Milla v. People, GR No.

188726, January 25, 2012

Facts:
In March, 2003, Cresencio Milla represented himself as a real estate developer from a company
in Makati engaged in selling business properties therein and offered to Market Pursuits, Inc.,
represented by Carlo, a property in Makati, showing to him a photocopy of the title in the name of
spouses Handog. Carlo verified the title with the Registry of Deeds and confirmed its authenticity.
Convinced, Carlo purchased the property for P2 Million, first issuing a Security Bank check for
P1.6 Million. Cresencio then handed him a copy of a notarized Deed of Sale signed by spouses
Handog and owner’s duplicate copy of the title. After Cresencio gave Regino, Carlo’s partner, a
copy of the new title, MPI tendered to Cresencio the balance of P400,000.00 through a check.
Because Cresencio failed to turn over receipts for transfer taxes, Carlo verified with the Registry
of Deeds, where he discovered that there was no transfer of property from the Handog spouses
to MP of the property covered in the old title, and that the new title was registered in the name of
a certain Matilde M. Tolentino. When Carlo demanded the return of the money, Cresencio failed,
thus MPI filed a case for estafa through falsification against Cresencio. Cresencio argues that
novation had set in, with his issuance of Equitable PCI checks to MPI before the filing of the
complaint against him.

Issue:
Whether or not the criminal liability of Cresencio is extinguished by novation before the filing of
the complaint and that it converted his obligation into a civil one.

Ruling:
No. The criminal liability for estafa already committed is then not affected by the subsequent
novation of contract, for it is a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the State
in its own conation. In the case at bar, the acceptance by MPI of the Equitable PCI checks
tendered by Milla could not have novated the original transaction, as the checks were only
intended to secure the return of the P2 million the former had already given him. Even then, these
checks bounced and were thus unable to satisfy his liability. Moreover, the estafa involved here
was not for simple misappropriation or conversion, but was committed through Milla’s falsification
of public documents, the liability for which cannot be extinguished by mere novation.