THIRD
DIVISION
|
R.R. PAREDES, W.S. TIFFANY, T.R. KOTZE, H. MUSSAIN, FRANCISCO A.
CRUZ, EDGARDO C. CATAGUIS, E.M. LAPUZ, ATTY. JOSELIA POBLADOR, JOSE DE
LUSONG, EDUARDO A. RICARDO, ATTY. ARIEL F. ABONAL, and ADOLFO GARCIA,
Petitioners, - versus- TARCISIO S.
CALILUNG,
Respondent. |
|
G.R. No.
156055 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CALLEJO,
SR.,* CHICO-NAZARIO,
and NACHURA,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before
this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal and setting aside of
the Decision,[2] dated 29
January 2001, and Resolution,[3]
dated 14 November 2002, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 54862. In its assailed Decision, the Court of
Appeals reversed the Resolution,[4]
dated 27 July 1998, of the Department of Justice (DOJ), which affirmed the
Resolution,[5] dated 7
October 1997, of the Makati City Prosecution Office,
finding no probable cause and dismissing the herein respondent’s complaint,
docketed as I.S. No. 97-22188-191; and, instead, disposed as follows –
WHEREFORE, the resolution of
the Department of Justice dated
During the time material to the Petition at bar, petitioners Francisco A. Cruz (Cruz), Edgardo C. Cataguis (Cataguis), Atty. Joselia J. Poblador (Atty. Poblador), Jose De Lusong (De Lusong), Eduardo A. Ricardo (Ricardo), and Atty. Ariel F. Abonal (Atty. Abonal) were serving, in various capacities, as officials of Caltex Philippines, Inc. (CPI). Petitioner Cruz was the Vice President for Corporate Planning and a member of the Board of Directors of CPI; petitioner Cataguis was the General Manager for Marketing and also a member of the Board of Directors of CPI; petitioner Atty. Poblador was the Corporate Secretary and General Manager for Legal and Tax of CPI; petitioner De Lusong was the General Manager for Marketing Retail of CPI; petitioner Ricardo was the General Manager for Marketing of CPI for the years 1990-1996; and petitioner Atty. Abonal was the internal Legal Counsel of CPI.
On
In his
complaint before the Makati City Prosecution Office,
respondent charged petitioners, et al.,
with several counts of estafa. Respondent’s Original Complaint was
summarized in the Resolution,[6]
dated
[Herein respondent] Tarcisio S. Calilung alleged that
[herein petitioner] Atty. Joselia Poblador,
Chief Legal Counsel of Caltex Philippines (Caltex for brevity) negotiated to him the sale of several
parcels of land consisting of 228.9 hectares, more or less[,] situated at
Barrio Alibagu, Ilagan, Isabela. Atty. Poblador represented to [respondent] that Caltex is the absolute owner of all the parcels [of] land
as it acquired the same at a Sheriff’s Auction Sale, a
copy of a Sheriff’s Certificate of Final Sale was shown to [respondent]. Likewise, Atty. Poblador
represented and
assured complainant that subject property is not covered by the Agrarian Reform
Program and that the adverse occupants thereof are mere squatters. Consequently, [respondent] paid the total
amount of P3.5 Million for all the said parcels of land in two
payments. Thereupon, a Deed of
Assignment with Consolidation of Title dated P2.7 Million was successful and it
is the absolute owner of all the parcels of land. The truth however, is that Caltex is the owner of only one share of one of the
co-heirs. Lastly, Caltex
through E.A. Ricardo misrepresented to the Department of Agrarian Reform that
the subject property is agricultural inorder (sic) that it will qualify and be sold
under the Agrarian Reform Program. The
truth of the matter is the said parcels of land are pasturelands thus, exempt
from the coverage of the Agrarian Reform Program. Hence, [respondent] filed this complaint for Estafa against R.H. Paredes, W.S.
Tiffany, T.R. Kotze, H. Mussain,
F.A. Cruz, E.C. Cataguis, E.M. Lauz
who are members of the Board of Caltex Philippines,
Atty. Joselia Poblador,
Chief Legal Counsel, Jose De Lusong, signatory of the
Deed of Assignment and E.A. Ricardo, manager for Marketing and Atty. Ariel F. Abonal, assistant Secretary to the Board of Caltex Philippines who according to him acted in concert in
perpetrating the crime charged.
