Republic of the Philippines

First Judicial region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Brach 60
Hall of Justice, Baguio City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff, For

-versus- ESTAFA (Under Article 315, par.

2(a) of the Revised Penal Code)
LUISA ROY ESMABE, (of 213,
San Vicente, Puliwes, Baguio City).
Accused
x--------------------------------------------------x
CRIM. CASE NO.: 42316-R
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Plaintiff,
For
-versus-
ESTAFA (Under Article 315, par
LUISA ROY ESMABE (of 213, San 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code)
Vicente, Puliwes, Baguio City).

ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES, For

(of Rm. 406, Mt. Crest Hotel, Legarda
Road, Baguio City), ESTAFA (Under Article 315, par.
Accused 2(a) of
CRIM. CASE No. 42315-R
x--------------------------------------------------x

JOINT DECISION

Preliminary Statements:

In two (2) separate INFORMATIONS filed by the Baguio City

Prosecutor’s Office on February 8, 2019, LUISA ROY ESMABE and ATTY.
VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES, were charged with ESTAFA (Under
Article 315, par 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code). The accusatory portion of the
respective INFORMATIONS reads:

Criminal Case No. 42315-R:

xxx

J O I N T D E C I S I O N. (Criminal Case No. : 42315-R , 42316-R)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISA ROY ESMABE and ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES
 “That on May 25, 2018, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to
defraud and by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, feloniously defraud DR. LEONARDO F. GONZALES and DR.
ARACELI A. DE LEON-GONZALES, in the following manner, to wit: the
said accused, pretending to be the owner of the whole parcel of land situated
at Dominican Hill Road, Dominican Mirador Barangay, San Roque,
Baguio City, and covered by ARP No. 2014-03-004-150982 and with an area
of 1,000 sq. m. when she executed a Deed of Assignment of (Dacion en
Pago) to the complainants and pretending that she could deliver the whole
parcel of land to the complainants, knowing fully well that said pretenses
and misrepresentations to be false, as she is not the owner of said whole
parcel of land and does not have the means and capacity to deliver to the
complainants the said whole parcel of land since she have earlier sold a
portion of 400 sq. m. to Edrick Kevin A. Ferrer which is a fact she failed to
disclose to the complainants, and said complainants having been misled
and deceived by the false pretenses and fraudulent representation of the
accused executed with the accused the said Deed of Assignment (Daction
en Pago) over the said parcel of land in consideration of FIVE MILLION
PESOS (5,000,000.00), and despite demands made by the complainants for
the return of the said amount upon the discovery of the fraud, said
accused failed and refused to return the said amount, to the damage and
prejudice of the complainants in the said amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Criminal Case No. : 42316-R:

xxx

“That sometime in the month of June 2017, and subsequent thereto, in the
City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually
aiding one another, with intent to defraud and by means of false pretenses
or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously defraud
DR. LEONARDO F. GONZALES and DR. ARACELI A. DE
LEON-GONZALES, in the following manner, to wit: the said accused,
pretending to be the owner of a parcel of land situated at Corner Marcos
Highway and Subdivision Road, Bakakeng Central, Santo Tomas, Baguio
City, and covered by ARP No. 01-05008-59045 and with an area of 945 sq.
m.; that a certain Jun Tan was a mere lessee thereon; and the same was
unencumbered and “clean,” in addition, said accused made assurances and
misrepresentations that they have the means and capacity to cause the
transfer of the Tax Declaration in their name after which they shall
execute the necessary Deed of Waiver of Rights for the transfer of the tax
declaration of the said property in the name of the complainants; that
they have the means and capacity to cause the transfer of the tax declaration
from the previous owner, Geronima G. Que, in their name and once already

