SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 146921-22.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARY
GRACE CAROL FLORES, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision,[1] dated August 15, 1996, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 50, Manila,
finding accused-appellant Mary Grace Carol Flores guilty of estafa, for which
it sentenced her to an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1)
day to ten (10) years, and of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, for which it
sentenced her to an additional prison term of one (1) year. In its decision,[2] dated April 13, 1999, the Court of Appeals, while affirming the
findings of the trial court, held that the appropriate penalty for estafa,
considering that the amount is more than P22,000.00, should be 30 years
of reclusion perpetua and accordingly certified this case to this Court
for review pursuant to Rule 124, §13 of the Rules of Court.
The information for estafa against accused-appellant alleged:
That on or about October 19, 1992, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously defraud PACITA G. DEL ROSARIO in the following manner, to wit: the
said accused, well knowing that she did not have sufficient funds in the bank,
drew, made Out and issued post dated PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK
Check No. 558574 dated October 20, 1992 in the amount of P662,250.00
payable to PACITA G. DEL ROSARIO in payment of one (1) man’s ring with a 5.8
ct. diamond purchased and received by the said accused on the same date; that
upon presentation of said check to the bank for payment, the same was
dishonored and payment thereof refused for the reason “ACCOUNT CLOSED” and the said
accused, notwithstanding due notice to her by said Pacita G. del Rosario of
such dishonor of said check, failed and refused to deposit the necessary amount
of said check, to the damage and prejudice of the said Pacita G. del Rosario in
the total amount of P662,250.00, Philippine Currency.[3]
On the other hand, the information for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against accused-appellant charged:
That on or about October 19, 199[2], in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully and feloniously make
or draw and issued to PACITA G. DEL ROSARIO to apply on account or for value
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INT’L BANK Check No. 558574 dated October 20, 1992
payable to PACITA G. DEL ROSARIO in the amount of P662,250.00 said
accused well knowing that at the time of issue she did not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment of such check in full upon
its presentment, which check when presented for payment within ninety (90) days
from the date thereof, was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
“ACCOUNT CLOSED” and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, said accused
failed to pay said PACITA G. DEL ROSARIO the amount of the check or to make
arrangement for payment of the same within five (5) banking days after
receiving such notice.[4]
A warrant of arrest was issued on
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged and thereafter she was tried.
The prosecution presented two witnesses: complainant Pacita del Rosario and Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) employee Librado Manzano.
Complainant Pacita del Rosario testified that on P662,000.00.
As payment therefor, accused-appellant issued to her PCIB Check No. 558574,
postdated P662,250.00, the check also covering the amount of P250.00
which accused-appellant also received from complainant. On
Librado Manzano, a cashier of the PCIB, testified that, according
to bank records, accused-appellant opened her account in September 1992, but
closed the same on P5,000.00 and P2,000.00 which had
been drawn against the said account were also returned for insufficiency of
funds.[6]
Accused-appellant was the lone witness in her behalf. She said
she came to know complainant through her friend, Aida Gaerlan, who was the
niece of complainant. She denied that the check was in payment of a ring which
she bought from complainant. Rather, she claimed that complainant invested in
her drapery business. She said that in
September 1992, she borrowed P50,000.00 from complainant, for which she
issued the check in question in the amount of P662,250.00. According to her, she did not receive the
entire amount of P662,250.00 but only the amount of P50,000.00 as
a loan and P250.00 as transportation fare. The loan was payable in one
year and the excess amount on the check represents the interest.[7]
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused MARY GRACE CAROL FLORES is
hereby found guilty of the charges of estafa and violation of BP 22 and is
hereby sentenced applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to suffer the penalty
of imprisonment from Eight (8) years and One (1) day to Ten (10) years for
estafa and an additional One (1) year of imprisonment and a fine of ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS, for violation of BP 22 and to pay the
complainant the amount of P662,250.00.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Accused-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which
rendered a decision, dated April 13, 1999, affirming the conviction of
accused-appellant for the crimes of estafa and of violation of B.P. Blg. 22
with the modification that accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer the
penalty of thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua.[9] Hence, this appeal.
Accused-appellant contends that the Court of Appeals erred in
affirming the judgment of the trial court and in modifying the assailed
judgment by increasing the penalty to thirty (30) years of reclusion
perpetua.
We affirm the findings of the trial court and the Court of
Appeals that accused-appellant is guilty of the crimes of estafa, defined and
penalized under Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, and of violation
of B.P. Blg. 22. However, we hold that the appellate court erred in ruling that
the Indeterminate Sentence Law was not applicable to accused-appellant because
the penalty imposable on the latter was reclusion perpetua.
