Luis T. Arriola Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 199975. February 24, 2020

Luis T. Arriola Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 199975. February 24, 2020

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/11792/

Hernando

Issues
I    THE COURT OF APPEALS X X X ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION. II    THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING GOOD FAITH ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER WHEN HE ASSUMED TO RETURN THE PURCHASE PRICE PLUS INTEREST AND ACTUALLY PAID THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT X X X THE AMOUNT DEMANDED TO HIM BY THE TRIAL COURT. III    THE COURT OF APPEALS X X X ERRED IN FAILING TO GIVE CREDENCE TO THE DEFENSE OF THE PETITIONER UNDER THE EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE.

Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what is relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown. As a matter of fact, evidence as to the making of the statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or is circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.

Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another.

The differences between the signatures are too blatant to further require the assessment of a handwriting expert. The "P" at the beginning of the signature on the Authorization is boxy and seem to have. been drawn with a hesitant hand; slanting, triangular, and terminating beyond the intersection of the lower and upper loops in the fax transmission; and then rounded and surprisingly upright in the Deed of Absolute Sale. The "g" in the Authorization is small and slides to the lower loop without closing the upper loop; large, elongated, and indented upper loop before proceeding to the equally-large second loop in the fax transmission; full unindented first loop while still rounded and upright in the Deed of Absolute Sale. While the copy of the fax transmission appended in the records is too blurred to further make out the "Candelaria" in the signature thereon, the same parts in the Authorization and the Deed of Absolute Sale remain decipherable. A prima facie evaluation thereof, even by an untrained eye, reveals discrepancies that are too dubious to be simply ignored.

When cross-examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party offering the witness, the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered incompetent and inadmissible in evidence. From the record, Arriola had been granted sufficient opportunities to complete his cross-examination. He had been fairly warned and notified in the September 5, 2006 Order of the RTC that his cross-examination shall be reset for the last time, and that another failure to appear for cross-examination shall be cause for the striking off of his direct testimony.

Good faith is "an elusive idea, taking on different meanings and emphases as we move from one context to another." It is, in general, a state of mind consisting in honesty in belief or purpose, faithfulness to one's duty or obligation, observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in a given trade or business, absence of intent to defraud or seek unconscionable advantage, or a belief in one's legal title or right. Being malum in se, and depending on the proven circumstances, good faith and lack of criminal intent are indeed available defenses against a prosecution for Estafa.

The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, arid does not suffice to produce a conviction. Briefly stated, the needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is found lacking.

Decisions
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed August 5, 2011 Decision and January 3, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 31338 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Petitioner Luis T. Arriola is ORDERED to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum.