TIOCO V.

PEOPLE AND ALCAYDE

GR NO. 204936
March 06, 2013

Facts:

In December 2007, private complainant Rolando F. Alcayde, as buyer, entered into a Deed of
Sale with Assumption of Mortgage over two registered parcels of land located in Trancoville,
Baguio City, supposedly owned by Lilian and Mercy Chua Tioco.

After the purported sale, Lilian and Mercy transferred the possession of the said properties to
Alcayde by executing an Authority to Take Over, further authorizing Alcayde to collect rental
income from the said properties. Alcayde made a down payment of P2 million and made
arrangements to assume the balance of the P9.8 million loan secured by a mortgage over the
said properties.

While in possession of the said properties, Alcayde received word that the same properties
were being sold or were already sold to another buyer. To protect his interest, he caused the
annotation of a Notice of Adverse Claim. Eventually, he discovered that Lilian and Mercy had
already conveyed the same properties to spouses Daisy and Domingo Palangdao in a Deed of
Sale with Right to Repurchase 9 dated July 4, 2007.

November 15, 2010, the MTCC found both Mercy and Lilian GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of estafa under par. 1 of Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code.

In the instant Petition, Lilian contends that the prosecution failed to establish her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of estafa as penalized under par. 1 of Article 316 of the RPC.

Issue:

Whether or not Lilian is guilty of estafa under par. 1 Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code.

Supreme Court Ruling:

Yes, Lilian is guilty for the crime of estafe under par. 1 Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code.

The ultimate facts as summarized by the MTCC and the RTC are as follows: (1) the subject real
properties had been previously sold to the spouses Palangdao when the same were conveyed
to Alcayde; (2) both Lilian and Mercy misrepresented to Alcayde that they could still freely
dispose of them; and, (3) as a result of such false assurance, Alcayde paid both accused P2
million. The elements of estafa under par. 1 of Article 316 are: (1) that the thing be immovable
property; (2) offender who is not the owner of said property should represent that he is the
owner thereof; (3) offender should have executed an act of ownership (selling, leasing,
encumbering or mortgaging the real property); and (4) act prejudicial to owner or a 3rd person.

In this case, the MTCC and the RTC found that Lilian and Mercy were no longer the owners of
the real properties when they duped Alcayde into buying the same. They misrepresented
themselves to Alcayde as owners of the realties despite having previously sold the same to the
spouses Palangdao. Alcayde suffered damages in the amount of P2 million by reason of Lilian's
and Mercy's false declaration. Thus, the RTC and the MTCC correctly found them liable under
Article 316, par. 1 of the RPC.

For violation of par. 1 of Article 316 of the RPC, the "penalty ofarresto mayor in its minimum
and medium periods and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more
than three times such value, shall be imposed". Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
provides that the said law is not applicable to those convicted whose maximum term of
imprisonment does not exceed one year.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the CA Resolutions of August 5, 2011 and November 23,
2012 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that:

1. petitioner Lilian Chua Tioco is sentenced to imprisonment of three months of

arresto mayor;

2. interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded
from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

FULL TEXT:

SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 204936. March 6, 2013.]

LILIAN CHUA TIOCO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

AND ROLANDO F. ALCAYDE, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS
NAMELY: ROLAND A. ALCAYDE, CHRISTOPHER A. ALCAYDE AND
ALLANCRIS ALCAYDE, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution

dated 06 March 2013 which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 204936 — Lilian Chua Tioco v. People of the Philippines and
Rolando F. Alcayde, substituted by his heirs namely: Roland A. Alcayde,
Christopher A. Alcayde and Allancris Alcayde.

This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 filed by petitioner

Lilian Chua Tioco (Lilian) assailing the August 5, 2011 Resolution 2 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 34180 which dismissed
Lilian's Petition for Review 3 for failure to pay the docket fees within the
reglementary period and November 23, 2012 4 Resolution which
denied reconsideration thereof.

