CARMELITO A.

MONTANO, PETITIONER,
VS.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 141980 December 7, 2001

 C A R M E L I T O A . M O N TA N O , P E T I T I O N E R , Facts:
VS.
 June 2, 1988, the petitioner induced the private
P E O P L E O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S , R E S P O N D E N T.
complainants to buy 2 townhouse units to be constructed on
a lot situated in Baguio City which he misrepresented to be
owned by Legarda Pine Home of which the petitioner
Issue: claimed to be the general manager.
 To further induce the private complainants, petitioner
informed them that the lot in question would be developed
into an exclusive community consisting of 42 units of
Whether or not the accused was guilty townhouse; and that he undisputedly promised to turn over
of the crime estafa by means of deceit. to the private complainants the possession of the 2
townhouse units one year from October 1, 1988.
 Consequently, private complainants paid the petitioner the
total amount of P625,000.00 as downpayment for the
purchase of 2 townhouse units.
 After the lapse of one year from October 1, 1988, petitioner
failed to deliver the possession thereof contrary to his
written promise. It was also established that no construction
of townhouse was undertaken; that Legarda Pine Home of
which petitioner is the sole owner and general manager, is
not actually the owner of the subject lot in Baguio City; and
that petitioner has no right or authority to offer for sale the
proposed townhouse units in question.
 C A R M E L I TO A . M O N TA N O , P E T I T I O N E R ,
VS.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
R E S P O N D E N T.
Facts:
 The private complainants then filed complaints against the
petitioner for 2 counts of the crime of estafa as defined and
penalized under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the RPC.
 After joint trial on the merits, the trial court found the
petitioner guilty as charged.
 Petitioner’s recourse to the CA proved futile as the
appellate court affirmed in toto the judgment of the
trial court.
Ruling:
The accused was guilty of the crime of estafa.
A close scrutiny of the 2 separate information in these
cases clearly and unmistakably describe the acts of
deceit and false pretenses employed by the accused
constituting his fraudulent representations to the
private complainants that townhouse units would be
built on the property located at the corner of Marcos
Highway and Legarda Road, Baguio City and that the
said property is allegedly owned by Legarda Pine
Home of which he is the general manager, when in fact
it is not, with the end of soliciting funds from them in
the guise of a contract for the purchase of 2 townhouse
units which ultimately were not constructed.
The elements of the crime of estafa by means of deceit, are:
Elements
1) There must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means;
2) Such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means
must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud;
3) The offended party must have relied on the false pretense,
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to
part with his money or property because of the false pretense,
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; and
4) As a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
Application
The act of the petitioner of deliberately and fraudulently
misrepresenting to the private complainants that Legarda Pine
Home of which he is the general manager, is the owner of the
subject lot in Baguio City on which townhouse units would be
built and that he has the right and authority to offer for sale the
proposed townhouse units, when in fact he has none.
Through the deliberate and fraudulent misrepresention, he was
able to collect money as downpayment for 2 townhouse units
from the private complainants and his failure to return the
amounts that he had collected from them despite several
demands, and considering that the townhouse units were never
constructed.
Private complainants paid the petitioner the total amount of
P625,000.00 as downpayment for the purchase of 2 townhouse
units.
After the lapse of one year from October 1, 1988, petitioner
failed to deliver the possession thereof contrary to his written
promise. It was also established that no construction of
townhouse was undertaken.