View full case

JAIME GUINHAWA v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

In March 1995, Jaime Guinhawa purchased a brand new Mitsubishi L-300 Versa Van from Union Motors Corporation. The van was later driven by Guinhawa's driver to Naga City, but it was ditched into a canal due to the driver's heart attack. In October 1995, the Silo couple decided to buy a new van and purchased the damaged and repaired L-300 Versa Van from Guinhawa for P591,000. However, they discovered defects in the van and requested a replacement, which Guinhawa initially agreed to but later refused. Josephine Silo filed a complaint for rescission of the sale, but later withdrew it. She then filed a criminal complaint against Guinhawa for other deceits.

Jaime Guinhawa was charged with the crime of Other Deceits for defrauding Josephine Silo by selling her a supposedly brand new van that had defects and had been repaired. Guinhawa argued that he sold the van as brand new and denied making false statements. He was convicted and ordered to pay damages to Silo.

Guinhawa sold a van to Josephine Silo, falsely representing it as brand new when it had been previously damaged and repaired. Guinhawa appealed, arguing that he did not make false pretenses and that the civil liability has already prescribed. The CA modified the decision, reducing the damages awarded. Guinhawa filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asserting that he was not properly charged and that the evidence did not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the case given the amount defrauded

  2. Whether the petitioner was deprived of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the charge against him

  3. Whether the petitioner can be held criminally liable for the misrepresentations made by another person

  4. Whether the respondent was estopped from presenting evidence not alleged in the Information

  5. Whether the offense committed by the petitioner falls under "other deceits" as provided in Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code.

  6. Whether the petitioner committed fraud or deceit by concealment of material facts.

  7. Whether the petitioner can be relieved of criminal liability due to the private complainant's failure to fully inspect the van.

  8. Whether the principle of caveat emptor applies in the case

  9. Whether the petitioner and the general manager are both liable for the fraudulent omission

RULING:

  1. The trial court had jurisdiction over the case as the allegations in the Information fell under paragraph 1, Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC).

  2. The petitioner was not deprived of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the charge against him as the Information clearly stated the elements of the crime under paragraph 1, Article 318.

  3. The petitioner can be held criminally liable for the misrepresentations made by another person if there is evidence of conspiracy or if the petitioner personally made the misrepresentations.

  4. The respondent was not estopped from presenting evidence not alleged in the Information as the real nature of the offense charged is determined by the facts alleged in the Information and the punishment provided by law, not by the designation given by the Prosecutor.

  5. The Supreme Court ruled that the offense committed by the petitioner falls under "other deceits" as provided in Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. The essential elements that must be proven are: (a) false pretense, fraudulent act, or pretense other than those in the preceding articles; (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act, or pretense must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; and (c) as a result, the offended party suffered damage or prejudice. It is important that the false statement or fraudulent representation caused the private complainant to part with her property. Furthermore, the provision includes any kind of conceivable deceit other than those enumerated in Articles 315 to 317, and acts as a catchall provision.

  6. The Court ruled that the petitioner committed fraud or deceit by concealing material facts when selling the van. Fraud or deceit may be committed by omission, and concealment of a material fact which the seller is bound in good faith to disclose is equivalent to a false representation. The petitioner and the co-accused deliberately concealed the fact that the van had been in an accident, damaged, and repaired in order to deceive the private complainant and secure a profit from the transaction. Thus, the petitioner is liable for deceitful concealment of material facts.

  7. The Court held that the petitioner cannot be relieved of criminal liability based on the private complainant's failure to fully inspect the van. It was found that the private complainant made a partial investigation and relied on the representations of the petitioner and the co-accused. The seller cannot argue that the buyer should not have relied on fraudulent concealment. Negligence on the part of the buyer should not be a defense to prevent the seller from escaping the consequences of fraud.

  8. The principle of caveat emptor does not apply in this case. The rule of caveat emptor only requires the purchaser to exercise care and attention as ordinarily prudent men do in similar business affairs. However, it only applies to defects that are open and patent. In this case, the buyer relied on the seller's representation that the van was brand new and had no special knowledge of motor vehicle parts. The seller's fraudulent nondisclosure or concealment makes him responsible for the false representation.

  9. Both the petitioner and the general manager are equally liable for their fraudulent omission. Whenever a certain act or transaction is entrusted to an agent, the authority to act carries with it the authority to perform all collateral acts that are natural and ordinary incidents of the main act or business authorized.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The real nature of the offense charged is determined by the facts alleged in the Information and the punishment provided by law, not by the designation given by the Prosecutor.

  • The Information must clearly and accurately allege the elements of the crime charged.

  • A seller can be held criminally liable for misrepresentations made by another person if there is evidence of conspiracy or if the seller personally made the misrepresentations.

  • For one to be liable for "other deceits" under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove false pretense, fraudulent act, or pretense other than those in the preceding articles, made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, and resulting in damage or prejudice to the offended party.

  • The provision on "other deceits" includes any kind of conceivable deceit other than those enumerated in Articles 315 to 317 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • Jurisdiction of a court is determined by the averments of the complaint or Information and the penalty provided by law for the crime charged at the time of its commission. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years, including the offense of "other deceits" punishable by arresto mayor.

  • Fraud or deceit may be committed by omission and includes acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another.

  • Concealment which the law denounces as fraudulent implies a purpose or design to hide facts which the other party sought to know.

  • Failure to reveal a fact which the seller is bound in good faith to disclose may generally be classified as a deceptive act.

  • Fraudulent concealment presupposes a duty to disclose the truth and that disclosure was not made when opportunity to speak and inform was presented, and that the party to whom the duty of disclosure, as to a material fact was due, was induced thereby to act to his injury.

  • Failure to disclose facts when there is a duty to reveal them constitutes fraud.

  • In a contract of sale, the buyer and seller do not deal from equal bargaining positions when the seller has knowledge of a material fact which, if communicated to the buyer, would render the grounds unacceptable or less desirable.

  • If in a contract of sale, the vendor knowingly allows the vendee to be deceived by failing to disclose an intrinsic circumstance vital to the contract, deceit is accomplished by the suppression of the truth.

  • Where the buyer made only a partial investigation and relied, in part, upon the representation of the seller and is deceived by such representation to their injury, they may maintain an action for deceit. Negligence on the part of the buyer should not be a defense to prevent the seller from unjustifiably escaping the consequences of fraud.

  • Caveat emptor applies only to defects that are open and patent.

  • A buyer may rely on the seller's representations when purchasing property situated at a distance.

  • The seller cannot escape responsibility for false representations by claiming that the buyer should not have believed him or should have sought other sources to verify the facts.

  • The authority of an agent to perform a given act or transaction includes authority to perform all collateral acts that are natural and ordinary incidents of the main act or business authorized.