6/14/2017 G.R. No.

170298

FIRSTDIVISION

MANUELS.ISIP, G.R.No.170298
Petitioner,
Present:
YNARESSANTIAGO,
Chairperson,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
versus CHICONAZARIO,and
NACHURA,JJ.

Promulgated:

PEOPLE OF THE June26,2007
PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
xx


DECISION


CHICONAZARIO,J.:

BeforeusisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,which
[1]
seekstosetasidetheDecision oftheCourtofAppealsdated26October2004inCAG.R.CR
No.21275entitled,PeopleofthePhilippinesv.ManuelS.IsipandMariettaM.Isiptotheextent
thatitaffirmedwithmodificationspetitionerManuelS.IsipsconvictionforEstafainCriminalCase
No. 13684 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch XVII, Cavite City, and its Amended
[2]
Decision dated26October2005denyinghisPartialMotionforReconsideration.

Theantecedentsarethefollowing:

PetitionerwaschargedwithEstafainCriminalCaseNo.13684beforeBranchXVIIofthe
RTCofCaviteCity,underthefollowinginformation:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170298.htm 1/16
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 170298

That on or about March 7, 1984, in the City of Cavite, Republic of the Philippines and within the
jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,receivedfromLeonardoA.Joseone
(1)sevencaratdiamond(mensring),valuedatP200,000.00,forthepurposeofsellingthesameon
commissionbasisandtodelivertheproceedsofthesalethereoforreturnthejewelryifnotsold,onor
before March 15, 1984, but the herein accused once in possession of the abovedescribed articles,
withintenttodefraudandwithgraveabuseofconfidence,did,thenandthere,willfully,unlawfully
andfeloniouslymisappropriate,misapplyandconvertthesametohisownpersonaluseandbenefit
andnotwithstandingrepeateddemandsmadebyLeonardoA.Joseforthereturnofthejewelryorthe
delivery of the proceeds of the sale thereof, failed to do so, to the damage and prejudice of the
[3]
aforesaidLeonardoA.JoseintheabovestatedamountofP200,000.00,PhilippineCurrency.


Petitionerswife,MariettaM.Isip,wasindictedbeforethesamecourtforsevencountsofViolation
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law. The cases were
docketedasCriminalCasesNo.14684,14784,14884,14984,15584,15684and15784. The
accusatoryportionoftheinformationinCriminalCaseNo.14684reads:
ThatonoraboutMarch27,1984,intheCityofCavite,RepublicofthePhilippinesandwithin
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, knowing fully well that her
account with the bank is insufficient, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and
knowingly issue Pacific Banking Corporation Check No. 518672 in the amount of P562,000.00, in
payment for assorted pieces of jewelry, received from Leonardo A. Jose, which check upon
presentation with the drawee bank for payment was dishonored for insufficiency of funds and
notwithstandingrepeateddemandsmadebyLeonardoA.Josefortheredemptionofthesaidcheck,
accusedrefusedandstillrefusestodoso,tothedamageandprejudiceoftheaforesaidLeonardoA.
[4]
JoseintheabovestatedamountofP562,000.00,PhilippineCurrency.


The six other Informations are similarly worded except for the date when the offense was
committed,thenumberandamountofthecheck.Thepertinentdataintheotherinformationsareas
follows:

Crim.CaseNo. DateofCommission No.ofCheck AmountofCheck

14784 17March1984 518644 P50,000.00
14884 30March1984 518645 P50,000.00
14984 12March1984 [5] P150,000.00
15584 25March1984 030086 P95,000.00
15684 29March1984 518674 P90,000.00
15784 1April1984 518646 P25,000.00
518669


ThespousesIsipwerelikewisechargedbeforethesamecourtwithfive(5)countsofEstafa.
ThecasesweredocketedasCriminalCasesNo.25684,25784,26084,26184and37884.The
EstafachargedinCrim.CaseNo.25684wasallegedlycommittedasfollows:

ThatonoraboutMarch20,1984,intheCityofCavite,RepublicofthePhilippinesandwithin
thejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,conspiring,confederatingtogether
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170298.htm 2/16
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 170298

and mutually helping one another, received from one Leonardo A. Jose the following pieces of
jewelry,towit:one(1)setdomeshaperingandearringsvaluedatP120,000.00,withtheobligationof
sellingthesameoncommissionbasisanddelivertheproceedsofthesalethereoforreturnthemifnot
sold,onorbeforeMarch21,1984,butthehereinaccused,onceinpossessionofthesaidjewelryby
means of false pretenses, with intent to defraud and with grave abuse of confidence, did, then and
there,willfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslymisappropriate,misapplyandconvertthemtotheirown
personal use and benefit and paid the same with Check Nos. 518646 and 518669, dated March 29,
1984andApril1,1984,respectively,intheamountofP90,000andP25,000,respectively,whichupon
presentation with the bank was dishonored for insufficiency of funds and notwithstanding repeated
demands made by Leonardo A. Jose for the redemption of the said check, failed to do so, to his
[6]
damageandprejudiceintheabovestatedamountofP120,000.00,PhilippineCurrency.