Likewise, a complaint for Falsification is instituted against Adolfo
Garcia who connived with the above-mentioned officers/members of the Board of Caltex
To answer the
respondent’s accusations against them, petitioners Atty. Poblador,
Cruz, Cataguis, De Lusong,
and Ricardo, submitted their Joint Counter-Affidavit,[7]
averring that the respondent’s complaint was without basis in fact and in law,
and that they could not be held liable for estafa.
The contents of their Joint Counter-Affidavit were concisely recounted by the Makati City Prosecutor in her Resolution,[8]
dated
Jose de Lusong
and Atty. Poblador claimed that they did not at any
time represent that Caltex Philippines is the
absolute owner of the entire subject parcels of land.
[Herein petitioners]
narrated that Caltex’s rights and interests on
subject parcels of land arose from Civil Case No. 84-22434 entitled Caltex Philippines vs. Antonia Vda.
de Medina at Branch 31, RTC-Manila. Antonia Vda. de Medina is Caltex’s judgment
debtor and is [respondent’s] mother-in-law.
During the pendency of the case, or on P4.5 Million for the purchase of the rights,
shares of [respondent’s] mother-in-law in subject parcels of land. Consequently, the subject parcels of land
(shares and interests of Antonia Vda. de Medina which
is 66.67% of the entire property) were sold to Caltex
P2,785,620.00. After
the execution of the sale, [respondent’s] mother-in-law was given one (1) year
within which to redeem her interest over the subject land.
After the lapse of the one
(1) year redemption period given to Antonia Vda. de
Medina, [respondent] went to Caltex office and
propose [sic] to reacquire the interest of Antonia Vda.
de Medina and to pay the defficiency
(sic) judgment obligation of
his mother-in-law. Caltex
P3.5
Million materialized. On the first
payment made by the [respondent], Caltex
On the alleged sale by Caltex
[Petitioners] denied the
allegation of [respondent] that Caltex officers and
directors conspire (sic) with Deputy Sheriff Adolfo B. Garcia
and notary Public Atty. Ariel Abonal in the
falsification of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Final Sale by representing that Caltex bidded for the entirety of
all the parcels of land subject of the sale and using the said falsified
documents to convince [respondent] of Caltex’s
absolute title over the subject parcels of land.
Lastly, the declaration [of]
Mr. Eduardo A. Ricardo that subject parcels of land is (sic) agricultural in nature in the Voluntary Officer (sic) To Sell to the DAR can hardly be
considered a crime moreso that there is no other
proof presented than the mere self-serving statement of Mr. Ricardo. Besides, in the Deed of Assignment with
Consolidation of Title, there is not (sic)
warranty as to the properties[’] classification or
primary use given.
Deputy
Sheriff Garcia submitted his own Counter-Affidavit with a Counter-Complaint for
Perjury.[9] He essentially affirmed the narration made in
the petitioners’ Joint Counter-Affidavit, particularly, the events arising from
Civil Case No. 84-22434, instituted by CPI against respondent’s mother-in-law,
Antonia Vda. de Medina,
before the Manila RTC. After the Decision, dated P4.5 Million. CPI’s winning bid was broken down[10]
as follows –
|
|
For the parcels of land covered by TCT Nos.
T-132694, T-133034, T-94234, T-124684, T-139590, T-138153, T-138154,
T-138155, T-133033, T-133021, T-133022, T-133023, T-133024, T-133025,
T-133026, T-133027, T-133028, T-133029, T-133030, T-133031, T-133032,
T-133033 and T-133034; and, |
|
|
For the parcels of land covered by Tax Declaration
Nos. 01-262, 01-265, 01-25080, 01-29376 and 01-23470 |
|
|
Total |
When Antonia Vda. de Medina failed to redeem her
interest in the subject real properties within a year from the execution sale,
ownership over the said interest was consolidated in CPI. Deputy Sheriff Garcia explained that he
prepared the Final Certification of Sale on
Respondent
submitted a Reply-Affidavit in which he insisted that the concealment of a
prior sale, the falsification of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Final Sale and
the conspiracy among the petitioners, et
al., and the others can be readily seen.
