LATEO vs.
PEOPLE o They claim that Lucero was aware that the property was not yet in the
J. Nachura | June 8, 2011
FACTS
 In 1994, Lateo and Elca proposed that Lucero finance the titling of the 122
hectares of land in Muntinlupa allegedly owned by Elca as sole heir.
o Elca offered to assign Lucero 70 hectares of the land.
 Lucero released to petitioners about 4.7M in staggered amounts
o Elca told Lucero that certain portions of the property will first be put in
the name of Lateo and would later on be assigned to her
 Lucero was presented copies of 3 TCTs issued by the Makati Register of Deeds
in the name of Lateo.
o However, in December 1994, when Lucero verified with the Register of
Deeds, she discovered that the same were actually registered in the
names of Marc Singson, Mary Go, and Feliza Torrigoza
 Lucero confronted the petitioners and demanded her money back.
o Petitioners told her that they did not have any money to return.
o They instead offered a 5 HA land in Bacoor allegedly owned by Elca.
 Elca demanded an additional 2M for the transfer of title
 When Lucero verified with the Land Management Bureau, she
discovered that Elca did not own the land and only had a
pending application for the sales patent over a 4 hectare land.
 These prompted Lucero to file a complaint with Task Force Kamagong Manila
o The Task Force conducted an entrapment at Furosato Restaurant.
o Petitioners were apprehended in possession of marked 100-peso bills
amounting to 100,000, supposedly for the Bacoor Property.
Decision of the RTC
Guilty of attempted Estafa and sentenced them to imprisonment of 10-12 year.
Decision of the CA
Affirmed RTC’s decision with modification and sentenced them to 6 months – 4 years.
ISSUE: WON the petitioners’ are guilty of attempted Estafa – YES
RATIO
 The petitioners assail the finding of the lower courts that the transaction involving
the Bacoor property was another attempt to defraud Eleonor Lucero.
o They deny that they deceived Lucero.
name of Elca and that they took money at Furosato since it is needed to
facilitate the issuance of title in Elca’s name.
 The SC agrees with the finding of the lower courts that the transaction involving
the Bacoor property was a continuation of the Muntinlupa Transaction.
o When Lucero discovered that Elca’s certificate of title over the
Muntinlupa property were fake, Elca offered the Bacoor property.
o As it turned out, Elca did not own the Bacoor property. He merely had
an inchoate right over it, derived from his Application to Purchase.
o Clearly, Elca was in no position to transfer the Bacor property.
 The SC cited Alcantara and explained the meaning of fraud and deceit:
o Fraud is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including
all acts and omissions involving a breach of duty, trust, or confidence
justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue
and unconscientious advantage is taken of another.
o Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or
conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that
which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to
deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
 Petitioners parody that Elca owned the Bacoor property in substitution of the
Muntinlupa property constituted fraud and deceit.
 Nothing on the record shows that the factual findings of the lower courts were
erroneous. Thus, the SC affirmed their conclusion that petitioners attempted to
defraud Lucero for the second time.
 Petitioners commenced the commission of the crime of estafa but failed to
perform all the acts of execution which would reproduce the crime, not by reason
of their own desistance but because of their apprehension in Furosato.
o Since only the intent to cause damage and not the damage itself had
been shown, the RTC correctly convicted them of attempted Estafa.
 On the penalty, the penalty for estafa depends on the amount defrauded. Thus, if
estafa had been consummated, Lucero would have been defrauded in the
amount of 100,000.
o Being only attempted estafa, the penalty would be two degrees lower.
o The imposable penalty would be imprisonment from 2-6 months. And
because the amount involved exceeded 22,000, 1 year additional for
every 10,000 should be added, bringing the total to 7 years.
o However, the SC agree with the OSG that it would be inequitable to
impose 7 years, considering that petitioners were convicted merely of
attempted estafa.
RULING: Petition DENIED; CA AFFIRMED; Sentenced to 4 months of imprisonment.