Elvira E. Lateo, et. al.

vs People of the Philippines

GR No. 161651 08 June 2011
Facts:
Elvira is being accused of conspiring with Francisco, Bartolome, Orlando and Nolasco for
falsely representing themselves to be the true and lawful owner of a piece of land by means of
deceit. The information alleges that they induced a certain Eleonor Lucero in buying the subject
land.
Sometime in 1994, Elvira and Francisco proposed that Lucero finance the titling of 122
hectares of land. In exchange, a portion of it will be transferred in favor of Lucero. Later on, Lucero
discovered that there are problems with regard to some of title of some parts of the subject land.
She confronted the accused and demanded the return of her money. With nothing to return,
accused offered a 5-hectare land but demanded an additional Php 2 000 000.00. Upon
verification, Lucero discovered that accused only had a pending application for the sales patent.
The misrepresentations of the accused prompted Lucero to file a complaint. Entrapment operation
ensued.
Issue: Are the accused herein guilty of attempted Estafa?
Held: YES. The elements of Estafa are: The elements of the felony are as follows:
1. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means.
2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means
must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud.
3. That 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.
4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
(Alcantara v. Court of Appeals, 462 Phil. 72, (2003))
As it turned out, Elca did not own 14 hectares in Bacoor, Cavite. He merely had an
inchoate right over the Bacoor property, derived from his Application to Purchase Friar Lands,
which covered only 7 hectares. Elca’s application was later amended to cover only 4 hectares, in
view of the protest by Alfredo Salenga. Clearly, Elca was in no position to transfer ownership of
the 5-hectare Bacoor property at the time petitioners offered it to Lucero.
Petitioners commenced the commission of the crime of estafa but they failed to perform
all the acts of execution which would produce the crime, not by reason of their own spontaneous
desistance but because of their apprehension by the authorities before they could obtain the
amount. Since only the intent to cause damage and not the damage itself had been shown, the
RTC and the CA correctly convicted petitioners of attempted estafa.
Aricheta v People G.R. No. 172500
21 September 2007
Lilibeth Aricheta was a family friend of private complainant. Aricheta agreed to sell to private
complainant her rights over a house and lot located in Caloocan City. The latter then agreed to
pay Aricheta an amount of P50, 000.00 and to assume payment of the monthly amortization to
the National Housing Authority for 25 years. On April 1994, the two parties entered into a Deed
of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. It contained a provision saying "that the Vendor is the
absolute owner of the said property and hereby warrants the Vendee from any lawful claim of
whomsoever over the same." After execution and payment, private complainant tried to occupy
the house and lot but failed to do so because Aricheta said that a gate pass issued by the National
Housing Authority is required; that she can acquire it in a month. However, private complainant
failed to receive any. Hence she went to the office of National Housing Authority and inquired
regarding the house and lot. She found out that the gate pass had already been issued and that
someone was already occupying the house and lot. Aricheta also admitted that she sold it to
another person and the latter leased it to another.
Issue: Is petitioner guilty of estafa?
Held: NO. Prosecution failed to establish that the proerty was previously sold to another before
it was sold to private complainant.
The elements of Estafa by means of deceit as defined under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised
Penal Code are as follows: (1) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means; (2) that such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) that 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) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all
acts, omissions and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence
justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious
advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human
ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over
another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth; and includes all forms of surprise, trick,
cunning, dissembling and any other unfair way by which another is cheated. Deceit is a species
of fraud. And deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct,
by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed
which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it, to his legal injury. The
false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission
of the fraud, it being essential that such false statement or representation constitutes the very
cause or the only motive which induces the offended party to part with his money. In the absence
of such requisite, any subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent and suspicious it might
appear, cannot serve as basis for prosecution for estafa under the said provision.
As above explained, the alleged false representation or false pretense made by petitioner to
private complainant was that she was still the owner of the property when she sold it to private
complainant. To prove such allegation, the prosecution should first establish that the property was
previously sold to a third party before it was sold to private complainant. The prosecution utterly
failed to do this. The fundamental rule is that upon him who alleges rests the burden of proof. It
made this allegation but it failed to support it with competent evidence. Except for private
complainants bare allegation that petitioner told her that she (petitioner) sold the property to
another person, the records are bereft of evidence showing that the property was indeed
previously sold to a third person before it was sold again to private complainant.

US v Agustin Drilon G.R. No. 12502

06 September 1917
Agustin Drilon sold a parcel of land with pacto de retro to Roque Debuque Drilon failed to
repurchase the property within the stipulated period of 2 years. However, Drilon still continued
possession as a lessee. And while claiming to be the owner, he sold the same property to a
certain Gabriela Dinela. The second sale was then registered in favor ro Dinela and Debuque was
then prejudiced.
Can Drilon be held liable for estafa considering that deceit was employed against the second
purchaser but the damage fell upon the first?
YES. The Spanish Supreme Court held, following the passage from Viada, that "those acts so
performed imply in themselves the conscious concealment of the contract by means of which he
deceitfully pretended that the properties were absolutely free of encumbrance when legally they
were not, and thereby certainly prejudiced the vendee by the depreciation of said properties by
reason of the mortgage encumbrance placed on them. Those acts, therefore, constitute the crime
of estafa."