G.R. No. 172500 - LILIBETH ARICHETA, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused, LILIBETH ARICHETA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ESTAFA and she is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) YEARS, ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor minimum as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS, ONE (1) DAY of the medium of prision mayor medium as maximum with all the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay the costs. [8] Via a notice of appeal, accused-petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. [9] In its decision dated 26 April 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications the trial courts decision as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated September 25, 2000 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS . Accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS, ELEVEN (11) MONTHS and TEN (10) DAYS of prision correccional minimum to medium as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum as maximum with all the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the costs. [10] The Court of Appeals, in upholding petitioners conviction, ratiocinated: The Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage (Exh. A) dated April 27, 1994 and signed by accused Lilibeth L. Aricheta in favor of Margarita Vasquez speaks only of the mortgage with the National Housing Authority (NHA). Margarita Vasquez, as vendee, agreed to assume payment of the balance on the loan with NHA. Said instrument includes the warranty by Lilibeth L. Aricheta, as vendor, that she is the absolute owner of said property and warrants the vendee from any lawful claim of whomsoever over the same. (Exhibit A). x x x x At the time accused-[appellant] signed the deed of sale in favor of Margarita Vasquez she represented to the latter that she was the absolute owner of the property subject matter of the sale. Accused-[appellant] warranted to defend said transaction from the claim of anybody whomsoever. Whether the previous transaction in favor of Magdalena Galang was a sale or a mortgage, aforesaid written guaranty embodied in the sale to Margarita Vasquez was violated. The representation, therefore, that accused-[appellant] was the absolute owner of the property sold to Margarita Vasquez and it was free from the claim of anybody was fraudulent. Said false pretense was simultaneous with the commission of the fraud. Margarita Vasquez was induced to deliver the sum of P50,000.00 on account of said fraudulent misrepresentation. Margarita Vasquez suffered damage. [11] Petitioner is now before us via a petition for review on certiorari raising a sole issue: WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURTS FINDINGS THAT THE PETITIONER IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ESTAFA. Petitioner contends that the element of deceit which, in this case is the making of false representations that she is the owner of the subject property whe