Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50165:gr-172500-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:04:12+00:00

Document:
LILIBETH ARICHETA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Assailed before Us is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 25540 which affirmed with modifications the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 29, in Criminal Case No. 96-152984, convicting petitioner Lilibeth Aricheta of the crime of Estafa.
The prosecution presented private complainant Margarita Sevilla Vasquez and Norita A. de Guzman.
Private complainant testified that petitioner was a family friend whom she had known for more than ten years. She used to buy viands from petitioner's mother, who was the latter's sister-in-law's officemate at the National Housing Authority (NHA).
Petitioner agreed to sell to private complainant her rights over a house and lot described as Lot 5, Blk. 2, located at Barangay Bagumbong, Novaliches, Caloocan City. Private complainant agreed to pay petitioner P50,000.00 and to assume payment of the monthly amortization to the NHA for twenty-five (25) years. The former was able to see the property twice - - first, in April 1994 before she agreed to buy the same; and second, in May 1994. The property was without water and electricity, not yet finished, and still unoccupied. The ground floor had no partition, while the second floor had no room and ceiling.
On 27 April 1994, private complainant and petitioner entered into a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage.6 It contained a provision stating 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." The payment of P50,000.00 to petitioner was made by private complainant in the latter's office located at 329 NDC Compound, Pureza St., Sta. Mesa, Manila. After the execution of the document and payment, private complainant tried to occupy the house and lot, but was told by petitioner that she could not occupy the same yet, because she still had no gate pass or ID issued by the NHA. Petitioner told her she would be able to secure the gate pass within a month or in May 1994.
In May 1994, private complainant asked petitioner about the gate pass, but was told that its issuance was being delayed. Almost everyday, private complainant called petitioner, but she was told the gate pass was not yet available. She even went to the house of petitioner who told her that a case between the NHA and the developer was the cause of the delay.
In October 1995, private complainant went to the NHA and was informed by a certain Amy Cruz that the gate pass had already been obtained by petitioner. Consequently, she went to Barangay Bagumbong, Caloocan City, where she found out that someone was already occupying the house and lot. She confronted petitioner on the matter, and the latter admitted that she (petitioner) sold it to another person. Petitioner also told her that the person who bought it leased the same to another person.
Under the circumstances, private complainant orally asked petitioner to return the P50,000.00 she paid her. Thereafter, private complainant sent petitioner a demand letter,7 which the latter ignored. She then filed both civil and criminal cases against petitioner.
Private complainant explained that she did not submit the deed of sale to the NHA because she trusted the petitioner. However, she said that when she tried to secure the gate pass, she presented the deed of sale to a certain Amy Cruz who told her that only petitioner was authorized to get the gate pass, and that she already did. She added that petitioner did not tell her to submit the deed of sale to the NHA.
Private complainant further said that although her sister-in-law, Rexelita Cordero - - petitioner's best friend, kumare and officemate at the NHA - - convinced her to buy the house and lot subject of this case, Ms. Cordero was not an agent of petitioner.
Mrs. Norita A. de Guzman, an officemate of private complainant at Kibono Manufacturing Company, confirmed the transaction between private complainant and petitioner regarding the sale of the right of the petitioner over the house and lot involved in this case. She narrated that on 27 April 1994, she was told by private complainant that someone would be arriving in their office who was selling her rights over some property in Caloocan City, and that private complainant would be paying this person. This person turned out to be the petitioner.
Mrs. De Guzman testified she saw private complainant give to petitioner the amount of P50,000.00 in cash. Thereafter, the contract was signed and she, together with another officemate, was asked by private complainant to act as witnesses. During the transaction, she was two feet away from private complainant and petitioner. After the signing, she said they appeared before Atty. Nonilo A. Quitangon who notarized the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage.
For the defense, petitioner took the witness stand.
Petitioner testified that the house and lot, subject matter of this case, was awarded to her through a raffle at the NHA. She has to pay monthly amortizations for twenty-five (25) years to the NHA. She said the property cannot be sold during this period.
Petitioner denied personally knowing the private complainant. She insisted that she did not sell the house and lot to private complainant but merely mortgaged it to her. She narrated that she first mortgaged the property to Margarita Galang who occupied the property with the condition that she would vacate the same when the money she loaned is returned. Petitioner then mortgaged the same property to private complainant because her kumare was borrowing money from her. She, however, did not inform private complainant of the first mortgage. She signed a deed of sale but did not totally read the document. What she understood was that if she cannot redeem the property within six months, the property is deemed sold. Since petitioner has not returned the amount she borrowed from Margarita Galang, the latter is entitled to occupy the property which, according to petitioner, is still in her name.