J O I N T D E C I S I O N. (Criminal Case No. : 42315-R , 42316-R)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISA ROY ESMABE and ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES
 declared in their name, to likewise cause the immediate transfer of the same to
the complainants; that they have the means and capacity to cause and facilitate
the titling of the said land in favor of the complainants before the concerned
government agencies within nine (9) months from the execution of the
Memorandum of Agreement because they have proper connections thereat;
and that the said property is free from any lien and/or encumbrance in favor
of any person, knowing fully well that said pretenses, assurances and
misrepresentations to be false, as they are not the owner of said land and do
not have the means and capacity to cause its transfer to the complainants, and
said complainants having been misled and deceived by the false pretenses and
fraudulent representation of the accused bought said parcel of land from the
accused and paid to them the total amount of FIVE MILLIONS PESOS
(P5,000,000.00) as down payment, who misappropriate, misapply and convert
to their own personal use said amount, and upon discovery of the fraud, the
accused failed to return the said amount despite demand from the
complainants, to the damage and prejudice of the complainants in the
said amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Accused Luisa Roy Esmabe and Atty. Vicente Jose M. Angeles, upon
arraignment on October 28, 2020 via video conference with the assistance of
their counsel Atty. Lauro D. Gacayan, both pleaded not guilty to the respective
INFORMATIONS read to them.

The Joint Pre-Trial Conference and Trial:

During the pre-trial conference held on October 28, 2020, the parties
failed to negotiate a mutually satisfactory and early disposition of these cases.

As to the stipulation of facts, the prosecution and defense stipulated and

agreed on the following:

1. The identity of both accused as the persons who were arraigned in the
Information.
2. The accused Esmabe and private complainants executed a
Memorandum of Agreement for the sale and purchase of that parcel
of land located in Marcos Highway (“Marcos Highway Property”)
covered by ARP No. 2016-03-004-162570 by the Assessor’s Office
of Baguio City, solemnized under faith of Atty. Vicente Jose
Angeles.
3. The accused Esmabe executed a Real Estate Mortgage and
Promissory Note on July 1, 2017 in favor of the private complainant.
4. The Real Estate Mortgage was duly notarized by Atty. Angeles.
5. The accused Esmabe executed a Deed of Assignment in favor of the
private complainants on May 25, 2018.

J O I N T D E C I S I O N. (Criminal Case No. : 42315-R , 42316-R)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISA ROY ESMABE and ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES
 6. The accused Angeles assisted the private complainants involving the
transactions in the Marcos Highway property and the Dominican Hill
property.

Witnesses of both parties were then named, evidences marked, and joint
trial dates were stipulated.

As to the issues for resolution, the prosecution and both accused through
defense counsel agreed and stipulated on the following in these two (2) cases:

1. Whether or not both accused are guilty of the crime charged.

2. Whether or not the accused conspired with each other in the

commission of the crimes charged in the Information.
3. Whether or not the accused are civilly liable to the private
complainants.

Trial ensued thereafter.

The Version of the Prosecution:

In its bid to seek conviction of accused Luisa Roy Esmabe and Atty.
Vicente Jose M. Angeles the prosecution submitted its version of evidence
through the presentation of its witnesses, together with the identification and
offer of the documentary exhibits.

The Summary of the Testimonies of

The Prosecution Witnesses:

The prosecution presented DR. LEONARDO F. GONZALES and DR.

ARACELI A. DE LEON-GONZALES who both had their Affidavit-
Complaint and Judicial Affidavit, respectively, and offered the same to serve
as their direct testimonies which the witnesses affirmed and confirmed in open
court.

The prosecution witnesses – private complainants DR. LEONARDO F.

GONZALES and DR. ARACELI A. DE LEON-GONZALES, in their
Affidavit Complaint, stated that:

Sometime in the year 2016, private complainants asked respondent

Angeles to look for a lot with clean title and ideal to build a hospital that
they could buy for that purpose.

Sometime in June 2017, respondent Angeles informed the private

complainants about respondent Esmabe who is offering for sale a lot
located in a prime location along Marcos Highway, Baguio City.

J O I N T D E C I S I O N. (Criminal Case No. : 42315-R , 42316-R)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISA ROY ESMABE and ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES
 Respondents went to the house of the private complainants and
represented that respondent Esmabe is the owner of a certain parcel of
land containing an area of 945 square meters which is for sale for
Php20,000,000.00. However, said property is still in the name of
the previous owner Geronima Que.

Since private complainants are actually looking for a lot to buy, they
offered to buy the mentioned property for Php.18,000,000.00 provided
that the same shall be titled in their name.

Respondent Esmabe then started to make a lengthy detailed discourse on

how to cause the titling of the same. That she has to transfer first the Tax
Declaration in her name. After which, she shall execute the necessary
Deed of Waiver of Rights for the transfer of the Tax Declaration to the
name of the private complainants. She also represented that she has the
means and/or capacity to cause and facilitate the titling of the said
property before the concerned government agency (DENR) because she
has proper connections thereat. Such assurance and representation were
affirmed by respondent Angeles.

As security for the downpayment of PhP5,000,000.00, respondent

Esmabe suggested that apart from signing a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA), she will also execute a Real Estate Mortgage over her other
property situated along Dominican Hill Road, Dominican Mirador
Barangay, Baguio City containing 1000 square meters which is currently
mortgaged to Mr. Kanongkong which will be paid and cancelled, after
which, their mortgage contract shall be annotated.

Respondent Esmabe also represented that while the processing of the

transfer of the tax declaration of the Marcos Highway lot in their name,
their money shall also earn an interest rate of PhP1,410,000.00. Hence,
because of such assurance, private complainants agreed.

On July 1, 2017, private complainants and respondent Esmabe signed an

MOA concerning the said property sold situated at corner Marcos
Highway and Subdivision Road, Bakakeng Central, Santo Tomas,
Baguio City, as prepared by respondent Angeles.

Simultaneously, in order to secure the advance/partial payment of

Php5,000,000.00, which was in fact given to respondent Esmabe in 9
(nine) installments thru respondent Angeles, the former also executed
Real Estate Mortgage over her other property situated in Dominican Hill
Road, Dominican Mirador Barangay, Baguio City containing 1000
square meters.

J O I N T D E C I S I O N. (Criminal Case No. : 42315-R , 42316-R)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISA ROY ESMABE and ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES
 Respondent Esmabe issued postdated check as payment of the monthly
interest as agreed. However, when those checks were presented for
payment, they all bounced due to insufficient funds and closed account.

Days and months passed by but the said tax declaration of the subject
realty (Marcos Highway lot) has not yet been transferred to the private
respondents. And they learned about the pending case for Ejectment and
Damages over the subject property sold to the private complainant.
Clearly, the subject property sold to the private complainant is not free
from any lien and or encumbrance as misrepresented by respondents.

When private complainants confronted respondents, the latter insisted

their proposal to instead transfer the Dominican Hill lot which the
former agreed. A Deed of Assignment (Dacion En Pago) was signed.

Private complainants discovered that 400-square meter portion of said

1,000 square meters mortgaged and subsequently conveyed was already
sold to Edrick Kevin A. Ferrer.

On July 5, 2018, private complainants learned that the property

mortgaged and subsequently conveyed to the latter is covered by several
Townsite Sales Applications (TSAs) of Rodolfo Damoslog et al. and
also subject of several protests. Private complainants also learned that
the 400-square meter portion is already in the name of Edrick Kevin A.
Ferrer.

Such act of Respondent Esmabe in selling the portion of the subject

realty while being mortgaged clearly constitutes Estafa.

On cross-examination:

On cross-examination, private complainant Dr. Leonardo F. Gonzales

testified that:

A Memorandum of Agreement was executed on July 1, 2017 where he has to

pay PhP5,000,00.00 as advance payment for the Marcos Highway lot of Mrs.
Esmabe. Also, a Real Estate Mortgage was executed where Mrs. Esmabe
mortgaged her Dominican Hill property for PhP5,000,000.00.

That Dr. Gonzales required Mrs. Esmabe to give him a check for
PhP5,000,000.00 and nine other checks totaling PhP1,410,000 as interest.

The Version of the Defense:

During the trial, the accused denied the allegations stated in the
information filed against them.

J O I N T D E C I S I O N. (Criminal Case No. : 42315-R , 42316-R)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISA ROY ESMABE and ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES
The Summary of the Testimony of Accused
Luisa Roy Esmabe and Atty. Vicente Jose M. Angeles
as witnesses for the Defense.

In her Counter-Affidavit, LUISA ROY ESMABE’s testimony is as

follows:

She vigorously denies having committed the offenses charged against her.

