G.R. No. 186107 . April 20, 2016.
NARCISA M. NICOLAS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SPOUSES RALPH ADORABLE AND ROWENA ADORABLE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Narcisa M. Nicolas, along with others, was charged with Estafa through Falsification of Public Document. The Information alleged that in December 1996, the accused defrauded spouses Ralph and Rowena Adorable. The complainants purchased a 293-square meter lot from the accused for ₱644,600.00. After full payment, the accused mortgaged the property to another person by forging the complainants’ signatures on a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage and later sold it via a Deed of Absolute Sale, making it appear the complainants participated when they were in fact in Belgium. The accused appropriated the money.
During trial, the prosecution established that Ralph Adorable, an overseas worker in Belgium, conveyed his interest in buying land to his brother Abel. Upon Ralph’s return in December 1996, Abel introduced petitioner as a real estate agent. Petitioner showed a lot, claimed ownership, and received a partial payment of ₱350,000.00 from Ralph, with the balance payable in installments. A Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on December 4, 1996. Ralph returned to Belgium, and the property was later registered in his name under TCT No. 119421. In December 1997, petitioner obtained the owner’s duplicate copy of the title from Abel under the pretense of correcting an area mistake. When Ralph later visited the property, he found a “lot for sale” notice. Inquiry at the Registry of Deeds revealed his title had been cancelled and transferred to others by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 8, 1998, and the property had been mortgaged via a Real Estate Mortgage dated October 20, 1997. Ralph denied the signatures on both documents, as he and his wife were in Belgium during those dates. Petitioner admitted selling the property and offered a swap, which did not materialize.
Petitioner denied forging the signatures, claiming it was Abel who mortgaged and sold the property.
The Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document, sentencing her to an indeterminate penalty and ordering her to pay ₱344,000.00 as indemnity. Her co-accused were acquitted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s judgment but modified the actual damages to ₱272,000.00, noting the prosecution established petitioner received ₱572,000.00, and ₱300,000.00 had been returned.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of accused Narcisa M. Nicolas beyond reasonable doubt for the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for lack of merit and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that the resolution of the issues raised was factual in nature, calling for a review of evidence already considered below. Under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised, and the factual findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, which coincided, are binding. The Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting a review of facts. It observed that the CA’s conclusion—that petitioner deceitfully obtained the title, forged the complainants’ signatures on the mortgage and deed of sale while they were abroad, and thereby defrauded them—was justified based on the evidence and not on mere speculation. Thus, petitioner’s guilt for the complex crime was upheld.