Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1910 > March 1910 Decisions > G.R. No. 4991 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO PIMENTEL

015 Phil 416:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 4991. March 12, 1910. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EMILIO PIMENTEL, Defendant-Appellant.

M. L. de la Rosa, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Harvey, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. "ESTAFA." — One who promises an ignorant and unlettered man that he will obtain for him from the Court of Land Registration a certificate of title to his land, and thereafter, in pretended fulfillment of said agreement, taking advantage of the ignorance of the other, delivers to him a mere affidavit that the latter is the owner of the land in question and collects from him the sum of P150 therefor, the owner relying wholly upon his representations that the document so delivered is in fact a certificate of title to the land duly obtained from the Land Court as per said agreement, is guilty of estafa.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J. :


The defendant was convicted of the crime of estafa in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ambos Camarines under the following information:ClubJuris

"The undersigned accuses Emilio Pimentel of the crime of estafa, committed as follows:ClubJuris

"That on or about the 15th day of August, 1907, in the municipality of Paracale, Ambos Camarines, the said Emilio Pimentel, for the purpose of defrauding Zacarias Riesa, promised to obtain for him from the Court of Land Registration a certificate of title to the land of said Riesa, situated in Manpongo, Paracale.

"That a few days afterwards said Emilio Pimentel, taking advantage of the ignorance of said Zacarias Riesa, delivered to him a document, saying to Riesa at the time that it was a certificate of the title of his land and that it was worth P150 Conant, and maliciously, criminally, and illegally took from him the said amount of P150, in the following form: One carabao valued at P120, and Riesa’s promissory note for P30, which he delivered to the said accused in payment for said document; that said document is not a certificate of the title to the said property, but is simply s statement sworn to before a notary public." clubjuris

No question is raised on this appeal other than that of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.

We are convinced, after a careful reading of the evidence and exhibits in this case, that the allegations of the information are sufficiently proved. The complainant testified that on the 15th of August, 1907, the accused was at his house in Manpongo and that after some talk they agreed that the accused should procure for him a certificate of registration of the title to his land; that on the 20th of the same month the accused returned to the complainant’s house, bringing a document, then without the signatures, reading as follows:ClubJuris

"I, Zacarias Riesa y Rayos, married to Alejandra Aguilar, now deceased, of full age, citizen and resident of Paracale, Ambos Camarines, P. I., being of sound mind and memory, voluntarily by these presents show: That for more than thirty years I have been and am now possessing and cultivating without interruption, under claim of title as owner, a parcel of coconut land (describing it) of the value of 700 pesos, Conant.

"I further state that my said possession, peaceful and without interruption, for said thirty years during which I have cultivated said land and planted coconuts thereon, has not been molested or disturbed by any person, by reason whereof I have acquired the rights of ownership under the existing laws, and as proof I offer two residents of this place who know of their own knowledge that I am the only owner of said land and that I have possessed and occupied it for a period of thirty years without molestation. Said witnesses are Antero Riesa and Tomas Balisbis, who know that I have not been molested in my quiet and peaceable possession during said time.

"I also state although I have possessed the said land I lack the evidences which prove my title; nevertheless I have been paying tax, having declared that I was owner of said land in the municipal secretary’s office of Paracale.

"In testimony whereof I execute this instrument in Paracale the 15th of August, 1907.

"ZACARIAS RIESA.

"ANTERO RIESA.

"TOMAS BALISBIS.

"Signed in the presence of —

"EMILIO PIMENTEL.

"EUGENIO DAMAS." clubjuris

That the accused told complainant that the document which he had and which he presented to him was the certificate of title to the land which he had agreed to get for him; that he asked the accused how much it was and the accused told him P200; that he objected to the price and the accused said that he would take P150; that the accused told him that it was a certificate of title to his property and, being ignorant and unable to read, he accepted his statement and paid him P150, as above set forth; that they thereupon went to the office of the municipal president to make the formal transfer of the carabao on the records. The record of transfer reads as follows:ClubJuris

"This registry shows that Zacarias Riesa, resident of Paracale, municipality of Paracale, Province of Ambos Camarines, as owner, has sold to Emilio Pimentel, resident of Daet, Ambos Camarines, as purchaser, in the sum of P120, a carabao, . . . ." clubjuris

It is dated August 20, 1907.

The testimony of the complainant is corroborated by Ursula Riesa, Pedro Pango, and Francisco Eco.

Certain contradictions in the testimony of Zacarias Riesa were properly regarded by the court below in passing upon the weight of the proofs as unsubstantial their influence upon the weight of said testimony generally considered.

The document for which the complainant paid the accused the sum of P150 was not, as instantly appears upon reading, the certificate of title which the accused had agreed to obtain. Accordingly his representations to the complainant, made by the accused knowing their falsity. By reason of such representations, and relying wholly upon them, the complainant parted with his property, being ignorant, as the accused well knew, of the nature and effect of the instrument he received.

