REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SANDIGANBA VAN
Quezon City

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- SB-18-AlR-0003
For: Estafa

SB-18-AlR-0004
For: Violation of Section
3(e) of Republic Act No.
3019
MAYBEL A. UMPA,
Accused.
Present:

DE LA CRUZ, J., Chairperson

ECONG, J. and
CALDONA, J.

Promulgated:

-OEC 2 0 2610 ~L
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-------x

DECISION

CALDONA, J.:

On appeal is the Joint Decision' of the Regional Trial Court, Branch

85, Quezon City dated November 10, 2017 finding herein appellant
Maybel A. Umpa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged
in Criminal Cases Nos. R-QZN-13-01427 and R-QZN-13-01428.

1 SS Record, Vol. I, pp. 15-36.

Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AlR-0003 and 18-AlR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 2 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
The records disclose that on July 2,2013 two (2) informations were
filed by the Office of the Ombudsman before the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 85, Quezon City against appellant Maybel A. Umpa, and her
erstwhile eo-accused, Carlito M. Castillo. The information in Criminal
Case No. R-QZN-13-01427 for the crime of Estafa defined and penalized
under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code reads:

That on or about October 15, 2010 or sometime prior or

subsequent thereto, in Quezon City and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, CARLlTO M.
CASTILLO, Administrative Assistant III with Salary Grade 8 and
MAYBEL A. UMPA, Records Officer with Salary Grade 10, both
of the Land Registration Authority (LRA), East Avenue corner NIA
Road, Quezon City, both low ranking public officers, conspiring
and confederating with one another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, thru deceit, make false
representations by making it appear that they possess power and
influence in producing and facilitating the Approved Plan, Tax
Declaration and the titling of the real estate property of Mr.
Fernando Mamaril consisting of 7.2 hectares located at Sitio
Catmon, San Rafael, Rodriguez, Rizal, which induced the
private complainant Lory D. Malibiran, together with other
financers, to part with their money in the aggregate amount of SIX
HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php620,OOO.OO)
representing the money which the accused demanded, received
and appropriated for their own benefit, when in truth and in fact
and as the accused knew fully well, they have no such power and
influence in producing and facilitating the Approved Plan, Tax
Declaration and the titling of the abovementioned property, they
being mere Administrative Assistant III and Records Officer,
respectively, of the LRA, thereby causing damage and prejudice
to private complainant Lory D. Malibiran and the other financers
in the amount aforestated.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

On the other hand, the information in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-13-

01428 for the crime of violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, is quoted
hereunder:

That on or about October 15, 2010 or sometime prior or

subsequent thereto, in Quezon City and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, CARLlTO M.
Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AlR-0003 ana 18-AlR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 3 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CASTILLO, Administrative Assistant III with Salary Grade 8 and
MAYBEL A. UMPA, Records Officer with Salary Grade 10, both
of the Land Registration Authority (LRA), East Averiue corner NIA
Road, Quezon City, both low ranking public officers, while in the
performance of their official functions as such, committing the
offense in relation to their office and taking advantage of their
official positions through evident bad faith or manifest partiality,
and conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and criminally, cause undue injury to
private complainant Lory D. Malibiran and the other financers by
making it appear that they possess power and influence in
producing and facilitating the Approved Plan, Tax Declaration
and titling of the real estate property of Mt. Fernando Mamaril
consisting of 7.2 hectares located at Sitio Catmon, San Rafael,
Rodriguez, Rizal, which induced the private complainant Lory D.
Malibiran, together with the other financers, to part with their
money in aggregate amount of SIX HUNDRED TWENTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P620,OOO.OO), representing the money
which the accused demanded, received and appropriated for
their own benefit, when in truth and in fact and as the accused
knew fully well, they have no such power and influence in
producing and facilitating the Approved Plan, Tax Declaration
and the titling of the abovementioned property, they being mere
Administrative Assistant III and Records Officer, respectively, of
the LRA, to the damage and prejudice of private complainant Lory
D. Malibiran and the other financers in the amount aforestated.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Accused Castillo was arraigned on August 29, 2013 while accused

Umpa could be arraigned only on August 11, 2015 in both informations
during which they separately entered the plea of "Not guilty" with the
assistance of counsel de officio.

Meanwhile, on Dec mber 2, 2014 the cases against accused

Castillo were dismissed up n execution by the private complainant of an
affidavit of desistance effectively absolving the said accused of the crimes
charqed.?

