Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82112:g-r-no-181692,-august-14,-2013-adelaida-soriano,-petitioner,-v-people-of-the-philippines,-respondent&catid=1573&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:36:20+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 181692, August 14, 2013 - ADELAIDA SORIANO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
ADELAIDA SORIANO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the May 19, 2005 Decision1 and January 11, 2008 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 23108 insofar as it ordered petitioner to pay P74,807 plus interest to private complainant Consolacion R. Alagao.
That on September 9, 1994, at more or less 2:00 o'clock [sic] in the afternoon, and days thereafter, at Piaping Puti, Macabalan, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to defraud and cause damage and prejudice by means of deceit, and false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously represent and pretend to the offended party, Consolacion Alagao y Regala, who was then canvassing for buyers of her one (1) truck load of corn grits containing 398 sacks, that she (accused Adelaida Soriano) was engaged in the business of buying corn grits, among others from the public under the business style of A & R Soriano Trading, paying it in cash, with place of business located at Piaping Puti, Macab[a]lan, this City; that due to accused[’s] representation, said offended party was persuaded and convinced to sell her own corn grits to the former, which cereals came all the way from Old Nungnungan, Don Carlos, Bukidnon; that after unloading said 398 sacks of corn grains in the establishment of said Adelaida Soriano, said accused did not pay offended party for the said goods delivered, but instead she let offended party to sign a Cash Voucher, making it appear thereat that offended party has received the sum of P85,607.00, when in truth and in fact accused has not paid the same; that inspite of that misrepresented entries in the Cash Voucher above-cited, the accused further directed to collect the same amount from a neighbor of the offended party in OId.Nungnungan, above-mentioned; that perplexed about the actions of Mrs. Adelaida Soriano, offended party proceeded to demand payment from her but the accused failed to pay her monetary obligation [to] the offended party as the accused and her business establishment disappeared from Piaping Puti, Macabalan, this City after the incident, and transferred to an unknown location; that she couId.not also get back the said 398 sacks of corn grits anymore because the accused had disposed of it already; thus misapplying, misappropriating and converting the said sum of P85,607.00 the value of 398 sacks of corn grits, to her own gain and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party, in the aforestated sum of P85,607.00, Philippine currency.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES, accused Adelaida Soriano is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa as defined and penalized under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Four (4) Years, Two (2) Months and One (1) day of Prision Correccional, as minimum, to Thirteen (13) Years, Four (4) Months of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum and, is hereby further ordered to pay the offended party in this case the amount of P85,607.00 representing the value of the 398 sacks of corn grains. Costs against the accused.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 40, dated 16 March 1999 in Criminal Case No. 95-41 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant ADELAIDA SORIANO is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. However, Appellant ADELAIDA SORIANO is hereby ordered to pay private complainant CONSOLACION R. ALAGAO the sum of seventy-four thousand, eight hundred seven pesos (P74,807.00) as payment for the remaining balance of the cash value of the 398 sacks of corn grains, plus, legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum computed from 9 September 1994 until fully paid.
The CA ruled that the prosecution failed to establish that petitioner made false pretenses, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means to induce Alagao to deliver to her the 398 sacks of corn grains. In fact, in Alagao’s testimony, she admitted that she delivered the corn grains to petitioner because the latter was demanding payment from her and she wanted to pay her obligation of P40,000 to petitioner so that she couId.get back the title of her daughter’s mortgaged property and the balance of the total cash value of the 398 sacks of corn. Thus, the CA heId. in the absence of deceit, petitioner’s liability is only civil.
In determining petitioner’s civil liability, the CA deducted from P85,607 – the total value of the 398 sacks of corn grains delivered to petitioner – the P3,000 petitioner had paid Alagao and the P7,800 which the CA considered as the value of the 64 sacks of corn grains which Alagao intended as partial payment for the P40,000 loan, thus leaving the balance of P74,807.
The Court of Appeals committed error in the computation of petitioner’s civil liability as it failed to apply correctly the principle of set-off or compensation.
The Court of Appeals, in applying set-off or compensation, erroneously placed private complainant’s indebtedness to petitioner at P40,000.00 instead of P51,730.00 as found by it and as stipulated during pre-trial.
Thus, deducting Alagao’s indebtedness of P43,930 from petitioner’s indebtedness amounting to P74,807, petitioner’s remaining indebtedness shouId.only be P30,877.