Except for the description and value of the pieces of jewelry involved, date of receipt and
agreeddateofreturn,andthenumber,dateandamountofthechecksissuedinpaymentthereof,the
fourotherinformationsaresimilarlyworded.Thespecificsthereofareasfollows:

Crim.CaseNo. Valueof Dateof AgreedDate CheckNo./Date Amount
Jewelry Receipt ofReturn

25784 P150,000 030784 033084 030086/031284 P150,000
26084 P95,000 032084 032784 518647/032584 P95,000
26184 P562,000 032084 032784 518672/032784 P562,000
37884 P200,000 020384 518644/031784 P50,000
518645/033084 P50,000

Whenarraignedonthecharges,petitionerandMariettaIsippleadednotguilty. There being
onlyonecomplainantinallthecases,jointtrialofthecasesfollowed.

The versions of the prosecution and the defense, as taken by the Court of Appeals in the
partiesrespectivebriefs,arethefollowing:

i)ProsecutionVersion.

Sometimein1982,appellantspousesManuelandMariettaIsipwereintroducedtocomplainantAtty.
LeonardoJose.Theintroductionwasmadebycomplainantsfather,Nemesio,businessassociateofthe
Isips. Nemesio and the Isips were then engaged in the buy and sell of pledged and unredeemed
jewelrypawnedbygamblinghabitus(pp.816,tsn,June8,1993).

Needingabiggercapitaltofinancethegrowingoperation,theIsipsconvincedcomplainanttobetheir
capitalist,apropositiontowhichcomplainantaccededto(p.14,ibid).

Thus,theoperationwentsmoothlythatwasbeforeFebruary,1984(pp.1418,tsn,ibid).

OnFebruary3,1984,atcomplainantsresidenceinCaridad,CaviteCity,appellantspousesreceived
fromcomplainanta6caratmensringvaluedatP200,000.00withtheconditionthattheyaregoingto
sellsaidjewelryxxxoncommissionbasisforP200,000.00andiftheyarenotabletosellthesame,
theyhavetoreturntheringifsoldonorbeforeMarch3,1984(p.8,tsn,October15,1993).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170298.htm 3/16
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 170298

On March 3, 1984, the Isips did not return the ring or the proceeds thereof. Instead, Marietta Isip
issued two (2) personal checks dated March 17 and 30, 1984, respectively, for P50,000.00 each as
partialpaymentforthejewelry.ThereceiptofthejewelrywasacknowledgedbyMariettaIsipwith
Manuelactingasawitness(pp.911,tsn,ibid).

This particular mens ring is the subject of Criminal Case No. 37884 for Estafa while Check Nos.
518644and518645(PacificBankingCorp.)datedMarch17and30,respectively,arethesubjectof
CriminalCaseNos.14784and14884.

InthemorningofMarch7,1984,theIsipcouplewentagaintocomplainantsresidenceinCaridad,
CaviteCitywherecomplainantdeliveredone(1)ChokerPearlwith35piecesofsouthseapearlswith
diamondworthP150,000.00.Theconditionwasthattheproceedsbeturnedovertocomplainantonor
beforeMarch30,1984(pp.2729,tsn,ibid).March30,1984came,butinsteadofturningoverthe
proceedsorreturntheChokerPearl,Mrs.IsipissuedacheckdatedMarch12,1984forP150,000.00
(RCBCcheckNo.030086)aspayment(p.34,ibid).

ThisisthesubjectofCriminalCaseNo.25484forEstafaagainstthespousesandCriminalCaseNo.
14984forviolationofBP22againstMariettaIsip.

Intheafternoonofthesameday,Mr.ManuelIsipwenttocomplainantsresidenceinCaviteCityand
got from the latter a mens ring (7 carats) worth P200,000.00. Mr. Isip signed a receipt with the
conditionthathereturntheringordelivertheproceeds,ifsold,onorbeforeMarch15,1984.March
15,1984came,butMr.IsipsoughtanextensionwhichfelldueonApril7,1984.April7,1984came
andwentby,butMr.Isipdefaulted(pp.4146,tsn,ibid).TheaboveisthesubjectmatterofCriminal
CaseNo.13684forEstafaagainstManuelIsip.

On March 20, 1984, the Isips went again to Cavite City and got from complainant one (1) Dome
shaped ring with matching earring with diamonds valued at P120,000.00. As with their previous
agreement,theitemwastobereturnedortheproceedsofthesalebedeliveredonMarch21,1984
(pp. 4852, tsn, ibid). The following morning, however, Mrs. Isip issued two (2) personal checks
(CheckNos.518646and518669datedMarch29,1984forP90,000.00andP25,000.00,respectively)
inpaymentfortheDomeshapedring(p.53,tsn,ibid).

ThisisthesubjectofCriminalCaseNo.256084forEstafaagainstthespousesIsipandCriminalCase
Nos.15684andand(sic)15784forViolationofBP22againstMariettaIsip.

Atnoontimeonthesameday,theIsipcouplewentbacktotheresidenceofcomplainantandgotfrom
himone(1)collarheartshapednecklaceandone(1)baguettenecklaceworthP95,000.00(p.60,tsn,
ibid). As agreed upon, Marietta Isip signed a receipt with the condition that the jewelry or the
proceeds thereof be delivered to complainant on March 27, 1984. The Isips defaulted and instead,
Mrs.Isipissuedacheck(CheckNo.518647)datedMarch27,1984intheamountofP90,000.00(pp.
35,tsn,October22,1993).

ThesubjectpiecesofjewelryarethesubjectofCriminalCaseNo.26084forEstafaagainsttheIsip
coupleandCriminalCaseNo.15584forViolationofBP22againstMariettaIsip.

Again, in the early evening of March 20, 1984, the Isips went to complainant informing him that
Balikbayan doctors are having a convention in Vigan, Ilocos Sur saying that, that was the most
opportunetimetoselljewelries.AssortedpiecesofjewelryweredeliveredtoMrs.Isipasreflectedin
areceiptdulysignedbyher(ExhibitO)acknowledgingthevaluethereoftothetuneofP562,000.00.

ExhibitOcontainedthepromisethatthejewelryorproceedsthereofwillbedeliveredonMarch27,
1984.InspiteofthepromisecontainedinExhibitO,Mrs.Isipissuedapostdatedcheck(CheckNo.
51867) dated March 27, 1984 in the amount of P562,000.00 as payment for the assorted pieces of
jewelry(pp.812,tsn,October22,1993).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170298.htm 4/16
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 170298

This is the subject matter of Criminal Case No. 26184 for Estafa against the couple and Criminal
CaseNo.14684againstMariettaIsipforViolationofBP22.

AllofthecheckscoveredbytheabovetransactionsweredepositedonApril6,1984(p.14,tsn,ibid),
butallofthembouncedforbeingdrawnagainstinsufficientfunds.Demandletterssenttothecouple
provedfutile(pp.1520,ibid).

ii)DefenseVersion.

During all the times material to these cases, complainant Leonardo Jose, who had his residence at
Room411,4thFloor,PlazaTowersCondominiumon(sic)3375GuerreroStreet,Ermita,Manila,but
claimshehadhisancestralhomeat506P.BurgosStreet,Caridad,Cavite,wasanemployeeofthe
Bureau of Customs, having been so since 1964 (Tr., 6/8/93, 7). Upon the other hand, appellants
ManuelS.Isip(Manuelhereafter)andMariettaM.Isip(Mariettahereafter)arespouses,residentsat
3635M.ArellanoStreet,Bacood,Sta.Mesa,Manila(Tr.,8/29/93,4)andengagedinvariousbusiness
undertakings in Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Baguio City, Olongapo City and Bataan (Tr., Idem, 9Tr.,
10/2/95,13)appellant Manuel, in the brokerage and trucking business while appellant Marietta, in
thatofsellingjewelryandfinancing,aswellasinPXgoods,realestateandcars,whichshestarted
whenshewasstillsingle(Tr.,Idem,910Tr.,10/2/95,12).In1982,atthecasinoinOlongapoCity,
appellant Marietta started obtaining jewelry from losing or financiallystrapped players which she
repledged as security for financing she obtained from one Nemesio Jose, father of complainant
LeonardoJose(Tr.,Idem,1112Tr.,Idem,14).Afteraboutayear,whenNemesioJoseranshortof
capital,hereferredappellantstohisson,complainantLeonardoJose,withaddressatthePlazaTowers
Condominium aforesaid for needed financing (Tr., Idem, 1314 Tr., Idem, 1719). Beginning early
1983, at complainants residence at Plaza Tower Condominium in Manila, appellant Marietta,
accompanied by her husband who participated only as a witness, started having transactions with
complainantwho,ondifferentdatesinFebruary,MarchandApril,1984,extendedvariousamountsto
her for which appellant Marietta pledged jewelry which, in turn, were agreed between her and
complainanttobesoldoncommissionandtoturnovertheproceedsthereoforreturnthejewelryto
complainant(Tr.,Idem,1618).Inthecourseofthetransactions,appellantMariettahadissuedseveral
checks to complainant as guarantee for the payment of the subject jewelry which have either been
paid or redeemed, had returned the unsold jewelry to complainant and had conveyed, by way of
payment for other jewelry, some personal properties, like brass and antics, and real properties in
Balanga,BataanandMabalacat,Pampanga,tocomplainantwhocausedthesametoberegisteredin
thenamesofhisson,ChristianJose,andhiswife,ZenaidaJose(Exhibits1,2,2A,3,4,5,6,6A,7,
7A),withtheresultthatalltheobligationsofappellantstocomplainanthavealreadybeenpaidforor
offset(Tr.,Idem,23Tr.,Idem,24,3436,3739Tr.,3/4/96,78).Also,allthechecksthatappellant
Marietta issued which were initially dishonored have already been (sic) (Tr., 10/2/95, 2530 Tr.,
3/4/96, 89). In fact, complainant caused the dismissal of some cases he filed against appellants.
Complainant however failed to return some of the redeemed and/or paid checks issued to him by
appellantMariettaonthepretextthathedidnotbringthem(Tr.,3/4/96,20).Inasmuchasappellant
Mariettaincurredsomedefaultinpaymentandcomplainantsuspectedthatshewouldnotbeableto
redeemthechecksorpayforthepledgedjewelry,complainantdemandedthatappellantssigncertain
documentstoavoidanymisunderstanding,withthreatofprosecutionbeforetheCavitecourtsifthey
do not comply (Tr., Idem, 1920 Tr., 3/4/96, 56). So, in order to maintain good relations with
complainant,appellantMariettasignedthedocumentacknowledgingobligationstohiminonesitting,
whichappellantManuelwitnessed(Tr.,Idem,2122).Later,appellantslearnedthat,althoughallthe
transactions were entered into in Manila, complainant filed the cases herein before the Cavite
[7]
RegionalTrialCourt(Tr.,Idem,2324).