We are satisfied, from a careful reading of the proofs, that the conclusions of the court below are correct. The penalty imposed is within the law. The record discloses no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused.

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, with costs against the Appellant. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres and Johnson, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



March-1910 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 5447 March 1, 1910 - PAUL REISS v. JOSE M. MEMIJE

    015 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 5606 March 2, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. RAMON INSIERTO

    015 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 5629 March 2, 1910 - LUIS FRUCTO v. MAXIMIANO FUENTES

    015 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. 5676 March 2, 1910 - LIM TIU v. RUIZ Y REMETERIA

    015 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 4788 March 3, 1910 - JUANA URBANO v. PEDRO RAMIREZ

    015 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 4811 March 3, 1910 - IGNACIO ARROYO v. SANTOS CAPADOCIA

    015 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 5325 March 3, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. AMADEO CORRAL

    015 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 4508 March 4, 1910 - MARCIANA CONLU v. PABLO ARANETA

    015 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. 5597 March 5, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. D. B. JEFFREY

    015 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 5222 March 7, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO ALUMISIN

    015 Phil 396

  • G.R. Nos. 5426 & 5427 March 7, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. LINO SUMANGIL

    015 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 5502 March 7, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO ROMULO

    015 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. L-5569 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. AGAPITO BIRAY

    017 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 4991 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO PIMENTEL

    015 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 5396 March 12, 1910 - CANUTO REYES v. JACINTO LIMJAP

    015 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 5491 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PRIMITIVO GAMILLA

    015 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 5611 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN VALERO

    015 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 5560 March 14, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE QUILLO

    015 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 5001 March 15, 1910 - ESTEBAN RANJO v. GREGORIO SALMON

    015 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 5054 March 15, 1910 - MARIA FALCON v. NARCISO L. MANZANO

    015 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 5112 March 15, 1910 - FRANCISCA BRETA v. SMITH, BELL & CO.

    015 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 5255 March 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO MONTELI

    015 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 5304 March 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. NAZARIO PALAOBSANON

    015 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. 5596 March 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERINO BAROT

    015 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 5254 March 17, 1910 - ANICETO GOMEZ MEDEL v. PEDRO AVECILLA

    015 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-5535 March 18, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. CIRIACO PELLEJERA

    017 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. L-5642 March 18, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. VIENTE ARCEO

    017 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 5381 March 18, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO ANCHETA

    015 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 5272 March 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. AH CHONG

    015 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 5321 March 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PAU TE CHIN

    015 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. 5509 March 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX LOPEZ

    015 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 5583 March 19, 1910 - G. URRUTIA & CO. v. PASIG STEAMER

    015 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. L-5620 March 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. Ilongots PALIDAT ET AL.

    017 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 4179 March 21, 1910 - RAFAEL AZADA Y LARA v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ Y GARCIA

    015 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 4612 March 21, 1910 - PABLO RALLONZA v. TEODORO EVANGELISTA

    015 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 4654 March 21, 1910 - LEON CABALLERO v. ESTEFANIA ABELLANA

    015 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 5183 March 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. TAN TOK

    015 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 5480 March 21, 1910 - RICARDO LOPEZ v. ADOLFO OLBES

    015 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 5487 March 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN PICO

    015 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 5524 March 21, 1910 - RAFAEL O. RAMOS v. HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA

    015 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 5525 March 21, 1910 - EUGENIO PASCUAL LORENZO v. H. B. MCCOY

    015 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 5673 March 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. TAN SAM TAO

    015 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 4713 March 22, 1910 - CHATAMAL TEERTHDASS v. POHOOMUL BROTHERS

    015 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 4901 March 22, 1910 - TEODORO OLGADO v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LIPA

    015 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. 4907 March 22, 1910 - CARLOS GSELL v. PEDRO KOCH

    016 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 4977 March 22, 1910 - DAVID TAYLOR v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD, ET AL.

    016 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 5006 March 22, 1910 - ALEJANDRO POLICARPIO v. LUIS BORJA ET AL.

    016 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 5022 March 22, 1910 - MURPHY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    016 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 5149 March 22, 1910 - GREGORIO MACAPINLAC v. MARIANO ALIMURONG

    016 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 5291 March 22, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. FACUNDO BARDELAS

    016 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 5449 March 22, 1910 - MARIANO GONZALES ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO ROJAS

    016 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 5464 March 22, 1910 - MARIA JOSE Y NARVAEZ ET A. v. PHILS. SQUADRON

    016 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 5470 March 22, 1910 - LUIS SAENZ DE VIZMANOS ONG-QUICO v. YAP CHUAN ET AL.

    016 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 5599 March 22, 1910 - MAURICE F. LOEWENSTEIN v. H. C. PAGE

    016 Phil 84

  • G.R. No. 5603 March 22, 1910 - WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    016 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. 4718 March 19, 1910 - SY JOC LIENG v. PETRONILA ENCARNACION

    016 Phil 137