Petitioner likewise argues that the CA also failed to consider Alagao’s obligation to deliver to her ¼ of every harvest. Petitioner claims that her ¼ share in the harvest amounted to P57,200 for four harvests. Therefore, applying the principle of set off, it is Alagao who is indebted to petitioner in the amount of P26,323 (P57,200 minus P30,877).
Respondent on the other hand contends that the amount of loan extended to Alagao was P40,000 and not P51,730 as claimed by petitioner. Moreover, the entire value of the 398 sacks of corn grains shouId.not be set off with Alagao’s loan since (1) the loan was not yet due and demandable at the time of delivery of the 398 sacks of corn grains in September 1994; and (2) only 154 of the 398 sacks of corn grains belong to Alagao. Respondent also claims that P13,765.9517 should be considered as the correct value of the 64 sacks intended by Alagao as partial payment for the loan and not P7,800 as found by the CA.
This Court rules that all the above requisites for compensation are present in the instant case.
First, petitioner and Alagao are debtors and creditors of each other. It is undisputable that petitioner and Alagao owe each other sums of money. Petitioner owes P85,607 for the value of the corn grains delivered to her by Alagao in September 1994 while Alagao owes petitioner P51,730 by virtue of a loan extended by the latter in February 1994.
Second, both debts consist in a sum of money. There is no issue as to the P85,607 debt by petitioner that it consists a sum of money. As to the P51,730 received by Alagao from petitioner, though what was extended by petitioner consists of cash advances and fertilizers, there is no dispute that said amount is payable in money.
Third, both debts are due. Upon delivery of the 398 sacks to petitioner, she was under the obligation to pay for the value thereof as buyer. As to Alagao’s debt, the contract of loan provided that it is payable in February 1996. Though it was not yet due in September 1994 when she delivered the 398 sacks of corn grains to petitioner, it eventually became due at the time of trial of the instant case.
And lastly, neither of the debts are subject of a controversy commenced by a third person. There are no third-party claims with respect to Alagao’s P51,730 loan. As to petitioner’s P85,607 debt representing the 398 sacks of corn grains, Alagao claims that she is not the sole owner of all the 398 sacks. This claim of Alagao, however, was never substantiated and a perusal of the information for estafa shows that the subject corn grains are all owned by her. Moreover, the alleged other owners have not commenced any action to protect their claim over it. Thus, the P85, 607 debt cannot be considered subject of a controversy by a third person.
With respect to the 114 share in the harvest due to petitioner as provided in the contract of loan, the same cannot be considered in the legal compensation of the debts of the parties since it does not consist in a sum of money, said share being in the form of harvests. More importantly, it is not yet liquidated. There is still a dispute as to how many harvests were made from the time of the execution of contract of loan up to the time the action was commenced against petitioner and even when the principal obligation became due in February 1996. Thus, the harvests due petitioner is not capable of determination.
WHEREFORE, the May 19, 2005 Decision and January 11, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23108 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Adelaida Soriano is hereby ordered to pay P30,877 as payment for the remaining balance of the cash value of the 398 sacks of corn grains, plus legal interest at the rate of 6%21 per annum computed from finality of this Decision until its full satisfaction.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Brion,*Bersamin, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
1Rollo, pp. 18-36. Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal with Associate Justices Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and Edgardo A. Camello concurring.
2 Id. at 38-39. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate Justices Teresita Dy­ Liacco Flores and Mario V. Lopez concurring.
6 Exh. “1,” Exhibits for Accused, pp. 1-2.
7 Exh. “E,” Exhibits for Plaintiff, pp. 5-6.
10 TSN, September 10, 1996, pp. 8-9; Exh. “C,” Exhibits for Plaintiff, p. 3.
11 TSN, November 5, 1996, pp. 16-17.
12 Records, pp. 170-177. Penned by Acting Judge Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.
18Nadela v. Engineering and Construction Corporation of Asia (ECCO-ASIA), 510 Phil. 653, 666 (2005), citing PNB MADECOR v. Uy, 415 Phil. 348, 359 (2001), Art. 1278, CIVIL CODE and Compañia General de Tabacos v. French and Unson, 39 Phil. 34, 51 (1918).
19Raquel-Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 174986, 175071 & 181415, July 7, 2009, 592 SCRA 169, 196.
20Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils.), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 157594, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 526, 545.
21 Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, Series of2013 issued on June 21, 2013.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 1278
 v. 
 v. 
 v.