoor, Cavite—that allegedly induced Lucero to release funds.

In 1994, Elvira Lateo and Francisco Elca proposed to Eleonor Lucero that she finance the titling of 122 hectares of land in Muntinlupa allegedly owned by Elca as the sole heir of Gregorio Elca. Title to the property had not been transferred to Elca because of a discrepancy between the Deed of Sale and TCT No. 77730. Elca offered to assign 70 hectares to Lucero. She was introduced to Bartolome Baldemor, Orlando Lalota, and Nolasco de Guzman. Lucero released about ₱4.7 million in staggered amounts. Elca told her that portions of the property would first be placed in Lateo’s name and later assigned to her. Lucero was given a Deed of Sale dated March 27, 1987, and Elca executed an irrevocable Special Power of Attorney in her favor. Later, she was shown certified true copies of TCT Nos. 195550, 195551, and 195552 issued by the Register of Deeds of Makati City in Lateo’s name, covering approximately 27 hectares of Plan A-7 of the Muntinlupa Estate in Barrio Magdaong, Poblacion, Muntinlupa.

In December 1994, Lucero verified with the Registry of Deeds of Makati and discovered that the titles were actually registered in the names of Marc Oliver R. Singson, Mary Jeanne S. Go, and Feliza C. Torrigoza. She confronted petitioners and demanded return of the money. They told her they had no money to return and instead offered a five-hectare property identified as Lot 10140 of Plan Sgs 04213-000441 in Bacoor, Cavite, allegedly owned by Elca. Elca demanded an additional ₱2 million for transfer of title. When Lucero verified with the Land Management Bureau, she discovered that Elca only had a pending application for a sales patent over a four-hectare area of the subject land. These misrepresentations prompted her to file a complaint with Task Force Kamagong, PACC, Manila. On April 26, 1995, the task force conducted an entrapment at Furosato Restaurant. Petitioners were apprehended in possession of marked 100-peso bills amounting to ₱100,000, supposedly in exchange for the Deed of Assignment prepared by Lucero.

Petitioners gave a different account. According to them, sometime in 1994, Lucero, Lateo, and Oscar Lalota met with Elca in Muntinlupa to discuss Lucero’s proposal to finance the titling of Elca’s land. On June 28, 1994, in a meeting called by Lucero, she laid down terms: 22 of the 122 hectares would be given to old tenants, 30 hectares would be titled in Elca’s name as his retained share, and 70 hectares would be Lucero’s profit as financier. Lucero would pay ₱10.00 per square meter for the 70 hectares, or a total of ₱7 million, with expenses for titling and management deducted from that amount and the balance given to petitioners. Lucero assigned Oscar Lalota to work on the titling and prepare the necessary documents; Baldemor would act as overseer as Lucero’s attorney-in-fact; Lateo would serve as secretary and assistant; and Elca would guard the property against squatters and, with his wife, sign all documents prepared by Oscar Lalota.

According to petitioners, in December 1994 Lucero told Elca that upon verification with the Registry of Deeds of Makati City, she found that all documents submitted by Oscar Lalota pertaining to their transaction were falsified, and Oscar Lalota disappeared after getting the money. To recover her losses, Lucero offered to purchase Elca’s Cavite property. Elca agreed to sell two hectares at ₱100.00 per square meter. He informed Lucero that the land was not yet titled although the documents had been completed, and Lucero agreed to pay an advance of ₱200,000.00 for immediate titling. On December 21, 1994, however, Lucero gave no advance payment; Elca was made to return in January 1995, but Lucero still made no payment. On April 25, 1995, Lucero promised to give the ₱200,000.00 advance at Furosato Restaurant on Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City. Having failed to contact his lawyer, Elca went alone to Furosato Restaurant on April 26, 1995; because Lateo was absent, Lucero postponed the meeting to April 27, 1995.

When Elca arrived at Furosato Restaurant on April 27, 1995, Lucero, her lawyer Atty. Velasquez, petitioners Lateo and Baldemor, and Atty. Ambrosio were already there. Atty. Velasquez, upon Lucero’s order, produced a document entitled “Contract to Sell” outlining their agreement over the two hectares in Bacoor, Cavite. Atty. Ambrosio examined the contract, and Attys. Velasquez and Ambrosio made handwritten corrections, including changing the title from “Contract to Sell” to “Deed of Assignment,” after which both signed. Elca and Lucero signed as parties, while Lateo and Baldemor signed as witnesses. After the signing, Lucero brought out the ₱200,000.00 as the promised payment. While Baldemor was counting the money, Atty. Velasquez and Lucero went to the comfort room; thereafter, several PACC agents approached them, and they were arrested and brought to the NBI Headquarters.