OnNovember25,1996,thetrialcourtrendereditsdecision,thedispositiveportionthereofreading:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170298.htm 5/16
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 170298

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused Dra. Marietta M. Isip guilty
beyondreasonabledoubtofa(sic)violationofB.P.22inCrim.CasesNos.14684,14784,14884,
14984,15584,15684and15784andsheisherebysentencedtoundergoimprisonmentofOne(1)
yearofprisioncorrectional(sic)ineachcaseandofEstafainthefollowingCrim.Cases:No.25684
where she is sentenced to undergo imprisonment of, from Twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as
minimum, to Twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify the
complainant Atty. Leonardo Jose the amount of P120,000.00 for the value of the articles
misappropriated Crim. Case No. 25784 where she is sentenced to undergo imprisonment of, from
Twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to Twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as
maximum,andtoindemnifythecomplainantAtty.LeonardoJosetheamountofP150,000.00Crim.
CaseNo.26084wheresheissentencedtoundergoimprisonmentof,fromEight(8)yearsandOne
(1)dayofprisionmayor,asminimum,toSeventeen(17)yearsofreclusiontemporal,asmaximum,
and to indemnify the complainant Atty. Leonardo Jose the amount of P95,000.00 Crim. Case No.
26184wheresheissentencedtoundergoimprisonmentof,fromTwelve(12)yearsandOne(1)day
ofreclusiontemporal,asminimum,toTwenty(20)yearsofreclusiontemporal,asmaximum,andto
indemnifythecomplainantAtty.LeonardoJosetheamountofP562,000.00Crim.CaseNo.37884
where she is sentenced to undergo imprisonment of, from Twelve (12) years and One (1) day of
reclusion temporal, as minimum, to Twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to
indemnifythecomplainantAtty.LeonardoJosetheamountofP200,000.00andtopaythecosts.

Likewise,accusedManuelIsipisacquittedinCrim.CasesNos.25684,25784,26084,26184and
37884.However, in Crim. Case No. 13684, he is hereby found guilty of Estafa and he is hereby
sentenced to undergo imprisonment of, from Twelve (12) years and One (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as minimum, to Twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, to indemnify the
complainantAtty.LeonardoJoseintheamountofP200,000.00valueofthejewelrymisappropriated,
[8]
andtopaythecosts.


Inrulingthewayitdid,theRTCfoundthatthetransactionsinvolvedinthesecasesweresufficiently
showntohavetakenplaceatcomplainantAtty.LeonardoJosesancestralhouseinCaviteCitywhen
thelatterwasonleaveofabsencefromtheBureauofCustomswherehewasconnected.Itsaidthe
defense failed to substantially prove its allegations that the transactions occurred in Manila,
particularlyintheTowersCondominium,andthatcomplainantisaresidentofBigasan,Makati. It
addedthatthetestimonyofMariettaIsipthatthemoneywithwhichthecomplainantinitiallyagreed
to finance their transactions was withdrawn from the Sandigan Finance in Cavite City further
refutedthedefensesclaimthatthetransactionshappenedinManila.Thetrialcourtlikewisefound
the defenses contention, that the obligations were already paid and setoff with the turnover to
complainant of personal and real properties, to be untenable for it is contrary to human nature to
demandpaymentwhenthesamehadalreadybeenmadeandtheallegedsetoffswereforothercases
which were settled amicably and subsequently dismissed upon motion of the City Prosecutors
Officeattheinstanceofthecomplainant.

The trial court was convinced that accused Marietta Isip misappropriated the pieces of jewelry
involved in Criminal Cases No. 25684, 25784, 26084, 26184 and 37884 and violated Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 when she issued the checks mentioned in Criminal Cases No. 14684, 14784,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170298.htm 6/16
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 170298

14884, 14984, 15584, 15684 and 15784. As to petitioner, the trial court acquitted him in
CriminalCasesNo.25684,25784,26084,26184and37884findinghimtohaveactedasamere
witnesswhenhesignedthereceiptsinvolvedinsaidcases,butfoundhimliableinCriminalCase
No. 13684 for misappropriating a 7carat diamond mens ring which he secured from the
complainant.

Aggrieved,petitionerandspouseappealedtotheCourtofAppealsassigningthefollowingaserrors:

I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF AND DECIDING THE CASES
AGAINSTAPPELLANTSANDINNOTDISMISSINGTHESAMEUPONTHEGROUNDTHAT
NONE OF THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED THEREIN WAS
COMMITTEDWITH(SIC)ITSTERRITORIALJURISDICTION.

II

THETRIALCOURT,ASSUMINGITHADJURISDICTIONOVERTHECASESBELOW,ERRD
IN NOT HOLDING THAT NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22
WAS INCURRED BY APPELLANT MARIETTA M. ISIP FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE
SUBJECT CHECKS INASMUCH AS SAID CHECKS WERE ISSUED AS MERE GUARANTY
FOROBLIGATIONSINCURRED.