On June 16, 2016 pre-trial conference was conducted with respect

to accused Umpa who admitted being the same person charged in the

2 Ibid., p. 3.
Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AlR-0003 and 18-AlR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 4 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

two (2) informations as well as her position in the Land Registration

Authority (LRA) being Records Officer I at the time material to the instant
cases. The parties also stipulated on the jurisdiction of the court a quo
over the person of the accused.

Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued wherein the prosecution

presented as witnesses the following officers of the LRA, namely: 1)
Rosemary Rabanera", 2) Joel Biqornia", 3) Ruth D. Bahia", and 4) Atty.
Michael Superable", including the private complainant, Lory Malibiran'.

Accused Maybel A. Urnpa" testified as lone witness for the defense.

Being in accord with the transcript of records, their respective

testimonies, as summarized by the court a quo, are substantially quoted
below:

ROSEMARY RABANERA is Administrative Officer IV, Human

Resource Division. As such, part of her official function is to keep the
201 Files of the LRA personnel. Accused herein was an employee of the
LRA. As proof she presented and identified the following documents
pertaining to the accused: Personal Data Sheet (PDS), Original Service
Record, Appointment Paper and Certification of Employment. She
further testified that the accused was the Records Officer I of Cavite
Province until her request to be transferred to the Central Office in
Quezon City. On August 2, 2012, the accused was dismissed from the
service pursuant to the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman.

JOEL BIGORNIA, an Investigator at the Legal Department

during the time relevant to these cases, has been with the LRA for
almost fifteen (15) years. Currently, he is the Division Chief of the Docket
Division. In connection with these cases, he testified that the accused
was one of the respondents in the complaint filed by Lory Malibiran. She
was charged with making false representations, specifically, that she
could facilitate the titling of Fernando Mamaril's property in Rodriguez,
Rizal. During the first hearing on June 15, 2011, wherein Bigornia issued

3 TSN dated September 29,2016, pp. 2-18.

4 TSN dated November 24,2016, pp. 2-22.
5 TSN dated December 1,2016, pp. 2-10.
6 TSN dated January 26,2017, pp. 2-4.
7 TSN dated January 26,2017, pp. 4-20.
8 TSN dated August 17, 2017, pp. 4-82
Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AlR-0003 and 18-AlR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 5 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

a notice of hearing, the accused arid the complainant appeared before

him. The parties agreed that the accused will settle the amount received
from Malibiran. However, in another: hearing set on August 25, 2011, the
accused did not appear anymore. Hence, on April 4, 2012, Bigornia
prepared his Report and submitted the same to the Head of the
Investigation Division, Michael Superable. He recommended the filing of
the appropriate charges against the accused. Eventually, his
recommendation was duly approved by the LRA Administrator.

On cross examination, he confirmed that the complaint against

the accused was filed in August 2011. The Agreement between the
parties dated June 15, 2011 was signed by the accused in front of him
at the hearing room of the inveStigation division.

RUTH D. BAHIA is a Records Officer since 1990 and as such,

she receives and records documents for the office. She also safekeeps
the records of the Inspection and Investigation Division and does other
tasks that may be assigned to her. In addition to her official function, she
is in charge of certifying documents. She admitted that she certified
Exhibits R-6 to R-15 of the prosecution upon the request of investigator
Joel Bigornia.

ATTY. MICHAEL SUPERABLE was the Acting Chief of the

Inspection and Investigation Bureau at the time of the incident
complained of. He admitted affixing his signature on the Report of Joel
Bigornia and furnished the accused a copy of the same. He further
issued an endorsement letter to the accused requiring her to submit her
comment to the complaint of Malibiran.

LORY MALlBIRAN testified that he is the godfather of the eldest

daughter of the accused. He consulted the accused for the titling of the
7.2 hectares of land in San Rafael, Rodriguez, Rizal owned by a certain
Fernando Mamaril. He asked her also on how they could get a tax
declaration for the said land. The accused asked him for an amount of
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as research fee. After he gave
the accused the Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), he was told to
wait. A week later, accused called to inform him that she can obtain a
certificate of title over the land and have it declared for taxation
purposes. This time, accused asked him for an amount of Six Hundred
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P620,000.00). He gave the money to the
accused at her office at the LRA East Avenue, Quezon City. The
following persons, namely: Charlie Castillo, Rosalina Santos and
Fernando Mamaril signed the Acknowledgment Receipt as proof that
they received the money. He further testified that he made them all sign
the Acknowledgment Receipt.

After a couple of weeks, the accused failed to fulfil! and deliver

her promise. Hence, they filed a complaint against her before the LRA.
During the initial hearing on June 15, 2011, the accused and Castillo
promised to return the money. However, during the second meeting, the
accused and Castillo did not anymore show up.

Eventually, he withdrew the case with the LRA and filed a

complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman. The accused
Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AlR-0003 and 18-A1R-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 6 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
and Castillo submitted their counter-affidavits to which they replied
through a position paper. Accused and Castillo did not answer anymore.
Thereafter, the Office of the Ombudsman decided to dismiss the
accused and Castillo from LRA.

For her defense accused MAYBEL A. UMPA testified that she

worked with the LRA as Records Officer I from April 1993 to August
2012. Her duties and responsibilities were to receive documents from
the Cash Section and forward it to the COA Division. She added that
Carlito Castillo was her officemate in the LRA who worked as Accounting
Clerk 11. On the other hand, complainant Malibiran is her husband's best
friend.

She narrated that in 2010, Malibiran went to their house in

Tandang Sora to consult about the titling of land. They talked and she
told Malibiran, "Sige iwan mo na sa akin yung documents, then, i-e-
endorse ko dun sa alam kong rtakakaalam." Hence, Malibiran left the
approved plan of the land with her. On the following day, she went to the
room of Castillo and gave him the approved plan. She told Castillo,
"Pumunta po yung kumpare ko sa bahay tapos nagkonsulta po kung
paano papatituluhan kava i-endorse ko sa inyo, kayo na po bahalang
mag-usap."

Subsequently, she introduced Castillo to Malibiran over the

phone. Two (2) or three (3) days later, Castillo told her that he had
already talked to Malibiran. Thereafter, Malibiran went to her office in
2010 and gave her the money for the processing of the title. She told
him, "Bakit sakin? Di mo na lang iderekta sa kanya". Malibiran replied,
"Kasi mare, ikaw kasi kakilala ko kava sayo ko na lang ibibigay, sabi po
nya."

Umpa admitted receiving Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00)

from Malibiran. She got the Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) out of the
P30,000.00 and gave Castillo the rest. In the subsequent times when
she received money from Malibiran, she repeated the same process.
However, she admitted that she has no proof that Castillo received the
money. She did not ask Castillo to sign any document because she
trusted him.

In 2011, the titling of the property did not happen because

Malibiran filed a complaint against her and Castillo with the LRA.
Afterwards, another complaint was filed against her and Castillo with the
Office of the Ombudsman. As a result, she and Castillo were dismissed.
She denied the accusations against her for estafa and violation of
Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019.

On cross-examination, she admitted that Castillo's job as

accounting clerk does not include the titling of properties. She has no
personal knowledge of the conversation between Castillo and Malibiran.
However, she admitted her receipt of the money. When the case was
filed against her before the Office of the Ombudsman, she filed a
counter-affidavit. Also, she attended the hearing before the LRA on June
15, 2011 and acknowledged receiving the Six Hundred Twenty
Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AlR-0003 and 18-AlR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 7 of 23
)(- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -)(
Thousand Pesos (P620,000.00) from Malibiran. Further, she admitted
that she made a promise to return the said amount. She identified her
signature appearing on the document that she signed during the hearing
at the LRA marked as Exhibit R-12.

On re-direct examination, Umpa clarified that as far as she

knows, Castillo knows how to process certificates of title. However, she
admitted that he was not allowed to process the same because he
worked as an accounting clerk. Hence, she just asked Castillo, "Ano ba
yan, kaya mo bang tulungan sila?" Then Castillo replied, "00 sige
tutulungan sila." After that Malibiran called her saying, "Mare pupunta
ako diyan sa office niyo at may ibibgay akong pera." She asked him,
"Sa kit? Kayo ang nag-usap ni Carlito bakit hindi na lang kayong
dalawaT Malibiran replied, "Hindi, ikaw kasi ang kakilala ko mare, mas
maganda ikaw, kasi matagal ko nang kakilala, kaibigan ko yung asawa
mo kaya may tiwala ako sayo." Umpa further explained that she did not
want to sign the document dated June 15, 2011 but Castillo told her,
"Ako bahala diyan, pumirma ka at may transaksiyon ako. Sa susunod
na buwan ako magbabayad." So she signed it. Castillo promised
Malibiran that he will pay. Lastly,' accused emphasized that Castillo
persuaded her to sign the document telling her, "Akong bahala diyan,
pumirma ka lang."

Subsequently, the court rendered the questioned joint decision, the

dispositive portion of which reads:'

WHEREFORE, in view o'f the foregoing disquisition, judgment

is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-13-01427, accused MAYBEL

A. UMPA is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Esfafa defined and penalized under Article
315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code and
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of
prision correcciona/, as minimum to ten (10) years of
prision mayor, as maximum;

2. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-13-01428, accused MAYBEL

A. UMPA is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 3 (e) of RA. No. 3019 and is hereby
SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six
(6) years and one (1) month to eight (8) years; and

3. Accused MAYBEL A. UMPA is ordered to pay private

complainant Lory Malibiran the amount of P620,000,OO as
actual damages.

1
Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-NR-0003 and 18-NR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 8 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
In the instant appeal", appellant Umpa, through counsel, cites the
following assignments of error in support thereof, to wit:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL

CREDENCE TO THE INCONSISTENT AND DOUBTFUL
TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESS LORY D.
MALlBIRAN.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE

"
ACCUSED APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT FOR ESTAFA AND FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 3
(E) OF RA 3019.

Amplifying on the grounds cited in support of the instant appeal, the

defense essentially points out that the trial court accorded credence to the
testimony of prosecution's principal witness Lory D. Malibiran when it
adjudged appellant Maybel Umpa guilty of the crimes of estafa and
violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019. She was found to have
committed acts of deceit by making false representations that she had the
power and influence in securing the approved plan, tax declaration and
titling of the real property owned .by Fernando Mamaril; and receiving in
the process the amount of P620,000.00 from the private complainant.
However, the trial court absolved Carlito Castillo, who was likewise earlier
accused of the same charges, upon subsequent execution by the same
prosecution witness (Malibiran) of an affidavit of desistance. The defense
opined that the complaint-affidavit and the affidavit of desistance of Lory
D. Malibiran have contradictory tenors and are highly inconsistent with
what he testified on during the trial which focused on the acts of accused
Umpa allegedly constituting the crimes of estafa and violation of Section
3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019. It was therefore grave error for the court a quo in

9 Appellant's Brief, SB Record, Vol. I, pp. 89-98.

Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AJR-0003 and 18-AJR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 9 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
ruling that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt based on such doubtful or unreliable allegations
and testimony of its principal witness. Besides, the affidavit of desistance
of the private complainant should benefit appellant Umpa in both cases.

The defense finally invoked the basic principle that in criminal

prosecutions, it is the duty of the state to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. In convicting the appellant for the crimes
charged the court a quo should have relied on the prosecution to establish
her guilt beyond reasonable doubt and not on the weakness of her
defense.

On the other hand, the People, represented by the Office of the

Ombudsman through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, maintained in
its Appellees Brief 0 filed on October 19, 2018, that there exists sufficient
evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant in both criminal cases. It also
observed that during the scheduled arraignment in August 2013,
appellant failed to appear in court without justifiable cause. Her non-
appearance, so construed as flight by the prosecution, was a clear indicia
of guilt.

Moreover, the alleged contradictory statements in the complaint-

affidavit and the affidavit of desistance of the private complainant are
more imagined than real insofar as the culpability of the appellant is
concerned. The alleged inconsistency, if any, pertains only to the
participation of erstwhile accused Carlito Castillo in inducing private
complainant to produce the money already demanded by the appellant.
However, the acts constitutive of the crimes charged, namely: the
misrepresentation regarding the ability to secure the release of the
documents over Mamaril's property, the introduction of private

10 SB Record, Vol. I.
Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-A/R-0003 and 18-A1R-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 10 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
complainant to Castillo whom she claimed can facilitate the transaction
and the actual receipt of money were all committed by the appellant. The
admissions that she made in open court on cross-examination even jived
with the testimony of the private complainant. Thus, she admitted that she
was consulted by the private complainant in relation to the titling of
Mamaril's property; she received the amount of P20,OOO.OOas research
fee; she consulted Castillo because she knew the latter to be "marunong
xxx sa proseso ng pagpapatitulo" despite the fact that Castillo was not
allowed to process the issuance of title; and that she received the amount
of P620,OOO.OOfrom the private complainant in consideration of her
promise to deliver the documents.

After a circumspect review, the court finds no reversible error in the

assailed decision, and therefore affirms the same.

It appears clear from the collective evidence adduced that sometime

in February 2010, private complainant Lory D. Malibiran consulted his
friend, herein appellant Umpa, on how he can obtain the approved plan,
tax declaration, and the certificate of title on Fernando Mamaril's 7.2
hectare property located in Rodriguez, Rizal. Private complainant, who is
incidentally also a godfather of Umpa's eldest daughter, knew that
appellant was working at the LRA.

In response, Umpa assured private complainant that she can

produce the documents. he asked for a sketch plan and the amount of
P20,OOO.OOas research fee from the private complainant.

Subsequently, Umpa facilitated a meeting between private

complainant and Carlito Castillo, who was also working at the LRA as
accounting clerk. They discussed the request of the private complainant
regarding the property of Mamaril.
Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-NR-0003 and 18-NR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 11 of 23
)(- -------------------------- -)(

In the first week of October 2010, appellant Umpa informed the

private complainant that the latter needed to pay the sum of P620,000.00
to facilitate the release of the documents that were needed fto obtain a
certificate of title over Mamaril's property. Eventually, private complainant
raised the amount and gave it to Umpa. Unfortunately, however, the
appellant failed to deliver any document which prompted the private
complainant to file a complaint against Umpa and Castillo before the LRA.

During the scheduled hearing on June 15, 2011, appellant Umpa

agreed to settle the amount given to her by the private complainant before
the hearing officer, Joel Bigornia, Division Chief of LRA's Docket Division.
However, nothing came out of the agreement as the appellant did not
show up on the next appointed hearing. Hence, the hearing officer
recommended the filing of appropriate charges against the appellant,
which was approved by the LRA Administrator.

At any rate, Malibiran decided to withdraw his complaint with the

LRA and instead, filed another complaint before the Office of the
Ombudsman charging Umpa and her erstwhile eo-accused of the
following crimes: a) Fraud and Illegal Exaction defined and penalized
under Article 213, Section 2 (c) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); b)
Other Frauds under Article 214 of the RPC; c) Estafa under Article 315
(1) of the RPC; and d) Violation of R.A. No. 3019, as amended.

After therein respondents had filed their counter-affidavits, the

Office of the Ombudsman issued a Resolution dated March 23, 201211
finding probable cause to indict the respondents for the crimes of estafa
and violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 for which, as above-
mentioned, Umpa would be eventually convicted by the trial court. Hence,
the present recourse.

11 RTC Records, Vo!. I, pp. 161-178.

Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-NR-0003 and 18-NR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 12 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code provides for
one of the means of committing fraud or deceit, to wit:

Article 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another
by any of the means mentioned herein-below shall be punished by:

x x x

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts

executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

(a) By using 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

The elements of the crime of estafa under the foregoing provision

are: 1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent acts or fraudulent
means; 2) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must
be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud; 3) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means and was thus induced to part with his
money or property; and 4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered
damage."

It can be gathered from the established facts that appellant Umpa

agreed and assured private-complainant Lory Malibiran that she can
facilitate the issuance of the approved plan, tax declaration, and the
certificate of title of Fernando Mamaril's 7.2 hectare property in
Rodriguez, Rizal, This is clearly manifest from the fact that she admittedly
demanded from the private complainant, who is her compadre, the
amount of P20,OOO.OOpurportedly as research fee. A demand of such
amount would naturally give an unmistakable impression that she was
holding out herself to the private complainant as being capable of

12 Pp vs. 8a/adjay, G.R. No. 220458, July 26,2017.

Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AlR-0003 and 18-AlR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 13 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

securing the subject documents for which assistance was being

requested of her. She would not go to the extent of arranging a meeting
between the private complainant and her erstwhile eo-accused, Carlito
Castillo, if it was not her intention to further impress upon the private
complainant that the latter's concern could be successfully addressed
with the assistance of another employee in the LRA which, incidentally, is
the sole government agency authorized to process applications for
certificates of title over real properties. The sham projection of herself as
the person to go to relative to private complainant's concern culminated
in appellant's demand for the amount of P620,OOO.OOwith a promise that
the documents would be forthcoming in a matter of weeks. But such was
not meant to be because the appellant knew fully well that she and her
erstwhile eo-accused were mere records officer and accounting clerk,
respectively, at the LRA and thus, were not authorized nor capacitated to
facilitate the processing of the subject documents. These circumstances
clearly constitute the elements of the crime of estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code.

It is very apparent that the appellant employed fraud or false

pretense upon being approached by the private complainant for
assistance in the processing of the necessary documents for the eventual
release of the certificate of title over the subject property. The complainant
relied on appellant's false pretenses and fraudulent acts when he agreed
to part with the amounts that were purportedly required for the said
purpose thus, suffering damages to such extent when the appellant
reneged on her undertaking. Hence, the court agrees with the following
findings of the court a quo:
x x x
In the present case, private complainant was able to establish,
through his positive, categorical, consistent and credible testimony, the
indispensable requirement of deceit, that is, the presence of fraudulent
representation on the part of the accused to the private complainant prior
Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AlR-0003 and 18-AlR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 14 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
to, or, at least simultaneously with, the delivery of the thing, the money
worth Six Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P620,000.00). The said
amount was given to the accused in this case when she enticed and
promised the complainant that she could have the land of Mamaril titled
and be declared for taxation purposes.

