G.R. No. 161178 - ADELA B. DELGADO, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND EMMANUEL ANG JARANILLA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the appelaed decision is AFFIRMED with the modifications to the effect that accused appellant is hereby ordered to pay the complainant the following: P2,029,820.00 with legal interest compounded annually from July 9, 1993; P250,000.00 in concept of moral damages; P250,000.00 as exemplary damages; P100,000 for attorneys fees plus cost of the litigation. The penalty against the accused-appellant should be modified in accord with the penultimate paragraph of this decision. SO ORDERED . [4] Dissatisfied with the ruling, Delgado now brings the matter before this Court. Assignment of Errors In support of her petition, Delgado alleges that the RTC and the CA erred in failing to find: that the injured party and, thus, the proper private complainant was Manuel Ang, father of Jaranilla; that she was in the business of money changing and had the capacity to possess the USD 74,000 subject of the transaction; and that Alabado's testimony was more credible than that of Aquino. Our Ruling The petition is without merit. As to the allegation that the injured party was Manuel Ang, and not private respondent Jaranilla, to show that there was no damage to private respondent, this is a novel argument, but one that has already been disposed of. Delgado claims that the source of the funds was Manuel Ang, that the check was issued by Manuel Ang, so if there were any damage, it would have been to Manuel Ang, not Jaranilla. The argument is merely an attempt by Delgado to distract the court from the proven facts. Manuel Ang was not the one with whom Delgado transacted, but his son, private respondent Jaranilla. This is not contested by Delgado, nor does she dispute having received PhP 2,029,820 as a result of said transaction with Jaranilla. The source of the funds is of no moment for determining Delgado's criminal liability. Ownership is not a necessary element of the crime of estafa. [5] In a string of cases, it has been held that the person prejudiced or the immediate victim of the fraud need not be the owner of the goods. [6] Thus, the allegation of Delgado that the injured party was Manuel Ang has no bearing in the resolution of this case. It was proved that in the transaction between Jaranilla and Delgado, Delgado would deliver USD 74,000 in exchange for PhP 2,029,820, and though Jaranilla lived up to his end of the bargain, Delgado failed to live up to hers. The allegation of Delgado that the PhP 2,029,820 did not belong to Jaranilla, had it been proved, would not matter. Next, the argument of Delgado that she was engaged in the business of money-changing and, thus, had the capacity to possess the USD 74,000 subject of the transaction is of no moment. As found by the trial court, she failed to deliver the dollars in exchange for the PhP 2,029,820 to Jaranilla's secretary at the Binondo branch of Metrobank, and she failed to deliver it despite repeated demands from private respondent. This belatedly alleged capacity of hers to possess the USD 74,000 canno