Petitioner further explained that despite the prohibition to sell or mortgage the property within the 25-year period, she still mortgaged the property to Margarita Galang within one year from the award of the property to her. She said she has no proof that she mortgaged the property to Ms. Galang, but she signed a document as evidence that she received money. Although she signed the deed of sale, she claimed she is still the owner per notice of the NHA.
The Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage (Exh. "A") dated April 27, 1994 and signed by accused Lilibeth L. Aricheta in favor of Margarita Vasquez speaks only of the mortgage with the National Housing Authority (NHA). Margarita Vasquez, as vendee, agreed to assume payment of the balance on the loan with NHA. Said instrument includes the warranty by Lilibeth L. Aricheta, as vendor, that she "is the absolute owner of said property" and "warrants the vendee from any lawful claim of whomsoever over the same." (Exhibit "A").
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS THAT THE PETITIONER IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ESTAFA.
Petitioner contends that the element of deceit which, in this case is the making of false representations that she is the owner of the subject property when she transacted with private complainant, is not present in the case at bar because at the time she transacted with private complainant, she was still the owner thereof. She claims that nowhere in the records of the case was it shown that she previously sold or mortgaged the subject property and that the records of the NHA show that the property remained in her name at the time she dealt with private complainant.
As can be gleaned from the allegations in the information, petitioner was charged with Estafa for allegedly selling to private complainant the subject property knowing fully well that she had already sold the same to a third party. From this, it is therefore clear that the supposed 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.
The prosecution relies heavily on the provision contained in the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage "That the Vendor is the absolute owner of said property and hereby warrants the Vendee from any lawful claim of whomsoever over the same." It argues that petitioner, in executing said document in favor of private complainant, fraudulently represented that she is the absolute owner of the property and warranted that the transfer of rights over the property is free "from any lawful claim of whomsoever over the same" because at the time she made this representation, she had already sold/mortgaged the property to another person.
The question to be resolved is whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the alleged false representation or false pretense contained in the information.
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.18 It made this allegation but it failed to support it with competent evidence. Except for private complainant's 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. What was shown by the prosecution and admitted by the defense is the fact that the property is being currently occupied by a person other than private complainant. This fact does not prove that the property was previously sold to another person before being sold again to private complainant. Even assuming arguendo that the property was previously mortgaged, this does not prove that petitioner is no longer its owner when she sold the same to private complainant. At most, it only shows that the property is encumbered and that there was no change in ownership which is contrary to the prosecution's claim that there was already a transfer of ownership before the property was sold to private complainant.
The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in the information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense because he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. The allegations of facts constituting the offense charged are substantial matters and an accused's right to question his conviction based on facts not alleged in the information cannot be waived. No matter how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted of any offense unless it is charged in the information on which he is tried or is necessarily included therein. To convict him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating his defense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded. The rule is that a variance between the allegation in the information and proof adduced during trial shall be fatal to the criminal case if it is material and prejudicial to the accused so much so that it affects his substantial rights.
We are not saying that petitioner did not commit any wrongdoing. There was indeed an injustice committed to private complainant when she was not able to occupy the property she bought from petitioner. The problem, however, is we cannot convict petitioner for an act not alleged in the information. To do so would be violative of the fundamental law of the land.
In the present case, the prosecution, which has the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the essential elements of the felony, failed to discharge this burden. It failed to establish, as alleged in the information, the false representation or false pretense that petitioner supposedly committed; that is, the property in question was previously sold to another person before it was sold to private complainant. With this failure, the presumption of innocence in favor of petitioner prevails and we are thus constrained to render an acquittal.
ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals convicting petitioner of Estafa in CA-G.R. CR No. 25540 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Lilibeth Aricheta is acquitted of said charge on ground of reasonable doubt. No costs.
6 Exhibit A, Folder of Exhibits, p. 1.
7 Exhibit B, Id. at 3.
10 CA rollo, p. 171.
12 Paredes v. Calilung, G.R. No. 156055, 5 March 2007.
13 People v. Billaber, 465 Phil. 726, 744 (2004).
14 Cosme, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 149753, 27 November 2006, 508 SCRA 190, 203-204.
15 Sim, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159280, 18 May 2004, 428 SCRA 459, 468.
16 Alcantara v. Court of Appeals, 462 Phil. 72, 89 (2003).
17 Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163593, 16 December 2005, 478 SCRA 387, 411-412.
18 People v. Petralba, G.R. No. 137512, 27 September 2004, 439 SCRA 158, 170.
19 SECTION 9. Cause of the Accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
20 Section 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution; People v. Galido, G.R. NOS. 148689-92, 30 March 2004, 426 SCRA 502, 512; Burgos v. Sandiganbayan, 459 Phil. 794, 806 (2003).
21 G.R. No. 168486, 27 June 2006, 493 SCRA 539, 558.
22 People v. Malbog, 396 Phil. 784, 807 (2000).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.