The private complainant categorically testified that the accused

made him believe that she could title the land and declare it for taxation
purposes. The accused even asked him for money pertaining to
research fee and for the title and tax declaration of the land x x x

It is worthy to note that the accused admitted signing the June 15,
2011 document, evidencing and admitting that she received the money
from Malibiran. Likewise, she confessed that she referred Malibiran to
Castillo because she knew that he could facilitate the issuance of title
although she admitted that the latter was not allowed to process the
same. x x x

Moreover, it is noteworthy that although the accused knew that

Castillo was not authorized to process the land title, still, she endorsed
Malibiran to the latter and even received the amount of Six Hundred
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P620,000.00).

As discussed, the private complainant trusted the accused and

parted with his money in the amount of Six Hundred Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P620,000.00) because of the latter's false representations that
she would be able to process the title of Mamaril's land through the help
of Castillo. However, in truth and in fact, the accused already knew that
Castillo could not process the title of the land as he never had an
authority to do so.

Furthermore, despite her receipt of the money, accused failed to

secure and deliver to Malibiran the title to the property of Mamaril. Then
after failing to fulfill her promises. and false representations, the accused
promised Malibiran anew to pay the amount of Six Hundred Twenty
Thousand Pesos (P620,000.00) she received from him. Unfortunately,
she has failed to do so.

In a last ditch effort to save her, accused eventually denied the

allegations against her and claimed that she gave the money to Castillo.
However, she failed to present any proof that Castillo indeed received
the money from her. In fact, she admitted that she has no proof to show
that actually gave the money to Castillo. Moreover, she failed to present
any other evidence to corroborate her allegations. It is emphasized that
mere allegations not substantiated by proof cannot be considered as
evidence. x x X13

13 See Note No. 1, pp. 9-17.

Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AlR-0003 and 18-AlR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 15 of 23
)(- -------------------------- -)(

However, the penalty imposed on the appellant needs modification.

The court a quo cited the case of Sy vs. People'" for guidance in fixing
the appropriate penalty where the Supreme Court relevantly held in part,
thus:

The penalty prescribed for estafa under Article 315 of the RPC is
prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period, if the amount defrauded is over Twelve Thousand
Pesos (P12,000.00) but does not exceed Twenty Two Thousand
Pesos (P22,000.00), and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the
penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for
each additional Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), but the total
penalty that may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such
cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties that may be
imposed under the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed
prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.

The addition of one year imprisonment for each additional P10,000.00,

in excess of P22,000.00, is the incremental penalty. The incremental
penalty rule is a mathematical formula for computing the penalty to be
actually imposed using the prescribed penalty as the starting point. This
special rule is applicable in estafa and theft.

The above ruling was obviously based on the pertinent penal

provision of Article 315 of the RPC. Prescinding from the above guideline
and considering that the amount defrauded was P620,000.00 with no
mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the court a quo went on to
impose the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of
prision correccional, as mirumumjto twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as
maximum.

Incidentally, on August 29; 2017 Republic Act No. 1095115 was

approved and has since taken effect. The Act amended certain penal
provisions for certain crimes which include estafa. Accordingly, the

14G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010.

lSOtherwise known as the Act Adjusting the Amount of the Value of Property and Damage on which a
Penalty is Based, and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code, Amending for the Purpose
Act No. 3815, otherwise known as The Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AlR-0003 and 18-AlR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 16 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
pertinent penal provisions of Article 315 of the RPC on swindling (estafa)
were amended and now read as follows:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud

another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished
by:

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum

period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the
fraud is over Two Million Four Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P2,400,000) but does not exceed Four Million Four Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P4,400,000), and if such amount exceeds the
latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be
imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each
additional Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000); but the total penalty
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such
cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may
be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this
Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion
temporal, as the case may be.

2nd. The penalty of pttsion correccional in its minimum and

medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over One Million
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (1,200,000) but does not exceed
Two Million Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,400,OOO).

3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period

to prision correccional in is minimum period, if such amount is
over Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,OOO)but does not exceed One
Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,200,OOO).

4th. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods,

if such amount does not exceed Forty Thousand Pesos
(P40,OOO):Provided, That in the four cases mentioned, the fraud
be committed by any of the following means: x x x

Inasmuch as the present penalty for the crime of estafa under Article
315 paragraph 2(a) of the RPC is beneficial to the appellant, the same
should be applied for her benefit' consistent with the principle that a
subsequent law may be given retroactive effect, if by doing so, it will
redound to the benefit of the accused." Given the attendant facts, the
imposable penalty would be arresto mayor in its maximum period to

16 Pp vs. Parel, G.R. No. L-18260, January 27, 1923.

Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AlR-0003 and 18-AlR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 17 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
prision correccional in its minimum period considering that the defrauded
amount is over Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) but does not exceed
One Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,200,000.00). The same
entails a prison term ranging from four (4) months and one (1) day to two
(2) years and four (4) months.