Once again, reference is herein made to the Resolution, dated
[Herein respondent] alleged
that he married the daughter of Antonia Vda. de Medina on P9
Million for the fourteen (14) parcels of land consisting of 228.9
hectares. Caltex
never informed [respondent] or his counsel that the entire properties were sold
to DAR for [P]1 Million. On November 1994, [respondent] formally
offered to buy the entire fourteen (14) parcels of land [pay for] P3.5
Million as earnest money which was accepted by Atty. Poblador. Even if the titles over the subject parcels
of land was (sic) still in the name of Antonia Medina (sic), he believed Atty. Poblador’s representation that Caltex
is the absolute owner by virtue of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Final Sale
handed to him. Nowhere in the Sheriff’s
Certificate of Final Sale that only Ľ undivided share of Antonia Medina was
auctioned.
The certificate of Final
Sale was dated P2,785,620.00 does not correspond to the written winning bid
by Caltex for P4.5 Million.
To support his foregoing allegations, respondent also submitted the Affidavit[12] of his counsel, Atty. Rolando A. Villacorta (Atty. Villacorta), who supposedly represented and assisted him during the negotiations with CPI for the purchase of the subject real properties. Atty. Villacorta attested that he met with both petitioners Attys. Poblador and Abonal of CPI regarding respondent’s offer to purchase the subject real properties; that Atty. Poblador, in response to a direct query by respondent, expressly denied that the subject real properties were covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of the Government; and that respondent was never informed that what he was purchasing was not the whole of the subject real properties, consisting of 229 hectares, but only an undivided share therein.
In their Joint Rejoinder,[13]
petitioners Cruz, Cataguis, De Lusong,
Ricardo and Attys. Poblador and Abonal
denied meeting and talking to Atty. Villacorta. According to petitioners Attys. Poblador and Abonal, at the
beginning of their negotiations for the purchase by respondent of the subject
real properties from CPI, the latter was accompanied, not by Atty. Villacorta, but an Atty. Karl Miranda from the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG), acting as a broker. During their meeting, they discussed about
the redemption of the rights, interests, and title of Antonia Vda. de Medina
over the subject real properties. In
their succeeding meetings, petitioners stressed that respondent was informed
that CPI was selling and assigning only the limited rights, interests, and
title of Antonia Vda. de Medina
over the subject real properties, and that the subject real properties were
under the coverage of CARP and were subject of a Voluntary Offer to Sell
(VOS). Petitioners pointed out that
respondent himself admitted that he was purchasing only the limited interest of
Antonia Vda. de Medina in the subject real
properties when he stated in his letter,[14]
dated 29 November 1994, addressed to CPI, that, “We are pleased to inform you
that we accept your offer to sell to us for P3.5 Million your interest
in the foreclosed Medina properties.”
Moreover, to belie the attestations of respondent and Atty. Villacorta in their affidavits, petitioners presented the Affidavits of Attys. Rodrigo B. Libunao, Jr.[15] and Catherine T. Manahan,[16] Legal Counsel and Tax Counsel, respectively, of CPI, who were also present during the meetings of petitioner Atty. Poblador with respondent. They both alleged that they were called to join the meeting in October 1994 wherein respondent was accompanied, not by Atty. Villacorta, but Atty. Miranda of the OSG; that respondent claimed to be married to Ma. Luisa Victoria Medina, the daughter of Antonia Vda. de Medina, and he was interested in acquiring CPI’s rights, interests, and title to the subject real properties in exchange for CPI’s execution of a waiver or quitclaim to secure the release of Antonia Vda. de Medina who was in prison by reason of the criminal cases filed by CPI against her; and that Atty. Poblador made full disclosure to respondent that CPI had, and was assigning to respondent, only the limited rights, interests, and title of Antonia Vda. de Medina over the subject real properties, and that the subject real properties were under the coverage of CARP and the subject of the VOS initiated by Antonia Vda. de Medina herself, through her attorney-in-fact Carlito Balauag.