III

THETRIALCOURT,ASSUMINGANYINCIPIENTLIABILITYFORTHECRIMEOFESTAFA
HAD BEEN INCURRED BY APPELLANTS IN THE PREMISES, ERRED IN NOT HOLDING
THAT SUCH INCIPIENT LIABILITY HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED BY
PAYMENTS/REDEMPTIONS MADE AND/OR NOVATION ENTERED INTO BETWEEN
COMPLAINANTANDSAIDAPPELLANTS.

IV

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANTS MANUEL S. ISIP AND MARIETTA
M. ISIP GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES OF ESTAFA AND
VIOLATIONOFBATASPAMBANSABLG.22RESPECTFULLYIMPUTEDUPONTHEMAND
INNOTACQUITTINGTHEMUPONTHEGROUNDTHATTHEIRGUILTTHEREOF,OROF
ANYCRIMEFORTHATMATTER,HADNOTBEENESTABLISHEDBEYONDREASONABLE
DOUBTAND/ORTHATTHELIABILITYINCURREDBYTHEM,IFANY,ISMERELYCIVIL.
[9]


BeforetheCourtofAppealscouldhavedecidedthecase,MariettaIsipdiedtherebyextinguishing
hercriminalandcivilliability,ifany.

Inadecisionpromulgated26October2004,theCourtofAppealsdisposedofthecaseasfollows:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170298.htm 7/16
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 170298

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City (Branch
XVII)

1.InCrim.CaseNo.13684isAFFIRMEDwiththeMODIFICATIONSthatthesentenceimposedon
accusedappellant Manuel S. Isip shall be two (2) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to
twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and that the sum of P200,000.00 he was
orderedtopaytoLeonardoA.Joseshallbearinterestatthelegalratefromfilingoftheinformation
untilfullypaid

2.InCrim.CasesNos.14684,14784,14884,14984,15584,15684and15784isREVERSED
andaccusedappellantMariettaM.IsipACQUITTEDofthecrimeschargedand

3.InCrim.CasesNos.25684,25784,26084,26184and37884isREVERSEDand
accusedappellants Manuel S. Isip and Marietta M. Isip ACQUITTED of the crimes charged, but
ordering them to pay to Leonardo A. Jose, jointly and severally, the sums of P120,000.00,
P150,000.00, P95,000.00, P562,000.00 and P200,000.00 representing the amounts involved in said
[10]
cases,plusinterestthereonatthelegalratefromfilingoftheinformationuntilfullypaid.


TheCourtofAppealsupheldthelowercourtsfindingthatthevenuewasproperlylaidand
that the checks were delivered by the two accused and/or that the transactions transpired at
complainantsancestralhomeinCaviteCity,andthat,consequently,theoffenseschargedtookplace
within its territorial jurisdiction. With respect to the seven counts of violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg.22,theappellatecourtacquittedMariettaIsipofthechargesonthegroundthatsincethechecks
involved were issued prior to 8 August 1984, the dishonor thereof did not give rise to a criminal
liabilitypursuanttoMinistryCircularNo.4oftheMinistryofJustice.

AstotheEstafacases(CriminalCasesNo.25684,25784,26084,26184and37884),the
Court of Appeals ruled that since the checks issued by Marietta Isip as payment for the pieces of
jewelry were dishonored, there was no payment to speak of. It also found the defenses claim of
redemption/dacion en pago that real and personal properties were conveyed to complainant who
executedaffidavitsofdesistanceandcausedthedismissalofsomeofthecasestobeunmeritorious.
However,theappellatecourtruledthatthoughnovationdoesnotextinguishcriminalliability,itmay
preventtheriseofsuchliabilityaslongatitoccurspriortothefilingofthecriminalinformationin
court.Inthesefivecases,itruledthattherewasnovationbecausecomplainantacceptedthechecks
issuedbyMariettaIsipaspaymentforthepiecesofjewelryinvolvedinsaidcases. Consequently,
[11]
theCourtofAppealsacquittedMariettaandpetitioner, butheldthemliabletocomplainantfor
thevalueofthejewelryinvolved.

As regards Criminal Case No. 13684 for estafa against petitioner, the appellate court
affirmedthetrialcourtsrulingofconviction.Itfoundpetitionersclaimsthathedidnotreceivethe
jewelryworthP200,000.00mentionedintheinformationthatthereceiptheissuedforsaidjewelry
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170298.htm 8/16
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 170298

was among those documents which were forced upon him to sign under threat of criminal
prosecution and that he signed the same to preserve his friendship with complainant, to be not
persuasive.

On 17 November 2004, petitioner, for himself and in representation of his deceased wife,
Marietta Isip, filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration insofar as it affirmed his conviction in
CriminalCaseNo.13684andadjudgedhimcivillyliable,jointlyandseverally,withMariettaIsip
[12]
inCriminalCasesNo.25684,25784,26084,26184and37884.

On26October2005,theCourtofAppeals,takingintoaccountthedeathofMariettaM.Isip
prior to the promulgation of its decision, rendered an Amended Decision with the following
dispositiveportion:

WHEREFORE, the decision dated October 26, 2004 is AMENDED in respect to par. 3 of the
dispositiveportionthereofwhichshallnowreadasfollows:

3. In Crim. Cases Nos. 25684, 25784, 26084, 26184 and 37884 is
REVERSED,accusedappellantsManuelS.IsipandMariettaM.IsipACQUITTEDof
[13]
thecrimeschargedandthecivilaspectofthosecasesDISMISSED.


