"All the other elements of the crime also are undisputed. As laid down by jurisprudence, the elements of Estafa by means of deceit under Article 315, Paragraph 2(a) of the RPC are as follows:
(1) That there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to the offender's power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions;
(2) That such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
(3) 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
(4) That, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.50
The first and second elements are already extant from the records. Anent the third and fourth elements, the CA succinctly concluded the same in the following manner:
Convinced of [Arriola]'s authority to sell the subject property, [Del Rosario] was induced by [Arriola]'s false pretenses to continue with the sale transaction though she had never met Candelaria personally. [Del Rosario] trusted [Arriola], prompting her to part with her money. She also signed the Deed of Absolute Sale, secure in the belief that she was engaged in an honest deal brokered by appellant on behalf of his principal, Candelaria.
As a result of the fraudulent transaction, [Del Rosario] lost a total amount of P437,000.00. x x x51
Case law instructs that "the gravamen of the [crime of Estafa] is the employment of fraud or deceit to the damage or prejudice of another."52 With the foregoing, Arriola's actuations toward Del Rosario snugly encapsulated this description."
G.R. No. 199975, February 24, 2020
LUIS T. ARRIOLA, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/feb2020/gr_199975_2020.html