Atty. Libunao further claimed that on P1 Million earnest money, Atty. Libunao again explained to him in detail the following –
a. That CPI was merely a
co-owner of the said properties as there were other heirs to the estate, one of
whom was his wife, and that only the undivided share pertaining to Antonia Vda. de Medina which we acquired
in an execution sale in Civil Case No. 84-22434 could be transferred to him.
b. That photocopies of the TCT’s to the subject parcels of land were furnished, and
exhibited to, him and he carefully noted that the subject parcels of land were
in the name of “Heirs of Antonio Medina.”
c. That the subject parcels of
land were covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) by virtue
of a Voluntary Offer to Sell signed by Antonia Vda. de Medina, through her attoreney-in-fact,
Mr. Carlito Balauag. A copy of this document was also furnished
Atty. Calilung.
d. That out of the sixteen (16)
parcels of land under process by the DAR, two (2) lots are ready for
compensation and that the money has already been deposited by the DAR in a
trust account in the Landbank branch in Tuguegarao, Cagayan.
e. That the fourteen (14)
subject parcels of land are still under process by the MARO in Ilagan, Isabela and that the
latter has started to identify the actual occupants and proposed beneficiaries
of the same.
f. That payment of compensation
under the CARP was being delayed by the fact that the heirs of Antonio Medina
have not initiated any estate settlement proceeding and that none of the heirs
has ever participated in the DAR conferences, despite notice.[17]
When Atty. Libunao again asked him if he really understood the complexities of the CARP issues affecting the subject real properties, respondent allegedly “confidently replied that he had been successful in preserving his and his family’s landholdings in Pampanga and that he will do the same for the subject parcels of land.”[18]
On
After a careful examination
of the evidence obtaining in this case the undersigned finds that: (1) there
appears no conceivable
fraudulent representations committed by [herein petitioners, et al.] (Caltex
Officers) in the negotiation and sale of subject parcels of land, (2) there is
no sufficient proof to show that the Sheriff’s Certificate of Final Sale was
falsified by [Deputy Sheriff Garcia] in connivance with [petitioners, et al.] Caltex
Officers; and (3) that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate
[respondent’s] claim that [petitioners, et
al.] (Caltex Officers) made false declaration
that subject parcels of land are productive agricultural land so these parcels
of land may be covered and sold under the Agrarian Reform Program of the
Government.
x x
x x
Seemingly, [respondent]
would want to extricate himself from a bad bargain and annul the effects of an
unwise act. If the [respondent] failed
to apprise himself of the consequence of his purchase of subject parcels of
land from Caltex[,] he was simply unfortunate. As it would appear all documents and informations (sic)
about the parcels of land subject matter of the sale transactions entered by
the parties are in [respondent’s] hands for his scrutiny. [Respondent] is a lawyer and as such it can
be presumed that he knows the complexities/controversies attached to the
interests and rights of his mother-in-law (Antonia Vda.
de Medina) over the parcels of land he wants to purchase from [petitioners, et al.] Caltex Officers. Clearly, there was no misrepresentation
and/or concealment regarding the ownership of Caltex
over subject parcels of land. Neither
was there falsification committed on the Sheriff’s Certificate of Title.
x x x x
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, it is respectfully recommended that complainant (sic) against [petitioners, et al.] Caltex
Officers and Adolfo Garcia be dismissed, as it is
hereby upon, approval, dismissed.
Likewise, it is recommended
that the counter-charge of perjury against [respondent] be dismissed.
Aggrieved,
respondent filed with the DOJ a Petition for Review of the Resolution, dated
The record clearly shows
that the subject parcels of land were previously owned by the late Antonio
Medina. Upon the latter’s death, the
said properties were inherited by Antonia Vda. de Medina and her children through intestate
succession. When Caltex filed a civil case against Antonia Vda. de Medina, who is
[herein respondent’s] mother-in-law, the latter’s rights, title and interests
over the subject properties were levied on attachment during the pendency of the said case.
Thereafter, upon judgment in favor of Caltex
in the said civil case; and, pursuant to the writ of execution issued therein,
the rights, title and interests of Antonia Vda. de Medina over the said parcels of land were levied on
execution and, consequently, sold at public auction with Caltex
eventually winning the bid. Finally, a
certificate of sheriff’s sale was issued and based thereon Caltex
became the owner of the undivided interest of Antonia Vda.
de Medina over the subject parcels of land.