The RTC found that the Cavite transaction was a continuation of the Muntinlupa transaction. It found that Elca represented himself as owner of the Bacoor property when his right was merely derived from an Application to Purchase Friar Lands dated June 25, 1992, which at the time of the transaction was still being protested, as shown by the Investigation Report of Rogelio N. Bruno, Special Investigator II, DENR, Land Management Bureau. The RTC also noted that Elca had transferred his rights over the same Cavite land to Leticia Ramirez. The CA affirmed these factual findings.

• Lack of Deceit: Petitioners insisted that their conviction lacked factual and legal basis and denied deceiving Lucero; they claimed Lucero was aware that the Bacoor property was not yet titled in Elca’s name.
• Invitation and Purpose of Meeting: Petitioners maintained that they went to Furosato Restaurant upon Lucero’s invitation and on her representation that she would hand them the ₱200,000.00 needed to facilitate the issuance of title in Elca’s name.
• Acquittal and Penalty: Petitioners pleaded for acquittal and assailed the penalty imposed by the CA as erroneous.
• Assigned Errors on Appeal: In their brief before the CA, petitioners argued that the trial court erred in finding them guilty of attempted estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, that the finding was not in accordance with the evidence on record, and that the penalty was erroneous.

• Affirmance of Conviction: The Office of the Solicitor General asserted that the CA correctly sustained petitioners’ conviction for attempted estafa.
• Penalty Modification: The OSG recommended a further modification of the penalty to six (6) months of arresto mayor.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Attempted Estafa: Whether the conviction for attempted estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code lacked factual and legal basis, particularly whether petitioners deceived Eleonor Lucero and whether the elements of attempted estafa were established.
• Penalty: Whether the CA imposed the correct penalty for attempted estafa.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Attempted Estafa: No. The conviction was affirmed; the elements of estafa by false pretenses under Article 315(2)(a) were established, and only the intent to cause damage, not actual damage, need be shown for attempted estafa.
• Penalty: Modified. The CA’s penalty was erroneous; petitioners were sentenced to four (4) months of arresto mayor, because imposing the additional incremental penalty of seven years was inequitable given that they were convicted only of attempted, not consummated, estafa.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Attempted Estafa: The Court began from the rule that factual findings of trial courts, including assessment of witness credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect, particularly when the CA affirms them, and none of the recognized exceptions was present. Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code penalizes estafa by using a fictitious name, falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions, or by other similar deceits. Its elements are: (1) a false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; (2) made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) reliance by the offended party, who is induced to part with money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; and (4) resulting damage. The Court agreed with the trial court that the Bacoor transaction was a continuation of the Muntinlupa transaction. When Lucero discovered that Elca’s certificates of title over the Muntinlupa property were fake, Elca offered as substitute a five-hectare portion of his purported 14-hectare lot in Bacoor, Cavite, but asked for an additional ₱2,000,000.00. As it turned out, Elca did not own 14 hectares in Bacoor; he merely had an inchoate right derived from an Application to Purchase Friar Lands covering only seven hectares, later amended to four hectares because of Alfredo Salenga’s protest. Elca was therefore in no position to transfer ownership of the five-hectare Bacoor property when it was offered to Lucero. Citing Alcantara vs. Court of Appeals, which in turn cited People vs. Balasa, the Court explained that fraud includes anything calculated to deceive and deceit is a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed, intended to deceive another to act to his legal injury. Elca’s representation that he owned 14 hectares in Bacoor and was offering a five-hectare portion in substitution of the Muntinlupa property, while demanding an additional ₱2,000,000.00, constituted fraud and deceit. Since the factual findings of the trial court and the CA were not shown to be erroneous, the conclusion that petitioners attempted to defraud Lucero again was affirmed. Petitioners commenced the commission of estafa but failed to perform all the acts of execution that would produce the crime, not by reason of their own spontaneous desistance but because of their apprehension by the authorities before they could obtain the amount. Because only the intent to cause damage, not the damage itself, had been shown, the RTC and the CA correctly convicted petitioners of attempted estafa.
• Penalty: The penalty for estafa depends on the amount defrauded. If the crime had been consummated, Lucero would have been defrauded in the amount of ₱100,000.00. Under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the applicable penalty would have been prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, with an additional one year for every ₱10,000.00 in excess of the first ₱22,000.00, provided that the total penalty should not exceed twenty years. Since only attempted estafa was established, the applicable penalty was two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony under Article 51, in relation to Article 61(5), of the Revised Penal Code. The imposable penalty would thus be arresto mayor in its medium period to arresto mayor in its maximum period, or imprisonment ranging from two months and one day to six months. Because the amount involved exceeded ₱22,000.00, one year imprisonment for every ₱10,000.00 should be added, bringing the total to seven years. The Court agreed with the OSG, however, that it would be inequitable to impose the additional incremental penalty of seven years to the maximum period, considering that petitioners were charged and convicted merely of attempted and not consummated estafa. The penalty was therefore modified to four months of arresto mayor.