Petitioner is now before us appealing his conviction in Criminal Case No. 13684. He raises the
followingissues:

First WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE
OFFENSEIMPUTEDTOPETITIONERANDFORWHICHHEWASCONVICTED

SecondWHETHERTHEEVIDENCESUFFICIENTLYSHOWSTHATPETITIONERRECEIVED
THESUBJECTOFSAIDOFFENSEORTHATHERECEIVEDITINCAVITECITYand

Third,WHETHERTHEINCIPIENTCRIMINALLIABILITYARISINGFROMSAID OFFENSE,
IS(sic)ANY,WASEXTINGUISHEDBYNOVATION.


On the first issue, petitioner maintains that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the estafa charge in
CriminalCaseNo.13684anditispurespeculationandconjectural,ifnotaltogetherimprobableor
manifestlyabsurd,tosupposethatanyoftheessentialelementsoftheEstafachargedinCriminal
Case No. 13684 took place in Cavite City. First, he states that the residence of the parties is
immaterialandthatitisthesitusofthetransactionthatcounts.Hearguesthatitisnonsequiturthat
simplybecausecomplainanthadanallegedancestralhouseinCaridad,Cavite,complainantactually
livedthereandhadthetransactionstherewithhimwhenheandhislatewifewereactualresidents

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170298.htm 9/16
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 170298

ofManila.MereconveniencesuggeststhattheirtransactionwasenteredintoinManila.Headdsthat
the source of the fund used to finance the transactions is likewise inconsequential because it is
wherethesubjectitemwasdeliveredandreceivedbypetitionerand/orwhereitwastobeaccounted
forthatdeterminesvenuewhereEstafa,ifany,maybechargedandtried.Second,hefurtherargues
that it does not follow that because complainant may have been on leave from the Bureau of
Customs, the transactions were necessarily entered into during that leave and in Cavite City. He
asserts that there is no competent proof showing that during his leave of absence, he stayed in
Cavite City and that the transactions involved, including the subject of Criminal Case 13684
coveringroughlytheperiodfromFebruarytoApril1984,coincidedwithhisallegedleave.
[14]
Theconceptofvenueofactionsincriminalcases,unlikeincivilcases,isjurisdictional.
The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an
[15]
essentialelementofjurisdiction. Itisafundamentalrulethatforjurisdictiontobeacquiredby
courts in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential
ingredients should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial
jurisdictionincriminalcasesistheterritorywherethecourthasjurisdictiontotakecognizanceorto
trytheoffenseallegedlycommittedthereinbytheaccused.Thus,itcannottakejurisdictionovera
personchargedwithanoffenseallegedlycommittedoutsideofthatlimited territory. Furthermore,
thejurisdictionofacourtoverthecriminalcaseisdeterminedbytheallegationsinthecomplaintor
information.Andonceitissoshown,thecourtmayvalidlytakecognizanceofthecase.However,if
the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the
[16]
courtshoulddismisstheactionforwantofjurisdiction.

Inthecaseatbar,we,liketheRTCandtheCourtofAppeals,areconvincedthatthevenue
was properly laid in the RTC of Cavite City. The complainant had sufficiently shown that the
transactioncoveredbyCriminalCaseNo.13684tookplaceinhisancestralhomeinCavite City
[17]
when he was on approved leave of absence from the Bureau of Customs. Since it has been
shownthatvenuewasproperlylaid,itisnowpetitionerstasktoproveotherwise,foritishisclaim
thatthetransactioninvolvedwasenteredintoinManila.Theageoldbutfamiliarrulethathewho
[18]
allegesmustprovehisallegationsapplies.

Intheinstantcase,petitionerfailedtoestablishbysufficientandcompetentevidencethatthe
transactionhappenedinManila.Petitionerarguesthatsinceheandhislatewifeactuallyresidedin
Manila,conveniencealoneunerringlysuggeststhatthetransactionwasenteredintoinManila. We

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170298.htm 10/16
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 170298

arenotpersuaded.ThefactthatCaviteCityisabitfarfromManiladoesnotnecessarilymeanthat
thetransactioncannotordidnothappenthere.Distancewillnotpreventanypersonfromgoingtoa
distantplacewherehecanprocuregoodsthathecansellsothathecanearnaliving.Thisistruein
thecaseatbar.Itisnotimprobableorimpossibleforpetitionerandhiswifetohavegone,notonce,
buttwiceinoneday,toCaviteCityifthatisthenumberoftimestheyreceivedpiecesofjewelry
from complainant. Moreover, the fact that the checks issued by petitioners late wife in all the
transactionswithcomplainantweredrawnagainstaccountswithbanksinManilaorMakatilikewise
cannotleadtotheconclusionthatthetransactionswerenotenteredintoinCaviteCity.