In December 2007, private complainant Rolando F. Alcayde (Alcayde),

as buyer, entered into a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage 5
over two registered parcels of land located in Trancoville, Baguio City,
supposedly owned by Lilian and Mercy Chua Tioco (Mercy). In the said
document, Lilian and Mercy, as vendors, warranted that "[t]he
ownership of the Subject Properties are already transferred with the
execution of this Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage, giving the
VENDEE the right to transfer the titles of the Subject Properties in his
name." 6 After the purported sale, Lilian and Mercy transferred the
possession of the said properties to Alcayde by executing an Authority
to Take Over, 7 further authorizing Alcayde to collect rental income
from the said properties. Alcayde made a downpayment of P2 million
and made arrangements to assume the balance of the P9.8 million
loan secured by a mortgage over the said properties. HTDCAS

Thereafter, Alcayde took over possession of the properties and posted

guards to secure the premises. While in possession of the said
properties, he received word that the same properties were being sold
or were already sold to another buyer. To protect his interest, he
caused the annotation of a Notice of Adverse Claim. 8 He also started
processing the papers for him to pay in full the consideration and
eventual transfer of the title in his name. Eventually, he discovered
that Lilian and Mercy had already conveyed the same properties to

spouses Daisy and Domingo Palangdao (spouses Palangdao) in a Deed

of Sale with Right to Repurchase 9 dated July 4, 2007.

Thus, an Information 10 was filed before the Municipal Trial Court in

Cities (MTCC) against Mercy and Lilian for the crime of estafa under
par. 1 of Article 316 11 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
In a Decision 12 dated November 15, 2010, the MTCC found both Mercy
and Lilian GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and
sentenced them to suffer imprisonment of four months of arresto
mayor in its medium period and to pay a fine of P2 million. In addition,
the MTCC ordered them to indemnify Alcayde the sum of P2 million
with legal interest of 6% from filing of the Information, until finality of
the Decision, and thereafter, the amount of which, inclusive of interest,
shall be subject to 12% interest until fully paid. Moreover, Lilian and
Mercy were directed to pay Alcayde P20,000.00 as moral damages,
P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, P30,000.00 as attorney's fees and
costs. 13

Lilian appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Mercy opted not to
appeal the MTCC Decision as she filed a Petition for Probation. 14

In a Decision15 dated March 23, 2011, the RTC AFFIRMED in totothe

MTCC's Decision.

Lilian filed a Motion for Reconsideration 16 which was DENIED 17 by the

RTC.

Still aggrieved, Lilian filed a Petition for Review 18 with the CA.
In a Resolution 19 dated August 5, 2011, the CA DISMISSED the Petition

for failure of Lilian to pay the required docket fees within the
prescribed period.

Lilian filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was DENIED in the

Resolution of November 23, 2012.

In the instant Petition, Lilian contends that the prosecution failed to

establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of estafa as
penalized under par. 1 of Article 316 of the RPC. Nevertheless, the
ultimate facts as summarized by the MTCC and the RTC are as follows:
(1) the subject real properties had been previously sold to the spouses
Palangdao when the same were conveyed to Alcayde; (2) both Lilian
and Mercy misrepresented to Alcayde that they could still freely
dispose of them; and, (3) as a result of such false assurance, Alcayde
paid both accused P2 million. The elements of estafa under par. 1 of
Article 316 are: (1) that the thing be immovable property; (2) offender
who is not the owner of said property should represent that he is the
owner thereof; (3) offender should have executed an act of ownership
(selling, leasing, encumbering or mortgaging the real property); and
(4) act prejudicial to owner or a 3rd person. 20 In this case, the MTCC
and the RTC found that Lilian and Mercy were no longer the owners of
the real properties when they duped Alcayde into buying the same.
They misrepresented themselves to Alcayde as

owners of the realties despite having previously sold the same to the
spouses Palangdao. Alcayde suffered damages in the amount of P2
million by reason of Lilian's and Mercy's false declaration. Thus, the
RTC and the MTCC correctly found them liable under Article 316, par. 1
of the RPC. SAcaDE

Secondly, Lilian claims that the courts below erred in finding her liable
to the private complainant in the amount of P2 million despite the fact
that he has already been fully paid by JGMLS Corporation for his claim
in the property. However, a perusal of the Cancellation of Adverse
Claim or Encumbrance 21 dated July 31, 2010, reveals that the
payment was not made by Lilian but by JGMLS Corporation whose
president settled all of private complainant Alcayde's claims against
the titles to the subject properties. Thus, this Court finds that Lilian has
not substantiated her claim that her liability to the private complainant
in the amount of P2 million has already been extinguished.