• Attempted Estafa by False Pretenses — Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code is committed by using a fictitious name, falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions, or by other similar deceits. Its elements are: (1) a false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; (2) made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with money or property; and (4) the offended party suffered damage. In this case, Elca falsely represented ownership of the Bacoor property, Lucero relied on the representation, and the crime was not consummated only because of the entrapment.
• Attempted Felony and Intent to Cause Damage — Under Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of a cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. For attempted estafa, only the intent to cause damage, not actual damage, need be shown. The Court applied this because petitioners commenced the estafa but were apprehended before they could obtain the money.
• Fraud and Deceit — Fraud in its general sense comprises anything calculated to deceive, including acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence, resulting in damage to another or taking undue advantage of another. Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed, which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Elca’s representation that he owned 14 hectares in Bacoor and could transfer five hectares, when he had only an inchoate right over four hectares, constituted fraud and deceit.
• Deference to Trial Court’s Factual Findings — Factual findings of trial courts, including their assessment of witness credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect, particularly when the CA affirms them. The rule admits exceptions, but none was present. The Court relied on this doctrine to affirm the conviction.
• Penalty for Attempted Estafa — The penalty for estafa depends on the amount defrauded. For attempted estafa, the penalty is two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony under Article 51, in relation to Article 61(5), of the Revised Penal Code. While the incremental penalty for the amount involved may be added, the Court may decline to impose it when inequitable because the crime was only attempted. The Court imposed four months of arresto mayor.

• "The elements of the felony are as follows: 1. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. 2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. 3. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means. 4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage." — This passage states the elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, which the Court applied to find that the prosecution established the felony.
• "Undoubtedly, petitioners commenced the commission of the crime of estafa but they failed to perform all the acts of execution which would produce the crime, not by reason of their own spontaneous desistance but because of their apprehension by the authorities before they could obtain the amount. Since only the intent to cause damage and not the damage itself had been shown, the RTC and the CA correctly convicted petitioners of attempted estafa." — This is the ratio for affirming the conviction for attempted estafa and for the rule that only intent to cause damage need be shown.
• "However, we agree with the OSG that it would be inequitable to impose the additional incremental penalty of 7 years to the maximum period of penalty, considering that petitioners were charged and convicted merely of attempted and not consummated estafa. We, therefore, modify the penalty and sentence petitioners to imprisonment of four (4) months of arresto mayor." — This passage explains the Court’s modification of the penalty to four months of arresto mayor.
• "[F]raud in its general sense is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair way by which another is cheated. And deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury." — This is the Court’s quoted definition of fraud and deceit, used to characterize Elca’s misrepresentation of ownership over the Bacoor property.

• Alcantara vs. Court of Appeals, 462 Phil. 72, 88-89 (2003) — Cited for the definition of fraud and deceit in estafa; the Court quoted it in explaining why Elca’s misrepresentation constituted fraud.
• People vs. Balasa, G.R. Nos. 106357 & 108601-02, September 3, 1998, 295 SCRA 49 — Cited in Alcantara vs. Court of Appeals for the same definition of fraud and deceit.
• Pucay vs. People, G.R. No. 167084, October 31, 2006, 506 SCRA 411, 420, 423 — Cited for the rule that factual findings of trial courts, including witness credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect, especially when the CA affirms them; the Court noted that none of the exceptions applied.
• Koh Tieck Heng vs. People, G.R. Nos. 48535-36, December 21, 1990, 192 SCRA 533, 545 — Cited for the rule that in attempted estafa, only the intent to cause damage, not the damage itself, need be shown.
• Pecho vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 111399, November 14, 1994, 238 SCRA 116, 139 — Cited in connection with the graduation of penalties under Article 61(5) of the Revised Penal Code.

• Article 315(2)(a), Revised Penal Code — Defines estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the fraud. The Court applied its elements to find that Elca falsely represented ownership of the Bacoor property and induced Lucero to rely on that representation.
• Article 6, paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code — Defines attempt as the commencement of a felony by overt acts without performing all acts of execution due to a cause other than spontaneous desistance. The Court applied it because petitioners commenced the estafa but were apprehended before obtaining the money.
• Article 51, Revised Penal Code — Provides that the penalty for principals of an attempted crime is lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony. The Court applied it to reduce the penalty for attempted estafa.
• Article 61(5), Revised Penal Code — Provides the rule for graduating penalties by analogy when the law does not specifically provide for the penalty for attempted or frustrated felonies. The Court applied it in relation to Article 51 to determine the penalty for attempted estafa.
• Article 315, Revised Penal Code — Provides the penalty for estafa based on the amount defrauded. The Court noted that if the crime had been consummated, the amount would be ₱100,000.00 and the applicable penalty would be prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, with an additional one year for every ₱10,000.00 in excess of the first ₱22,000.00, not exceeding twenty years.

• Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson)
• Lucas P. Bersamin (additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta)
• Roberto A. Abad
• Mariano C. Del Castillo (additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza)