The Supreme Court has acquitted Cherry M. Miguel of the crime of Estafa under Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code in two separate criminal cases, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also ruled that civil claims beyond liability arising from the offense cannot be decided in the criminal cases and may instead be pursued in a separate civil action.
The Case
The case originated from two separate complaints filed by private complainant Anna De Dios against the petitioner for violation of Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Criminal Case No. 12-1354 was filed before Branch 148 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, while Criminal Case No. 13-2107 was initially raffled to Branch 146 of the RTC of Makati City.
De Dios and the petitioner were introduced to each other by their mutual friend, Conrad Perreras, at Resorts World Manila sometime in 2010. What began as a casual acquaintance developed into business ventures. During that time, the petitioner proposed to lease or sublease and renovate a condominium unit owned by De Dios. De Dios also engaged the petitioner to repair and renovate her other properties located in Makati and Taguig City. Their relationship later deteriorated, culminating in the filing of the criminal complaints.
In Criminal Case No. 12-1354, the Information alleged that in October 2010, the accused defrauded De Dios by pretending to be a duly licensed contractor and representing herself to have the necessary qualifications to undertake the repair of complainant's two-storey residence, demanding advance payment of PHP 133,716.00 for the processing of the necessary building permit and other requirements. In Criminal Case No. 13-2107, the Information alleged that in late 2010, the accused represented that she owned ten condominium units, one of which supposedly had a prospective foreigner lessee, and obtained PHP 500,000.00 from complainant in exchange for several postdated checks that were all dishonored.
The petitioner was arraigned on October 2, 2013, and entered a plea of "Not Guilty." The case was referred to the Philippine Mediation Center, but no amicable settlement was reached. The prosecution presented De Dios and Olga De Ramos as witnesses, while the defense presented the petitioner and her boyfriend, Dr. Ramon Juan Ongsiako.
The Issue
The Court addressed whether the petitioner could still be held liable for the amounts involved despite her acquittal for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and whether civil liability arising from sources other than the offense charged may be adjudged in the same criminal action.
The Ruling
The Court granted the petition. In its dispositive portion, it ruled: "ACCORDINGLY, the Consolidated Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 26, 2021, and the Resolution dated May 22, 2023, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR Nos. 42002 and 40252 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Cherry M. Miguel is ACQUITTED of the crime of Estafa under Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 12-1354 before Branch 147, Regional Trial Court, Makati City; and in Criminal Case No. 13-2107 before Branch 142, Regional Trial Court, Makati City, for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt."
The Court further ordered that entry of judgment be issued immediately.
By the Numbers
- PHP 133,716.00 — advance payment demanded in Criminal Case No. 12-1354
- PHP 500,000.00 — amount obtained in Criminal Case No. 13-2107
- PHP 2,674,336.88 — projected renovation cost in the Summary of Estimates dated September 7, 2010
- PHP 2.6 Million — contract price under the Construction Agreement executed October 7, 2010
- PHP 802,301.00 — succeeding amount equivalent to 30% of the total contract
- PHP 1.8 Million — amount petitioner claims De Dios remained liable to her for
- October 2, 2013 — date of arraignment
- February 26, 2021 — date of the reversed Court of Appeals Decision
- May 22, 2023 — date of the reversed Court of Appeals Resolution
The Court's Reasoning
The Court noted that while the evidence pointed to the amounts being part of contractual arrangements or loan agreements and not fraudulent schemes, there was no showing that the sums had been returned or otherwise accounted for. It explained that an acquittal will not bar a civil action where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, where the court declares that the accused's liability is only civil in nature, or where the civil liability does not arise from the criminal act of which the accused was acquitted.
Citing Spouses Llonillo v. People, the Court laid down the conditions for allowing recovery of civil liability in the same criminal proceeding despite acquittal: that the act or omission complained of is the same or related to that giving rise to the civil liability; that the civil liability was raised in the criminal action; that the accused was given the opportunity to be heard on the point; and that the civil liability was established by a preponderance of evidence.
The Court found these conditions unsatisfied. The act complained of was the alleged employment of deceit—the petitioner's misrepresentation of her professional license and fabrication of condominium ownership—which was not the same act that would give rise to civil liability stemming from independent contractual or loan obligations. The trial centered on the alleged misrepresentations, not on contract performance, renovation costs, or outstanding loan obligations. The Court held that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard on the civil aspect, and that the amounts and claims presented were conflicting and lacked sufficient substantiation. Given these evidentiary gaps, the Court concluded that civil liability could not be established with the requisite degree of certainty, and that any civil claims beyond ex delicto liability are without prejudice to a separate civil action.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. Nos. 267525 and 268329.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.