ESTAFA Lateo vs. People G.R. No. 161651 (June 8, 2011)

Prosecution’s Versions:

Sometime in 1994, [petitioners] Lateo and Elca proposed that [Lucero] finance the titling of the 122 hectares of land located in Muntinlupa allegedly owned by [petitioner] Elca as the sole heir of Gregorio Elca. Title to the property had not been transferred to [petitioner] Elca’s name because of a certain discrepancy between the Deed of Sale and TCT No. 77730. [Petitioner] Elca offered to assign to [Lucero] 70 hectares of said land. She was then introduced to [petitioner] Baldemor, Orlando Lalota and Nolasco de Guzman.

            [Lucero] released to [petitioners] about P4.7 million in staggered amounts.  [Petitioner] Elca told [Lucero] that certain portions of the property will first be put in the name of [petitioner] Lateo and would later be assigned to her.  [Lucero] was given a Deed of Sale dated March 27, 1987.  [Petitioner] Elca likewise executed an irrevocable Special Power of Attorney in favor of [Lucero].  Later, she was presented certified true copies of three (3) titles, TCT Nos. 195550, 195551 and 195552 issued by the Register of Deeds of Makati City in the name of [petitioner] Lateo covering approximately twenty-seven (27) hectares of Plan A-7 of the Mutinlupa Estate, situated in Barrio Magdaong, Poblacion, Muntinlupa.  However, [in] December 1994, when [Lucero] verified with the Registry of Deeds of Makati, she discovered that the aforesaid titles of the property were actually registered in the names of Marc Oliver R. Singson, Mary Jeanne S. Go and Feliza C. Torrigoza.

            [Lucero] confronted [petitioners] and demanded from them [the] return of the money.  She was told that they did not have any money to return.  They instead offered a five (5) hectare property identified as Lot 10140 of Plan Sgs 04213-000441 located at Bacoor, Cavite allegedly owned by [petitioner] Elca.  [Petitioner] Elca, however, demanded an additional P2 million for the transfer of title.

            When [Lucero] verified with the Land Management Bureau (LMB), she discovered that [petitioner] Elca only had a pending application for the sales patent over a four (4)[-hectare] area of the subject land.  These misrepresentations prompted her to file a complaint with the 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 toP100,000.00, supposedly in exchange for the Deed of Assignment prepared by [Lucero] for their transaction.

          Accused (Petitioner’s) version :

          Sometime in 1994, [Lucero], [petitioner] Lateo, Oscar Lalota met with [petitioner] Elca in Muntinlupa to discuss the proposal of [Lucero] to finance the titling of [petitioner] Elca’s land.

            On June 28, 1994, in a meeting called by [Lucero], she laid down the terms and conditions regarding her plans to finance the titling of [petitioner] Elca’s land.  She proposed that 22 out of the 122 hectares of the land would be given to the old tenants of the property, the 30 hectares would be titled in the name of [petitioner] Elca as his retained share and the other 70 hectares would be her profit as financier of the transaction.  [Lucero] would also pay P10.00 for every square meter of the 70 hectares or a total amount of P7 million.  All the expenses for the titling and management of the land would be deducted from P7 million.  The remaining balance would then be given to [petitioners].

            [Lucero] assigned Oscar Lalota to work for the titling of the land and to prepare all documents necessary thereto. [Petitioner] Baldemor would act as overseer of the transaction as [Lucero’s] attorney-in-fact.  [Petitioner] Lateo would serve as secretary and assistant of [Lucero].  [Petitioner] Elca would guard the property to keep off squatters.  He and his wife were instructed to sign all documents prepared by Oscar Lalota.

            In December 1994, [Lucero] told [petitioner] Elca that upon verification from the Registry of Deeds of Makati City, she found out that all the documents submitted by Oscar Lalota pertaining to their transaction were falsified.  Oscar Lalota disappeared after getting the money.

            In order to recover her losses from the anomalous transaction, [Lucero] offered to purchase [petitioner] Elca’s property in Cavite.  [Petitioner] Elca agreed to sell 2 hectares of his property at a price of P100.00 per square meter.  [Petitioner] Elca informed [Lucero] that the land was not yet titled although the documents had already been completed.  [Lucero] agreed to pay in advance the amount of P200,000.00 for the immediate titling of the land. 

            On December 21, 1994, however, [Lucero] gave no advance payment.  [Petitioner] Elca was made to return [in] January 1995.  On that date still [Lucero] made no payment.

            On [April] 25, 1995, [Lucero] promised to give the P200,000.00 advance payment at Furosato Restaurant [on] Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City.  Having failed to contact his lawyer, on [April] 26, 1995, [petitioner] Elca went alone to Furosato Restaurant.  Because of the absence of [petitioner] Lateo, [Lucero] postponed their meeting to [April] 27, 1995.

            When [petitioner] Elca arrived at Furosato Restaurant on [April] 27, 1995, [Lucero] and her lawyer Atty. Velasquez, [petitioners] Lateo and Baldemor and Atty. Ambrosio were already there.  Atty. Velasquez, upon the order of [Lucero], produced a document entitled “Contract to Sell” outlining their agreement over the 2 hectares of land in Bacoor, Cavite.  Atty. Ambrosio examined the contract to find out if it contains the terms and conditions agreed upon.  Attys. Velasquez and Ambrosio made their own handwritten corrections in the contract including the change of the title from “Contract to Sell” to “Deed of Assignment,” after which, both of them signed the document.  [Petitioner] Elca and [Lucero] signed the document as parties while [petitioners] Lateo and Baldemor signed as witnesses.

            After the signing of the Deed of Assignment, [Lucero] brought out the P200,000.00 as the promised payment for the land.  While [petitioner] Baldemor was counting the money, Atty. Velasquez and [Lucero] went to the comfort room.  Thereafter, several agents of the PACC approached them.  They were arrested and brought to the NBI Headquarters.

Whether Estafa was committed?

Ruling : Petitioners Elvira Lateo, Francisco Elca, and Bartolome Baldemor are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted estafa, and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor.

Petitioners attempted to defraud Lucero again.  

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, petitioners were correctly convicted of attempted estafa.