Lastly, Lilian maintains that the dismissal of the Petition by the CA was
not proper. However, this Court finds that the CA properly dismissed
the Petition because the filing fees were paid only within the extended
period of filing the Petition for Review, contrary to Section 1, Rule 42 of
the Rules of Court which requires the payment of docket and other
lawful fees before the expiration of the reglementary period. Thus, the
CA correctly held that the appeal was not perfected for failure to
comply with the requirement as to the payment of docket fees.

In any case, the Petition is dismissible for procedural lapses as it lacks:

(a) clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the
assailed Resolution dated August 5, 2011; and, (b) verified statement
of the material dates of receipt of the assailed Resolution dated August
5, 2011 and of filing of a Motion for Reconsideration.

For violation of par. 1 of Article 316 of the RPC, the "penalty ofarresto
mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than
the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such
value, shall be imposed". Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
provides that the said law is not applicable to those convicted whose
maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year.
Considering the absence of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and
medium periods should be imposed in the medium period, i.e., two (2)
months and one (1) day to three (3) months. Thus, in this case, the
term of imprisonment should be anywhere between two (2) months
and one (1) day to three (3) months, and not four (4) months as
imposed by the lower courts. STCDaI

With respect to damages, the RTC and the MTCC ordered Lilian to pay
a fine of P2 million. In addition, the RTC and the MTCC ordered her to
indemnify Alcayde the sum of P2 million with legal interest of 6% from
filing of the Information, until finality of the Decision, and thereafter,
the amount of which, inclusive of interest, shall be subject to 12%
interest until fully paid. Moreover, Lilian was likewise directed to pay
Alcayde P20,000.00 as moral damages,

P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, P30,000.00 as attorney's fees and

costs. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 22 damages awarded shall
earn interest of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this
Resolution.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the CA Resolutions of August 5,

2011 and November 23, 2012 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS
that:

(1) petitioner Lilian Chua Tioco is sentenced to imprisonment of three

months of arresto mayor;

(2) interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed on all

damages awarded from the date of finality of this judgment until fully
paid.

SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTO

Division Clerk of Court

1.Rollo, pp. 8-22.
2.No copy was attached to the rollo; but see Resolution of November 23,
2012, p.

2, rollo, p. 70 and Petition for Review, p. 1, id. at 8. 3.Id. at 57-67.

4.Id. at 69-71.

5.Id. at 78-79.

6.Id. at 79.

7.See Affidavit-Complaint, id. at 24.

8.See Memorandum of Encumbrances in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 018-

2010002384, id. at 51.

9.Id. at 75-77.

10.See Decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, id. at 28.

11.ART. 316. Other forms of swindling. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than the value of the
damage caused and not more than three times such value, shall be imposed
upon:

1. Any person who, pretending to be the owner of any real property, shall
convey, sell, encumber or mortgage the same.

xxx xxx xxx

12.Rollo, pp. 28-35; penned by Judge Roberto R. Mabalot.

13.Id. at 35.

14.See Memorandum of Appeal, id. at 37.

15.Id. at 41-44; penned by Presiding Judge Cleto R. Villacorta III.

16.Id. at 45-47.

17.See Petition for Review, id. at 57.

18.Id. at 57-67.

19.See note 2.
20.Reyes, L.B., The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, Seventeenth Edition
(2008), p. 846.

21.Rollo, p. 56.
22.People v. Salafranca, G.R. No. 173476, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 501.