G.R. No. L-45278 August 28, 1985
G.R. No. L-45278 August 28, 1985
ALAMPAY, J.:
The facts of this case do not appear to be disputed. The principal issue
that should be resolved is whether on the facts found by the courts
below, the petitioner, Napoleon Antazo, should be adjudged guilty of
misrepresentation, fraud or deceit. The Court of Appeals in its
decision stated the following:
We fully agree with the observation of the trial court that "as a lawyer
and an ex-municipal judge at that, who is conversant with the
intricacies of the law, it is likely that the accused inserted the
aforementioned phrase to fully convince the complainant of the
supposed non-existence of any liability on the disputed property." chanrobles virtual law l ibrary
Was there fraud and deceit constitutive of Estafa under Article 316,
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code committed by Petitioner when
he entered into a Contract of Purchase and Sale on June 18, 1965,
on installment basis, and thereafter executing a Deed of Absolute
Sale on August 12, 1966 upon completion of the installment
payments but prior to the redemption of the mortgage constituted on
the entirety of the subdivision lot of which the property in question
was included? (Memorandum for Petitioner, Rollo, p. 119).
The submission of the petitioner herein is that the instant case estafa
has not been committed. Petitioner contends that during the
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale, no payment was made either
coetaneously or subsequently by the private complainant as full
payment had already been made in accordance with the Contract of
Purchase and Sale of June 18, 1965. Although Petitioner
acknowledges his failure to comply with his obligation to deliver the
title of the purchased lot free from all liens and encumbrances, he
argues that he is NOT guilty of the fraud or deceit for which he could
be indicted for estafa because a mere promise to perform a thing is
not a representation which constitutes a deceit and failure to perform
such promise does not change its character. Petitioner maintains that
the intention to defraud must exist coetaneous with the alleged
deceitful act, citing the pronouncements in this regard made in the
case of People vs. Villarin, CA-G.R. No. 10598-R, October 31, 1953,
50 O.G. 262). chanroblesvirtualawl ibrary chanrobles virtua l law l ibrary
SO ORDERED.