26. Llamas v Court of Appeals

7/25/2019 26. Llamas v Court of Appeals

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/26-llamas-v-court-of-appeals 1/3

Llmas v Court of AppealsFacts:

Petitioners were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati with,the crime of other forms of swindling in the Information which reads:

That on or about the 2th

da! of "o#ember, $%&', in theMunicialit! of Paraaue, Metro Manila, Philiines, and within the *urisdiction of this +onorable Court, the abo#enamed accused,consiring and confederating together and mutuall! heling andaiding one another, well knowing that their arcel of land known as-ot "o. $$, /lock "o. 0 of the 1ubdi#ision Plan (-RC) Psd 0&0,Cadastral 1ur#e! of Paraaue, -RC Record "o. "20%20, Case"o. 3'%0, situated at /arrio 1an 4ionisio, Municialit! ofParaaue, Metro Manila, was mortgaged to the Rural /ank ofImus, did then and there willfull!, unlawfull! and feloniousl! sellsaid roert! to one Conrado P. 5#ila, falsel! reresenting the

same to be free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoe#er, andsaid Conrado P. 5#ila bought the aforementioned roert! for thesum of P$2,'%6. which was aid to the accused, to the damageand re*udice of said Conrado P. 5#ila in the aforementionedamount of P$2,'%6..

The RTC rendered its 4ecision, finding etitioners guilt! be!ond reasonabledoubt of the crime charged and sentencing them to suffer the enalt! ofimrisonment for two months and to a! the fine of P$','6. each.

The Court of 5eals affirmed the decision of the trial court and the aellate

court denied the etitioners motion for reconsideration. Petitioners filed before this Court, their etition for re#iew. The Court denied thesame for etitioners failure to state the material dates. 1ince it subseuentl!denied etitioners motion for reconsideration on 7une 2', 2, the *udgment ofcon#iction became final and e8ecutor!.

The Court ordered the arrest of the etitioners. Petitioner 9rancisco mo#ed forthe lifting or recall of the warrant of arrest, raising for the first time the issue thatthe trial court had no *urisdiction o#er the offense charged. Petitioners institutedan instant roceedings for the annulment of the trial and aellate courtsdecisions. The court dismissed the etition on technical grounds but reinstatedthe same on motion for reconsideration.

Issue:

Held:This Court has, on occasion, susended the alication of technical rules of rocedure wherematters of life, libert!, honor or roert!, among other instances, are at stake.0; It has allowedsome meritorious cases to roceed desite inherent rocedural defects and lases on therincile that rules of rocedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of *ustice.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/149588.htm#_ftn7




The strict and rigid alication of rules that tend to frustrate rather than romote substantial *ustice must alwa!s be a#oided. It is far better and more rudent for the court to e8cuse atechnical lase and afford the arties a re#iew of the case to attain the ends of *ustice, ratherthan disose of the case on technicalit! and cause gra#e in*ustice to the arties. &;

This Court notes that the case was allowed to run its course as a etition for certiorari , such

that in its 5ril $2, 23 Resolution, it said Considering the allegations, issues and argumentsadduced in the etition for re#iew on certiorari 8 8 8. -ikewise, in its 9ebruar! $, 2Resolution,'; the Court said, It aearing that 5tt!. 9rancisco R. -lamas, in his own behalfand as counsel for etitioners, has failed to file their rel! to the 1olicitor <enerals commenton the etition for re#iew on certiorari within the e8tended eriod 8 8 8.

Thus, the Court, at the first instance, had recogni=ed that the etition, although cationeddifferentl!, was indeed one for certiorari .

5rticle $0 (2) of the Re#ised Penal Code states:

5RT. $0. Other forms of swindling. The enalt! of arresto mayor in its minimumand medium eriods and a fine of not less than the #alue of the damage causedand not more than three times such #alue, shall be imosed uon:

8 8 82. 5n! erson who, knowing that real roert! is encumbered,shall disose of the same, although such encumbrance be notrecorded>

8 8 8 In e#er! criminal rosecution, the 1tate must ro#e be!ond reasonable doubt all the elementsof the crime charged and the comlicit! or articiation of the accused.$; 9or etitioners to be con#icted of the crime of swindling under 5rticle $0 (2) of the Re#isedPenal Code, the rosecution had the burden to ro#e the confluence of the following essentialelements of the crime:

$. that the thing disosed of be real roert!>

2. that the offender knew that the real roert! was encumbered,whether the encumbrance is recorded or not>

. that there must be e8ress reresentation b! the offender that the realroert! is free from encumbrance> and3. that the act of disosing of the real roert! be made to the damage ofanother.$$;

?ne of the essential elements of swindling under 5rticle $0, aragrah 2, is that the act ofdisosing the encumbered real roert! is made to the damage of another.

In this case, neither the trial court nor the C5 made an! finding of an! damage to theoffended art!. "owhere in the 4ecision of the RTC or that of the C5 is there an! discussionthat there was damage suffered b! comlainant 5#ila, or an! finding that his rights o#er the











roert! were re*udiced.

If no damage should result from the sale, no crime of estafa would ha#e been committed b!the #endor, as the element of damage would then be lacking.

5cuitted.

Documents

26. Llamas v Court of Appeals