First. The elements of estafa, as defined under Art. 315,
par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code and amended by Republic Act No. 4885, are:
(1) that the offender postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation
contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance; (2) that at the time of
the issuance of the check, the offender had no funds in the bank or the funds
deposited were insufficient to cover the amount of the check; and (3) that the
payee has been defrauded.[10]
These elements are present in this case. Accused-appellant admitted
that she issued PCIB Check No. 558574, dated P662,250.00 to Pacita G. Del
Rosario.[11] The check was issued as payment for a ring
and the P250.00 transportation fare which accused-appellant received
from complainant. Accused-appellant testified during direct examination that
the check was issued merely as a security for the loan, which was payable
within one year. During cross-examination, however, accused-appellant
contradicted her statement by testifying that the excess amount indicated in
the check represented interest for the whole year. According to her testimony:
q Now, where did you
obtain the loan of P662,250.00 from the private complainant if this
check was really issued in a cash loan?
a The P50,000.00 on
September.
q Do you mean to tell
this Court you did not actually receive the amount of P662,250.00 as
indicated in this check
a No, sir. It was supposed to be the capital interest for the whole year na gagamitin ko ang pera niya.
q And by the way, what is your highest educational attainment?
a Third year college, sir.
q And you know the
implication considering your educational attainment, third year college and I
also notice your proficiency testifying in English. You know the implication of issuing a check
amounting to P662,250,00 when in fact you stated that you were extended
a loan of P50,000.00?
a I knew its implication, I notice it in the first place, sir.
q And you also testified that the [o]ther account or the excess of the loan will correspond to the alleged interest for the time for all the time you are going to use that money?
a Yes, sir.
q And you testified you obtained the loan on September 1992?
a Yes, sir. Me and my mother at that time.
q And the date of your check October 2[0], 1992?
a Yes, sir.
q Do you mean to tell
this Court and you want this court to believe that for a month period the P50,000.00
will earn an interest of more than P600,000.00?
a The agreement is for a year period, sir.
q Even assuming you agreed
on one year term loan, do you want the court to believe you that for a one year
period, the P50,000.00 loan extended to you earn more than P6,000.00?
a By September, she went Out of the country around that time, she went back.
q And considering that the
alleged loan that you obtained is around P50,000.00, how did you
arrive[d] at this figure of P662,250.00?
a She was the one who gave
that amount, she was the one who required me to place that amount of P662,250.00.
q And you place and wrote this amount as you said required, asked by her?
a Yes, sir.
q Is it not true madam
witness that this amount of P662,250.00 is the prize or the amount
corresponding payment of a diamond ring that you obtained from the complainant?
a I never bought a jewelry because my husband used to buy all our jewelry.
q Is it not true that as
indicated in the check there is an additional P250.00 because at the
time that you issued the check, the private complainant you informed her that
you have no money for transportation is it not?
a That is true, sir.
q So that the complainant
loaned to you gave you P250.00 and for said amount you added this in
this check, is it not?
a Yes, sir.
q And at the time that you are transacting business with the complainant, the complainant is a labor arbiter at NLRC department of labor and employees, is it not?
a Yes, sir.
q And do you want to impress this Court that a person like the private complainant occupying a very dignified position of labor arbiter which correspond to this position of a judge in civil court will force you to issue something or will force you to do something which is illegal?
a I don’t consider that as illegal because the money was for my use for a period of a year because that was a loan with her. I consented, I agreed to that. I don’t consider anything against her regarding that money because I fully consented to that.
q How did you and
complainant arrived to this amount of P662,250.00?
a She was the one who made the computation.
q In your presence?
a Yes, your Honor.
q What was the basis?
a I actually do not know how she compute.
q This is for one year?
a Yes, your Honor.[12]
It is improbable for a businesswoman like accused-appellant to
agree to pay an interest of more than P600,000.00 for a loan of P50,000.00. Indeed, if the loan, which she incurred in
September 1992, was payable in one year, the check should have been postdated a
year later, in September 1993, and not on
The testimony of complainant that the check represented payment
for a ring which she sold to accused-appellant must be given credence.
Complainant would not have given the ring to accused-appellant had the latter
not issued the check and assured complainant that it was fully funded.[13] Nor has it been shown that complainant had ill motive in filing this
case against accused-appellant. Complainant, it appears, was a labor arbiter in
the Department of Labor and Employment. It is hard to believe she would
fabricate the charges against accused-appellant. Indeed, accused-appellant
herself admitted that she had a good relationship with complainant prior to the
filing of the case.[14]
The fraudulent intent of accused-appellant had been proven to
exist at the time of the issuance of the check. She misrepresented to
complainant that she was financially stable and that her business was
flourishing.[15] In reality, however, accused-appellant had no funds sufficient to cover
the check she issued to complainant.[16] It is thus clear that she obtained the amounts of P662,000.00
and P250.00 through deceit. As already stated, the account was closed on
the very date of the postdated check issued to complainant.