Under the Indeterminate· Sentence Law17 in imposing a prison

sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its
amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of
the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the
penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. One
degree lower from the above imposable penalty would be arresto mayor
minimum and medium which is one (1) month and one (1) day to four (4)
months. There being no attendant mitigating nor aggravating
circumstance the penalty that may be imposed on the appellant should be
an imprisonment of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional
rrururnum, as maximum.

On the other hand, Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, otherwise known
as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, states:

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or

omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:

x x x

(e) Causing any undue Injury to any party, including the

Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official

17 RA No. 4103, as amended.

Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AlR-0003 and 18-AlR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 18 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~- - - - - - - - - - - - -x
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.

In the case of People vs. Sandiganbayan18 the elements of the

crime of violation of Section 3 (e) ot'R.A. 3019 are enumerated as follows:
(1) The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,
judicial or official functions; (2) He must have acted with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gro~s inexcusable negligence, and (3) That
his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government,
or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference
in the discharge of his functions.

There is no dispute that the appellant was a public officer at the time
of commission of the crime charged occupying the position of Records
Officer I at the LRA. Although she knew that she was not vested with
authority to perform the task for which she was approached by the private
complainant for assistance, the appellant nevertheless created the
impression that she had the capacity to perform the same. She assured
the private complainant that she could extend the assistance being sought
and initially asked for the amount of P20,000.00 purportedly as research
fee. While she admittedly knew that her erstwhile eo-accused did not
likewise have the authority appellant nevertheless arranged for a meeting
between Carlito Castillo and the private complainant on the pretense that
the former could facilitate the titling of the subject property. She even
demanded the amount of P620,000.00 when she knew that she could not
deliver on her representation to the private complainant; which was what
actually happened. These acts of the appellant indubitably constitute bad
faith on her part in dealing with the complainant. That the latter suffered

18 G.R. No. 160619, September 9,2015.

Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AlR-0003 and 18-AlR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 19 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
injury as a result of appellant's misrepresentation is beyond cavil. He
shelled out the total amount of P640,OOO.OOwithout the appellant having
accomplished anything for it. Such therefore accounts for the injury
suffered by the complainant.

Accordingly, the court subscribes to the following observations and

conclusions of the court a quo:

It is not disputed that at the time of the commission of the crimes

charged, accused was a low ranking public officer, holding the position
of Record Officer I with the LRA. She was then discharging her official
functions when she misused her position by making Malibiran believed
that she could facilitate the titling of Mamaril's land and have it declared
for taxation purposes. She misled Malibiran in believing that because
she worked with the LRA, she could have the land of Mamaril titled.

In Consigna v. People, citing Montilla v. Hi/ario, the Supreme

Court ruled that the "offense committed in relation to the office" as:

[T]he relation between the crime and the office contemplated by

the Constitution is, in our opinion, direct and not accidental. To
fall into the intent of the Constitution, the relation has to be such
that, in the legal sense, the offense cannot exist without the office.
In other words, the office must be a constituent element of the
crime as defined in the statute x x x.

In this case, it was proven with certainty during trial that the manner
by which accused perpetrated the crime necessarily relates to her official
function with the LRA. Accused's official function at the time material to
the cases filed against her created in her favor an impression of authority
to transact business with Malibiran, involving financial concerns. There
is, therefore, a direct relation between the commission of the crime and
accused's office - the latter being the very reason or consideration that
led to the unwarranted benefit she gained from Malibiran, for which the
latter suffered damages in the amount of P620,000.00

x x x

Here, the accused was charged with violating Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. No.
3019 for "causing undue injury" to Malibiran committed with evident bad
faith, for which she is guilty of. It was shown that she had prior
knowledge that Castillo was never allowed to process the titling of lands.
However, despite such knowledge on her part, she still endorsed
Malibiran to Castillo and even received the former's money. "Evident bad
faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently
fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious
wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. "Evident bad faith"
contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design
 Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AlR-0003 and 18-AlR-0004
Pp vs. MaybeJ A. Umpa
Page 20 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes,
which manifested in accused actuations and representation.