That the PhP5,000,000.00 received from the complainants is by way of a loan

and not a partial or down payment of her Marcos Highway property though they
made it appear as such in the MOA whose terms were dictated by them.

That the Real Estate Mortgage, Promissory Note, Deed of Assignment and
receipts stated that the said amount was extended as a “Loan,” not as advance
payment.

In his Couter-Affidavit, ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES’

testimony is as follows:

Private complainants are private financiers who extended loan to him for
construction of his transient house. Atty. Angeles paid in full the loan.

That private complainant asked Atty. Angeles to be their retainer lawyer.

That sometime in June 2017, he was asked by Gonzales to meet them at

Starbucks, Camp John Hay, as he would be meeting a certain Ms. Esmabe.
That in that meeting he was handed papers of Ms. Esmabe for verification. He
did what was tasked to do and reported his findings to Gonzales.

That as per agreement mutually arrived at by Gonzales and Esmabe, he

was asked to draft a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on July 1, 2017.

That as a security for Esmabe’s compliance of the MOA, she offered as

collateral her property at Dominican, Baguio City which is still mortgaged to
Mr. Kanongkong.

That at a meeting with Esmabe, we confronted her about Kanongkong.

She said that the PhP5,000,000.00 she is advancing is for the payment of said
loan. Gonzales agreed to loan her the amount of PhP5,000,000.00 as supported
by Real Estate Mortgage with Promissory Note on July 1, 2017.

That when Esmabe failed to comply with the MOA, she offered the
Dominican property to Gonzales to recoup his PhP5,000,000. He executed a
Deed of Dacion en Pago.

J O I N T D E C I S I O N. (Criminal Case No. : 42315-R , 42316-R)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISA ROY ESMABE and ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES
 That when he went to City Assessor’s Office to inquire, he learned that a
portion of 400 square meters was sold to Edrick Kevin A. Ferrer.

That I recommended to Gonzales that we should immediately file

criminal case for Estafa and violation of BP 22 against Esmabe.

The Issues:

The court will resolve the following issues:

1. Whether or not the accused are guilty of the crime charged.

2. Whether or not the accused conspired with each other in the
commission of the crimes charged in the information.
3. Whether or not the accused are civilly liable to the private
complainants.

The Ruling of this Court:

Again, this court is confronted with the issue on whether or not the
prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
in this case. This court, after careful evaluation of the facts, the pieces of
evidence and circumstances in this case, finds there is insufficient evidence to
prove the guilt of the accused LUISA ROY ESMABE and ATTY. VICENTE
JOSE M. ANGELES beyond reasonable doubt.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt charges the prosecution with the

immense responsibility of establishing moral certainty. The prosecution’s case
must rise on its own merits, not merely on the relative strength as against that
of the defense. Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, acquittal
must follow as a matter of course. (CAPISTRANO DAAYATA v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 205745, March 8,2017)

To resolve the issue whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of
estafa, this court will go over the INFORMATION filed against LUISA ROY
ESMABE and ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES, which states that “xxx
with intent to defraud and by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud DR. LEONARDO F.
GONZALES and DR. ARACELI A. DE LEON-GONZALES xxx.”

The elements of Estafa Under Article 315 of

The Revised Penal Code:

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

xxx.

J O I N T D E C I S I O N. (Criminal Case No. : 42315-R , 42316-R)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISA ROY ESMABE and ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES
 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed

(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.
xxx

In sustaining a conviction for estafa under the foregoing provision, the

prosecution must prove the existence of the following elements:

(a) [T]hat there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as

to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business
or imaginary transactions;

(b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or

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

(c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or
fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property;
and

(d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

There is no evidence that the accused committed any of these acts when
she obtained private complainants’ money.

In estafa by means of deceit under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised

Penal Code, the element of deceit consisting of the false pretense or
representation must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, criminal
liability will not attach.

The Dominican Hill Property

The Information charges the accused Esmabe for the crime of Estafa
grounded on the false pretenses and fraudulent representation of the accused
when she executed a Deed of Assignment (Dacion en Pago) on the said parcel
of land in consideration of PhP5,000,000.00 despite that a portion of 400
square meters was previously sold to another person.