It is axiomatic that when it comes to credibility, the trial courts assessment deserves great
weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some
factorcircumstanceofweightandinfluence.Thereasonisobvious.Havingthefullopportunityto
observe directly the witnesses deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better
[19]
positionthantheappellatecourttoevaluateproperlytestimonialevidence. Itistobepointedout
thatthefindingsoffactofthetrialcourthavebeenaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals.It is settled
that when the trial courts findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are
[20]
generally conclusive and binding upon this Court. In the case at bar, we find no compelling
reasontoreversethefindingsofthetrialcourt,asaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals,andtoapplythe
exception.Wesoholdthatthereissufficientevidencetoshowthattheparticulartransactiontook
placeinCaviteCity.
On the second issue, petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals holding that the ring
subjectofCrim.CaseNo.13684wasdeliveredtoandreceivedbypetitionerisseriouslyflawed.
Hearguesthatassuminghesignedthereceiptevidencingdeliveryofthering,notduetothethreat
ofprosecutionbutmerelytopreservehisfriendshipwithcomplainant,thefactremainsthatthereis
no showing that the ring was actually delivered to him. Petitioner insists there is no competent
evidence that the ring subject of Criminal Case No. 13684 was ever actually received by, or
deliveredto,him.

We find his contentions untenable. The finding of the Court of Appeals that petitioner
receivedtheringsubjectofCriminalCaseNo.13684issupportedbytheevidenceonrecord.The
[21]
acknowledgmentreceipt executedbypetitionerisveryclearevidencethathereceivedthering
inquestion.Petitioners claim that he did not receive any ring and merely executed said receipt in
ordertopreservehisfriendshipwiththecomplainantdeservesscantconsideration.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170298.htm 11/16
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 170298

Petitioner, an astute businessman as he is, knows the significance, import and obligation of
what he executed and signed. The following disputable presumptions weigh heavily against
petitioner, namely: (a) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act (b)
Thatapersontakesordinarycareofhisconcerns(c)Thatprivatetransactionshavebeenfairand
[22]
regular and (d) That the ordinary course of business has been followed Thus, it is presumed
thatonedoesnotsignadocumentwithoutfirstinforminghimselfofitscontentsandconsequences.
We know that petitioner understood fully well the ramification of the acknowledgment receipt he
executed. It devolves upon him then to overcome these presumptions. We, however, find that he
failed to do so. Aside from his selfserving allegation that he signed the receipt to preserve his
friendshipwithcomplainant,thereisnocompetentevidencethatwouldrebutsaidpresumptions.It
isclearfromtheevidencethatpetitionersignedtheacknowledgmentreceiptwhenhereceivedthe
ringfromcomplainantinCaviteCity.

[23]
Petitioners argument that he did not receive the subject ring is further belied by the
testimonyofhiswifewhenthelattertestifiedthatsaidringwasborrowedbyhimon7March1984.
[24]
Inall,thedeliveryoftheringandthetransactionregardingthesameoccurredinCaviteCity.
Anent the third issue, petitioner argues that, assuming gratia argumenti that any criminal
liability was incurred by petitioner respecting the ring subject of Criminal Case No. 13684, the
same was incipient, at best, and was effectively extinguished by novation. The personal and real
propertiesdelivered/conveyedtocomplainantweremorethansufficienttocoveroroffsetwhatever
balance remained of the obligations incurred as shown by the fact that complainant executed
AffidavitsofDesistanceandcausedthedismissalofsomeofthecasesfiled.Hemaintainsthatthe
CourtofAppealsdidnotapplytheruleofnovationasregardstheringsubjectofCriminalCaseNo.
13684becauseitrejectedhisdenialofreceiptofsaidringandhisclaimthathesignedthereceipt
supposedly covering the same under threat of prosecution and merely to preserve their good
relations.HeclaimstheCourtshouldnothavedeniedtheapplicationoftheruleofnovationonsaid
casebecausetherejectedinitialclaim(thathedidnotreceivetheringandthathesignedthereceipt
topreservetheirgoodrelations)wasbutanalternativedefenseanditsrejectionisnotareasonto
denytheapplicationofthenovationruleinsaidcase.

[25]
WeagreewiththeCourtofAppealsthatnovation cannotbeappliedinCriminalCaseNo.
13684.Theclaimofpetitionerthatthepersonalandrealpropertiesconveyedtocomplainantand/or
to his family were more than sufficient to cover or offset whatever balance remained of the
obligationsincurredhasnobasis.Ifitweretruethatthepropertiesdeliveredtocomplainantwere
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170298.htm 12/16
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 170298

sufficient,thelatterwouldhavecausedthedismissalofall,notsomeasinthisinstance,thecases
against petitioner and his late wife. This, complainant did not do for the simple reason that the
propertiesconveyedtohimwerenotenoughtocoveralltheobligationsincurredbypetitionerand
hisdeceasedwife.Complainanttestifiedthatthepropertieshereceivedwereinsettlementofcases
[26]
otherthanthecasesbeingtriedherein. Inparticular,hesaidthatpetitionerandhisspousesettled
[27]
eight cases which were subsequently dismissed when they delivered properties as payment. It
followsthenthattheobligationsincurredbypetitionerandhisspousewerenotyetsettledwhenthe
criminalcaseshereintriedwerefiled.