The inevitable conclusion then is that, accused capitalized on her

official function to commit the crime charged. Without her position,
accused could not have induced Malibiran to part with his money. In the
same vein, accused could not have orchestrated a scheme of receiving
money from Malibiran, who believed that she could facilitate the titling of
the property of Mamaril, which, thus, led him to part with his money in
the amount of P620,000.00.19

As another assignment of error, the appellant seeks to capitalize on

the purported conflicting tenors between the private complainant's
complaint-affidavit and his subsequent affidavit of desistance. His
allegations in these two (2) documents are also sought to be portrayed as
inconsistent with his testimony given in open court substantiating the
charges of estafa and violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 against
the appellant. The pertinent portions of the complaint-affidavit and the
affidavit of desistance, as quoted in the Appellant's Briero, are
reproduced hereunder for ready reference, thus:

COMPLAINT -AFFIDAVIT

4. That the money illegally exacted from me by the respondents

came from different persons as financiers of Mr. Fernando
Mamaril, the owner of the property, and because the amount
then was short of P110,000.00, Mr. Carlito forced me to
mortgage my van assuring me that the documents will come
out in two to three days, but until now, or after the lapse of
eleven (11) months of following up, and the same period of
the respondents of promising to produce the documents paid
for, the documents were not finished and never been
prepared or procured as the respondents converted and
misappropriated the amount of their personal use to my
damage and prejudice and other persons.

AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE

2. After series of talks between me and accused Carlito M.

Castillo, I came to a realization that he is not a party to the
scheme to defraud me and my associates. The

19 See Note No. 1, pp. 20-21.

20 See Note No. 7, pp. 4-5.
Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AlR-0003 and 18-AlR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 21 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
misrepresentation to facilitate the titling of the property of
Fernando Mamaril did not come from him but from his co-
accused Maybel A. Umpa, who has remained at-large.

3. The truth is, at the very onset, from the time we initiated these
complaints, to the present, Mr. Castillo has never made
himself scarce nor avoided talking to us that further convinced
me of his sincerity and his explanation that he had nothing to
do with the scheme to defraud us.

Concededly, there exists discordant notes in the above-quoted

portions of complainant's complaint-affidavit and affidavit of desistance. If
at all however, the same could only affect, as the court a quo appreciated,
the liability of Carlito Castillo after private complainant come to realize that
he was not after all part of the fraudulent scheme. In the same affidavit of
desistance, the private complainant reiterated, and even affirmed his
conviction that herein appellant was the lone perpetrator of the entire
design to defraud him. On this score, the court sees fit to subscribe to the
appreciation by the court a quo of the credibility of witnesses being in the
best position to observe their demeanor during the trial. In the case of
People vs Abet", the Supreme Court acknowledged that:

It is well settled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses

and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court
because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and
to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination.
These are important in determining the truthfulness of witnesses and in
unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. For,
indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice are potent aids
in ascertaining the witness' credibility, and the trial court has the
opportunity and can take advantage of these aids. These cannot be
incorporated in the record so that all that the appellate court can see are
the cold words of the witness contained in transcript of testimonies with
the risk that some of what the witness actually said may have been lost
in the process of transcribing. As correctly stated by an American court,
"[t]here is an inherent impossibility of determining with any degree of
accuracy what credit is justly due to a witness from merely reading the
words spoken by him, even if there were no doubt as to the identity of
the words. However artful a corrupt witness may be, there is generally,
under the pressure of a skillful cross-examination, something in his
manner or bearing on the stand that betrays him, and thereby destroys
the force of his testimony. Many of the real tests of truth by which the

21 G.R. No. 202704, April 2, 2014.

Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-A1R-0003 and 18-A1R-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 22 of23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.-x
artful witness is exposed in the very nature of things cannot be
transcribed upon the record, and hence they can never be considered
by the appellate court. .

Thus, the futility of appellant's last ditch effort to dodge conviction.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the questioned Joint Decision

dated November 10, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 85, Quezon
City, is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modifications that the penalty to
be imposed in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-13-01427 for the crime of estafa
should be an imprisonment of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision
correccional minimum, as maximum; while the actual damages is a total
of P640,000.00.

SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

~~.
Jl\tu· Nu ~~
~RDO M. CALDONA
---A'ssociateJustice

WE CONCUR:

EFREN ~~ LA CRUZ
AssociM~j ustice
Chairperson
Decision
Criminal Cases Nos. 18-AlR-0003 and 18-AlR-0004
Pp vs. Maybel A. Umpa
Page 23 of 23
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

ATtESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court's Division.

EFREN Jlr.::\:
LA CRUZ
ChairpersJ'nYirst Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13, of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.