In Aricheta v. People, the accused was charged of estafa for selling

property that she had previously sold to a third party. She allegedly
misrepresented to the buyer that she was still the owner at the time of the
sale. In acquitting the accused, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution
failed to prove the alleged false representation she made. The question to be
resolved in the said case is whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the alleged false representation or false pretense contained in

J O I N T D E C I S I O N. (Criminal Case No. : 42315-R , 42316-R)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISA ROY ESMABE and ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES
the information. As above explained, the alleged false representation or false
pretense made by petitioner to private complainant was that she was still the
owner of the property when she sold it to private complainant. To prove such
allegation, the prosecution should first establish that the property was
previously sold to a third party before it was sold to private complainant. The
prosecution utterly failed to do this. The fundamental rule is that upon him
who alleges rests the burden of proof. It made this allegation but it failed to
support it with competent evidence. Except for private complainant's bare
allegation that petitioner told her that she (petitioner) sold the property to
another person, the records are bereft of evidence showing that the property
was indeed previously sold to a third person before it was sold again to private
complainant. What was shown by the prosecution and admitted by the defense
is the fact that the property is being currently occupied by a person other than
private complainant. This fact does not prove that the property was previously
sold to another person before being sold again to private complainant

The private complainants claim that accused Esmabe allegedly sold 400
square meters of the Dominican property to one Edrick Kavin Ferrer thereby
leaving only 600 meters despite the fact that the Deed of Assignment states
that the 1000 square meters shall answer for the PhP5,000,000.00 loan.

A perusal of the findings of the Investigating Prosecutor with regards to

the signature of the accused in the Absolute Deed of Sale of Portion of
Unregistered Land over the said 400 square meters shows that the
Investigating Prosecutor concluded that the signature in the said deed appears
to be different from the signature of the accused in other documents admitted
to have been signed by the latter.

Considering that the Absolute Deed of Sale of Portion of Unregistered

Land was not executed by the accused Esmabe, this court believes that she did
not commit “false pretenses and fraudulent representation” to deprive private
complainants of their rights over the subject Dominican Hill property. More so
that the annotations were carried over in the Tax Declaration of Edrick Ferrer
recognizing the rights of the private complainants over the property.

The Marcos Highway Property

The Information charges the accused Esmabe and Atty. Angeles for the
crime of Estafa for conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another,
with intent to defraud and by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously defraud private complainants by
pretending to be the owner of the subject property and that the same is
unencumbered and clean; that they have the means and capacity to cause the
transfer of the tax declaration from the previous owner in their name and
subsequently in the name of the private complainants.

10

J O I N T D E C I S I O N. (Criminal Case No. : 42315-R , 42316-R)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISA ROY ESMABE and ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES
 Again, this court is not convinced that the alleged fraudulent acts were
committed. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) presented as evidence
showed on paragraph 6 to wit:

xxx
6. That the SECOND PARTY shall pay the amount of P5,000,00.00 as
down payment for the purchase of the said property upon signing of this
Memorandum of Agreement:
xxx

During cross-examination, the complainants admitted that they never

gave such P5,000,000.00 on July 1, 2017, the date the MOA was executed.
This court is convinced that the obligations stated in the MOA were both not
performed. There was failure on the part of the complainants to give the
mentioned down payment for purchase of Marcos Highway lot and as a
result of which the accused failed to perform her obligation from the said
MOA which is to cause the titling of the same property in the name of the
complainants.
This court is more convinced that the PhP5,000,000.00 amount
involved pertains to a Loan. The Promissory Note, Real Estate Mortgage,
and all the Acknowledgment Receipts all pertain to Loan. The private
complainants never questioned but instead admitted and even offered as
evidence those mentioned documents.
The law defines a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) as a contract whereby
the debtor secures to the creditor the fulfillment of a principal obligation,
specially subjecting to such security immovable property or real rights over
immovable property which obligation shall be satisfied with the proceeds of
the sale of said property or rights in case the said obligation is not complied
with at the time stipulated (Act 3135, As Amend BY RA 4118).

