G.R. No. 166246 - ANTONIO NEPOMUCENO, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the Court finds the accused Antonio Nepomuceno guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from Six (6) years and One (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to Twelve (12) years and One (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Furthermore, accused is ordered to restitute to Lipa Lending Investor, Inc. the amount of P180,000.00 with legal rate of interest computed from the date of institution of this case until the same is paid in full. Costs de officio. SO ORDERED . [10] The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the abovementioned ruling in a Decision promulgated on July 6, 2004 by changing the penalty imposed. The dispositive portion of the appellate courts decision reads: WHEREFORE , the Decision of the trial court convicting accused-appellant Antonio Nepomuceno for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code is AFFIRMED with the modification that the sentence he shall suffer is an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal . SO ORDERED . [11] Thus, this petition. Nepomuceno raises the following issues for our resolution: I. [WHETHER OR NOT] THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING PETITIONER OF THE OFFENSE OF ESTAFA DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF P180,000.00 NO LONGER BELONGED TO LIPA LENDING INVESTOR, INC. BUT TO ROMMEL VILLANUEVA. THERE WAS THEREFORE NO DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, WHICH IS ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE. II. [WHETHER OR NOT] THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT DEMAND IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE OF ESTAFA COMMITTED THROUGH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE; AND THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH DEMAND MADE IN THE INSTANT CASE. III. [WHETHER OR NOT] THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE CIRCUMSTANCES PROVING THE INNOCENCE OF THE PETITIONER. [12] Simply, the issues are: (1) Was petitioner guilty of estafa ? and (2) Is demand necessary to convict for estafa ? Petitioner, in his Memorandum [13] filed on February 28, 2006, argues that damage as an element of estafa is lacking in this case because the amount of P180,000 did not belong to Lipa Lending but to Rommel Villanueva, and there was therefore no harm done to Lipa Lending when Villanueva gave the amount of P180,000 to him. Accordingly, he did not receive the amount of P180,000 in trust, on commission, for administration or any other circumstance involving the duty to make delivery of or return the same to Lipa Lending. [14] Petitioner also argues that the element of demand in estafa was not present since the prosecution did not present evidence that demand was made to him to account for the amount of P180,000. [15] On the other hand, respondent, thru the Office of the Solicitor General, in its Memorandum [16] filed on May 11, 2006, contends that the issues raised by