Article 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code expressly
provides that the failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount
necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from
the bank and/or the payee or holder that the said check has been dishonored for
lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretenses or fraudulent act. In this case, accused-appellant
received two demand letters, dated
Second. Accused-appellant was likewise guilty of violation
of B.P. Blg. 22. The elements of this crime are: (1) the accused makes, draws,
or issues any check to apply to account or for value; (2) the accused knows at the
time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and (3)
the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the
drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.[18]
These elements are present in this case. Accused-appellant issued
PCIB Check No. 558574, dated P662,250.00 payable to Pacita G.
Del Rosario as payment for the diamond ring sold to her. Accused-appellant
admitted she did not have sufficient funds to cover the check at the time she
issued it. The check, which was deposited on the date indicated therein, was
subsequently dishonored because the account from which the money should have
been drawn against was closed by her on the same date. Despite demands made on
her by complainant to pay the value of the check, accused-appellant failed to
pay. Nor did she make arrangements for payment in full of the checks by the
bank within five banking days after notice of dishonor so as to absolve her of
any liability for issuing a bouncing check.[19]
Third. The Court of Appeals held that the Indeterminate
Sentence Law does not apply because the amount defrauded was P662,250.00
and the consequent penalty imposable on accused-appellant for the crime of
estafa is imprisonment of thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua.[20] This is based on Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by P.D. No. 818, which provides:
SECTION 1. Any person who shall defraud another by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts as defined in paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of reclusion temporal if the amount
of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such
amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be
imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos
but the total penalty which may be imposed shall be no case exceed thirty
years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may
be imposed under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be termed reclusion
perpetua;
We have recently ruled that the term reclusion perpetua, as
used in the above quoted provision, is not the penalty prescribed for the
offense but a mere description of the penalty imposed where the amount defrauded
exceeds P22,000.00.[21] Rather, the prescribed penalty under §1, par. 1 of P.D. No. 818 is reclusion
temporal. Thus, even if the amount
of fraud involved exceeds P22,000.00, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is
applicable in determining the imposable penalty.
Now, the Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that if an offense
is punished by the Revised Penal Code or its amendments, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which
shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, can be properly
imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, while the minimum term of
which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by
the Code for the offense.[22]
Hence, as the amount involved (P662,250.00) exceeds P22,000.00,
accused-appellant should be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty, the
maximum term of which shall be reclusion temporal, to be imposed in its
maximum period, plus one year for each additional P10,000.00 of the amount of
fraud in excess of P22,000.00. The total penalty, however, shall not
exceed thirty (30) years. The minimum term of the indeterminate penalty shall
be within the range of penalty next lower to that prescribed by law for the
offense, without considering in the meantime the modifying circumstance, which
in this case refers to the incremental penalty for the amount of fraud in
excess of P22,000.00.[23] Such penalty is prision mayor, with a duration of six (6) years
and one (1) day to twelve (12) years.[24] In line with this Court’s rulings,[25] the minimum term shall be fixed in this case at twelve (12) years.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals convicting accused-appellant for estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code and for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that in the case of estafa, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Per Judge Urbano C.
Victorio, Sr.
[2] Per Justice Oswaldo
D. Agcaoili and concurred in by Justices Corona Ibay-Somera and Eloy R. Bello,
Jr.
[3] Records, p.2.
[4]
[5] TSN, pp. 2-6,
[6] TSN, pp. 2-5,
[7] TSN, pp. 2-11,
[8] RTC Decision, p. 13;
Records, p. 112.
[9] CA Decision, p.9; CA
Rollo, p. 74.
[10] People v. Holzer, 336 SCRA 319
(2000); People v. Panganiban,
335 SCRA 354 (2000); Pacheco v.
Court of Appeals, 319 SCRA 595 (1999).
[11] TSN, pp. 6-8,
[12]
[13] TSN, p. 4,
[14] TSN, p. 13,
[15] TSN, p. 4,
[16] TSN, p. 6,
[17]
[18] King v. People, 319 SCRA 654
(1999); Nieva v. Court of
Appeals, 272 SCRA 1 (1997).
[19] See B.P. 22,
§2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds.— The making, drawing
and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of
insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety
(90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of
knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer
pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for
payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after
receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.
[20] CA Decision, p.9; CA
Rollo, p. 74.
[21] People v. Panganiban, 335 SCRA
354 (2000); People v. Hernando,
317 SCRA 617 (1999).
[22] Art. 4103, §1, as
amended by Act No. 4225.
[23] People v.
Hernando, supra.
[24] REVISED PENAL CODE,
Art. 27.
[25] People v.
Panganiban, supra; People v. Hernando, supra.