From the definition above, REM is an accessory contract which is

executed to secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation. This court is
convinced that the REM in this case was executed to secure the principal
obligation which is a loan as evidenced by the Promissory Note. Stated
otherwise, the PhP5,000,000.00 is a Loan extended to the accused as stated
in the Promissory Note executed on July 1, 2017. And to secure such Loan,
a Real Estate Mortgage was executed over the Dominican Hill lot. This fact
is expressly mentioned in the Promissory Note itself.

There can be no Estafa for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond

reasonable doubt that the elements of the crime charged are indeed present
in this case. As such, the second issue on whether or not the accused
conspired with each other in the commission of the crimes charged becomes
moot and academic since as discussed above, the crime of Estafa is not
11

J O I N T D E C I S I O N. (Criminal Case No. : 42315-R , 42316-R)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISA ROY ESMABE and ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES
present in this case. Consequently, there can be no conspiring, confederating
or mutually aiding, so to speak, by the accused.

The Civil Liability:

It is not denied that Gonzales gave a sum of money to the accused. Gonzales
gave a total amount of PhP5,000,000.00 to the accused which this court believed to
be a Loan as transcribed in the following testimony of the private complainant.

xxx
Atty. Gacayan:
First, in your Real Estate Mortgage dated July 1, 2017, Doctor, it was
stated that you are lending her the amount of PhP5,000,000.00 payable
in nine months, correct?

Dr. Leonardo Gonzales:

Yes, Sir.

Q: With interest of PhP1,410,000.00 for the nine-month period?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And there is an accompanying promissory note for that real estate

mortgage, correct?
A: Yes, Sir.

Q: It is also dated July 1, 2017, correct?

A: Yes, sir.

As this court is already convinced that the amount in question is indeed a

Loan, with an agreed Interest on the principal, in determining the Civil Liability in
this case, the provision of the New Civil Code is our guide as follows:

Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and
the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no
stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon,
and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per
annum.

When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of

money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which
may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn
legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation,
the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from
judicial or extrajudicial demand (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals)

In the case of Frias v. San Diego-Sison, GR no. 155223, the Supreme Court
held that for a debtor to continue in possession of the principal of the loan and to
continue to use the same after maturity of the loan without payment of the monetary

12

J O I N T D E C I S I O N. (Criminal Case No. : 42315-R , 42316-R)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISA ROY ESMABE and ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES
interest, would constitute unjust enrichment on the part of the debtor at the expense
of the creditor.

In view of the foregoing, this court finds the accused Esmabe liable for
the amount of PhP5,000,000.00 which has been given to her in total on August
9, 2017. Consequently, the accused is also liable for the agreed Interest for the
period of nine-months amounting to PhP1,410,000.00.

WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing premises, this court

hereby renders Judgement, as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 42315R, this court finds accused LUISA
ROY ESMABE NOT GUILTY of the crime of ESTAFA as
charged in the Information dated 8 February 2019 and filed before
this court on 2 April 2019, for insufficiency of prosecution
evidence;

2. In Criminal Case No. 42316R, this court finds accused LUISA

ROY ESMABE and ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES
NOT GUILTY of the crime of ESTAFA as charged in the
Information dated 8 February 2019 and filed before this court on 2
April 2019, for insufficiency of prosecution evidence;

3. DIRECTING accused LUISA ROY ESMABE to pay the

private complainant Dr. Leonardo F. Gonzales and Araceli A. De
Leon-Gonzales FIVE MILLION (PhP5000,000.00), Philippine
currency, representing the money she received from the private
complainant, and the agreed interest of ONE MILLION FOUR
HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND (PhP1,410,000.00) plus legal
interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the time the
INFORMATION in this case was filed until its full satisfaction;

There is no pronouncement as to costs.

Furnish copies of this DECISION to all the parties and their respective
counsels.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DONE IN CHAMBERS, this 20th day of March 2023

RUFUS GAYO MALECDAN JR

Judge

13

J O I N T D E C I S I O N. (Criminal Case No. : 42315-R , 42316-R)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISA ROY ESMABE and ATTY. VICENTE JOSE M. ANGELES