Hiscontention,thattheCourtofAppealsdidnotapplytheruleofnovationinCriminalCase
No. 13684 because it rejected or did not believe his (alternative) defense of denial, is untenable.
ThemainreasonwhytheCourtofAppealsdidnotapplynovationinsaidcasewasthatnotallthe
elementsofnovationarepresent.Fornovationtotakeplace,fouressentialrequisiteshavetobemet,
namely,(1)apreviousvalidobligation(2)anagreementofallpartiesconcernedtoanewcontract
(3)theextinguishmentoftheoldobligationand(4)thebirthofavalidnewobligation.InCriminal
CaseNo.13684,onlythefirstelementisextant.WhatdistinguishesthiscasefromCriminalCases
No. 25684, 25784, 26084, 26184 and 37884, where the Court of Appeals applied the rule of
novation, was that there were checks issued as payment, though subsequently dishonored, for the
piecesofjewelryinvolved.InCriminalCaseNo.13684,itisveryclearthatneitherpetitionernor
his wife issued any check as payment for the subject ring that could have extinguished his old
obligationandbroughttolifeanewobligation.

FromtheallegationsoftheinformationinCriminalCaseNo.13684,itisclearthatpetitioner
was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b), of the Revised Penal Code. The
elementsofestafawithabuseofconfidenceare:(1)theoffenderreceivesthemoney,goodsorother
personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same (2) the offender misappropriates or converts
such money or property or denies receiving such money or property (3) the misappropriation or
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another and (4) the offended party demands that the
[28]
offender return the money or property. All these are present in this case. Petitioner received
from complainant a sevencarat diamond (mens ring), valued at P200,000.00, for the purpose of
sellingthesameoncommissionbasisandtodelivertheproceedsofthesalethereoforreturnthe
jewelryifnotsold.Petitionermisappropriatedorconvertedsaidringforhisownbenefitandeven
deniedreceivingthesame.Despiterepeateddemandsfromcomplainant,petitionerfailedtoreturn

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170298.htm 13/16
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 170298

the ring or the proceeds of the sale thereof causing damage and prejudice to complainant in the
amountofP200,000.00.

AstothepenaltyimposedbytheCourtofAppealsonpetitioner,wefindthesametobein
order.

WHEREFORE,thedecisionandamendeddecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.No.
21275dated26October2004dated26October2005,respectively,areAFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.


MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice



WECONCUR:


CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson



MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZANTONIOEDUARDO
B.NACHURA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice



ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170298.htm 14/16
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 170298

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,
itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbefore
thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.




REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeEdgardoP.CruzwithAssociateJusticesGodardoA.JacintoandJoseC.Mendoza,concurring.CArollo,
pp.174194.
[2]
Id.at286289.
[3]
Records,Vol.11,p.1.
[4]
Id.,Vol.3,p.1.
[5]
AllchecksweredrawnagainstPacificBankingCorporation,exceptforCheckNo.030086whichwasdrawnagainstRizalCommercial
BankingCorporation.
[6]
Records,Vol.7,p.1.
[7]
CArollo,pp.245251.
[8]
Id.at5051.
[9]
Id.at7375.
[10]
Id.at261.
[11]
PetitionerwasalreadyacquittedbytheRTCinsaidfivecases.
[12]
CArollo,pp.264276.
[13]
Id.at288289.
[14]
Peoplev.Amadore,G.R.Nos.14066975&140691,20April2001,357SCRA316,324.
[15]
Macasaetv.People,G.R.No.156747,23February2005,452SCRA255,271.
[16]
Uyv.CourtofAppeals,342Phil.329,337(1997).
[17]
Exhs.S&S1Records,Vol.2,pp.148149.
[18]
Samsonv.Daway,G.R.Nos.16005455,21July2004,434SCRA612.
[19]
Peoplev.Audine,G.R.No.168649,6December2006.
[20]
Peoplev.Beltran,Jr.,G.R.No.168051,27September2006,503SCRA715,730.
[21]
Exh.IRecords,Vol.2,p.134.
[22]
Section3(c),(d),(p)and(q),Rule131,RulesofCourt.
[23]
TSN,6September1995,p.13.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170298.htm 15/16
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 170298
[24]
TSN,2October1995,pp.26&33.
[25]
Novationhasbeendefinedastheextinguishmentofanobligationbythesubstitutionorchangeoftheobligationbyasubsequentone
which terminates the first, either by changing the object or principal conditions, or by substituting the person of the debtor, or
subrogatingathirdpersonintherightsofthecreditor.
Novation,initsbroadconcept,mayeitherbeextinctiveormodificatory.Itisextinctivewhenanoldobligationisterminatedbythecreation
ofanewobligationthattakestheplaceoftheformeritismerelymodificatorywhentheoldobligationsubsiststotheextentit
remains compatible with the amendatory agreement. An extinctive novation results either by changing the object or principal
conditions(objectiveorreal),orbysubstitutingthepersonofthedebtororsubrogatingathirdpersonintherightsofthecreditor
(subjectiveorpersonal).Novationhastwofunctions:onetoextinguishanexistingobligation,theothertosubstituteanewonein
its place. For novation to take place, four essential requisites have to be met, namely, (1) a previous valid obligation (2) an
agreementofallpartiesconcernedtoanewcontract(3)theextinguishmentoftheoldobligationand(4)thebirthofavalidnew
obligation.(CaliforniaBusLines,Inc.v.StateInvestmentHouse,Inc.,463Phil.689,702[2003].)
[26]
TSN,26August1994,pp.4346.
[27]
TSN,16May1996,pp.45.
[28]
Perezv.People,G.R.No.150443,20January2006,479SCRA209,218219.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170298.htm 16/16