We find it incredible for
[respondent] not to have known the foregoing circumstances. It must be stressed that [respondent is] a
member of the family of Antonia Vda. de Medina. It taxes
one’s credulity that [respondent] would have had no personal knowledge about
the family’s properties which were the subject of the sale transaction
[respondent] had with Caltex. Besides, [respondent is] a lawyer
[himself]. As such, not only [was
respondent] expected to know the intricacies and complexities of the sale
transaction [he] entered with Caltex but also
[respondent] had all the means and resources to check and counter-check the
veracity of [herein petitioners, et al.’s]
representations. Indeed, it is hard to
believe that [respondent] chose to just take the word of [petitioners, et al.] that Caltex
is the owner of all the subject properties rather than examine the documents
pertaining thereto before parting with a substantial amount of money. We take with a grain of salt [respondent’s]
allegation that during the sale negotiations [respondent was] unaware of the
extent of the ownership of Caltex over the properties
in question not only because of [respondent’s] stature as a lawyer-businessman
but also because of [his] personal knowledge thereon by reason of [his] being a
member of the family of Antonia Vda. de Medina from whom Caltex
acquired the subject properties. Under
this milieu, no amount of fraudulent misrepresentations from [petitioners, et al.] could have misled [him] into
executing with Caltex the Deed of Assignment with
Consolidation of Title over the properties in question.
The foregoing circumstances
not only create suspicion as to [respondent’s] actual motive in filing the
instant complaint but also strengthen [petitioners’] claim that there is,
indeed, reasonable ground to believe that [respondent] entered into the
transaction in question knowing fully well that what was being sold by Caltex was only the undivided interest of [his]
mother-in-law who is one (1) of the co-heirs in (sic) the subject parcels of land.
Besides, no clearer
acknowledgment by [respondent] of [his] knowledge on (sic) the circumstances surrounding the subject properties than
as stated in par. 3, p. 5, of the Deed of Assignment with Consolidation of
Title can be made, which states thus –
x x x
x
“4. ASSIGNEE [respondent] further acknowledges that he is fully
aware of the circumstances under which these Properties were acquired by
ASSIGNOR [CPI] and that he has examined the title and inspected the said
properties and has verified their location together with their boundaries.” x x x
As
regards the findings of the City Prosecutor on [respondent’s]
other charges for estafa under Article 315, par. (3) of the Revised Penal Code and falsification/use of falsified
documents, we can find no cogent reason to alter, modify much less reverse the
same.
WHEREFORE,
[respondent’s] instant petition for review is hereby dismissed.
Respondent’s
Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the DOJ in another Resolution dated
This prompted respondent to file with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, contending that the DOJ and the Makati City Prosecution Office committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing respondent’s complaint in I.S. No. 97-22188-191. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision,[21] dated 29 January 2001, reversed the findings of the DOJ and the Makati City Prosecution Office, and ordered the filing of an information for estafa against the petitioners, based on the following raison d'ętre –
The Court after a perusal
over (sic) the ruling of the
Department of Justice believes that said resolution deserves scant
consideration. This is so because the
issue on double sale was just taken in passing by the Department of Justice,
when that issue is paramount in the case.
It appears on record that
E.A. Ricardo, General Manager – Marketing commercial of Caltex
offered for sell (sic) to DAR
the subject property.
x x
x x
It should be noted that the
sale to DAR is unlike the ordinary contract to sell transactions wherein one
could determine when a sale is consummated.
But at this instance, where voluntary offer to sell has been made, where
process has been undergoing at that time, We opine
that there is already sale considering the unique circumstance of selling the
subject landholding to the DAR.
This is so because under
Administrative Order No. 5 series of 1992, it provides that landowners who
entered into Voluntary Offer to sell can no longer back out, except under the
exceptional circumstances as earlier illustrated. The present case is one that is not of the
exception. Hence, if a landowner can no
longer back out since he entered into that kind of transaction and by entering
into another sale such as in this case, fully knowing of the circumstances but
without divulging the same to the petitioner, would that not tantamount to
misrepresentation, fraud and deceit.
A careful perusal on (sic) the comments and arguments of
the [herein petitioners] that it (sic)
did not refute in whatever manner that there was a sale that took place between
the Department of Agrarian Reform and the CPI.
As a matter of fact, a reading of the foregoing, in consonance with the
VOS would connote that the sale has indeed been entered into because Caltex knew that a process has been undertaken by the DAR
(p. 175 [petitioners’] Comment) x x x.
These are an admission (sic) so far, that there was indeed a
previous transfer of the subject parcels of land to the DAR as they never
disputed that there was a sale between CPI and DAR. The words of CALTEX are simple and explicit,
there was an “offer” and “transfer” and that there was already an ongoing
process of the VOS. Hence, there was a
sale by virtue of the voluntary offer to sell under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program. The only thing is that, Caltex denies responsibility that it was the one who
offered the sale to DAR, but it claim (sic)
instead that it was Antonia Vda. de
Medina. But this argument bears no
weight. Regardless of
whether or not Antonia Vda. de
Medina was the one who offered to sell the property to DAR, CALTEX can’t
absolve itself from any responsibility.
x x
x x
So whether or not the first
voluntary offer to sell to the Department of Agrarian Reform was made by
Antonia Vda. de Medina and
the second offer was made by CALTEX to DAR, to our mind is, of no moment. One thing is thus, clear, CALTEX who duly
executed the necessary documents. There
is nothing on record which would reveal that [petitioners] was (sic) able to prove that [herein respondent]
was fully informed of the first sale made to DAR.
Further, [petitioners]
claimed that being a son-in-law,it
(sic) would be impossible for
[respondent] not to know it. This is not
sufficient reason to conclude that [respondent] was aware of the attending
circumstances. And we cannot therefore,
agree with the conclusion of the DOJ.
Clearly then, the evidence
points out that what appears to have been sold were the properties described in
the 14 TCT’s without any qualification thereon. And that the existence of a double sale can’t
be contested, there being an admission by the [petitioners] that there was a
sale made to DAR prior to herein [respondent].
x x
x x
With the acts of CALTEX in
the case at bar it can be gleaned therefrom that
there was no clear transactions [sic] that took place, thus, there was
an evident misrepresentation to the damage and prejudice of the
[respondent]. As supported by the Deed
of Assignment itself, the assurances given by the assignor
CALTEX to [respondent] is a grave misrepresentation to the [respondent]
who is the buyer of the properties in question.
That where there was no divulgement made by the CALTEX to petitioner of
the sale to DAR, there is no question that deceit is present. The presence of damage and deceit are (sic) apparent in the present case,
hence, the very elements of Estafa exist.
Even granting that the sale
was only with respect to the individual share or interest of CALTEX, it can’t
be denied that deceit was committed by [petitioners, et al.] in not being fair, honest in not revealing the real status
of the subject lot. x x x Had it not been of such misrepresentation, the Court
believes that [respondent] would not have parted substantial amount of money.
From the foregoing premises,
a prima facie case of ESTAFA was herein committed by the [petitioners, et al.] on the ground of double
sale. And the only way
to determine whether [petitioners, et al.]
herein are guilty or not is in a full blown trial before a Court. However, we do not find any participation of
the Deputy Sheriff Adolfo Garcia on the issue of double sale, it appearing that
he has nothing to do with the transaction between CALTEX and Department of
Agrarian Reform. This Court is convinced
that the Deputy Sheriff had just performed a ministerial duty imposed upon him
by law.
After their
Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals, in its
Resolution,[22]
dated
This Court finds the Petition at bar meritorious.
In his complaint, respondent charges petitioners, together with other persons no longer part of the present Petition, of two counts of estafa by means of deceit: (1) estafa by means of false pretenses, under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code; and (2) estafa by means of concealment, under Article 315(3)(c) of the same Code. Relevant provisions of the Revised Penal Code expressly read thus –
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa).
– Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
x x
x x
[P]rovided that in the
four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means:
x x x x
(2) By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions,
or by means of other similar deceits;
x x
x x
(3) Through any of the following
fraudulent means:
x x
x x
(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any
court record, office files, document or any other paper.