THIRD
DIVISION
|
CARMEN RITUALO y RAMOS,
Petitioner, - versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
|
G. R. No. 178337 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO,
JR., PERALTA, and BERSAMIN,*
JJ. Promulgated: June
25, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For review is the Decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals promulgated on 23 April 2007 in CA-G.R. CR. No. 29393
entitled, “People of the Philippines v. Carmen Ritualo y Ramos,”
affirming with modification, the Decision[2] dated 1
December 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 199, Las Piñas City, in
Criminal Cases No. 01-0076 and No. 01-0077.
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, petitioner Carmen Ritualo y
Ramos (petitioner Ritualo) prays for the reversal of the appellate court’s
decision affirming with modification the decision of the trial court finding
her “guilty beyond reasonable doubt of [committing] the crimes of x x x Simple
Illegal Recruitment [defined and punished] under Section 7 of Republic Act No.
8042, otherwise known as the ‘Migrant Workers Act of 1995,’”[3] and
“Estafa.”[4]
This
case originated from two Informations, both dated
That on or about the 1st
day of May, 2000, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, falsely
representing herself to have the capacity and power to contract, enlist and
recruit workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously collect for a fee, recruit and promise
employment/job placement abroad to Felix Biacora without first securing the
required license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment.[5]
The one for Estafa states, viz:
That during the periods (sic) from May 1, 2000 to June 1,
2000, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above named accused, with intent of gain, by means of
false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously defraud the Complainant Felix
Biacora amounting to P80,000.00 committed in the following manner to
wit: that the Accused represented to the
Complainant that she was authorized or licensed by the Department of Labor and
Employment to recruit workers for overseas employment and that she could send
Complainant to work abroad (Australia) as farm worker as soon as possible,
knowing very well that such representation is false and was intended only to
get money from the Complainant and the Complainant after relying from the said
representations made by the accused, handed to the accused the said amount and
the accused, once in possession of the money, misappropriated, misapplied and
converted the same for her personal use and benefit, and not withstanding
repeated demands failed and refused to pay the said amount of P80,000.00
to the damage and prejudice of the Complainant in the aforementioned amount of P80,000.00.[6]
The foregoing were docketed as
Criminal Cases No. 01-0076 and No. 0077 and raffled to Branch 275 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City.
Upon
arraignment on
On
On
Kasunduan
Ako si Carmen Ritualo, ay sa
araw na ito May 26, 2003, nagbabayad kay Felix Biacora ng halagang
Sampung–libong Piso (P10,000.00) at
ang natirang Twenty One Thousand Pesos ay
babayaran ko sa loob ng Tatlong Buwan magmula ngayon.
(Sgd.)
Carmen Ritualo
Akusado
Sumang-ayon:
(Sgd.)
Felix Biacora
Complainant[10]
In the
ensuing trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses, namely, Felix Biacora,
the victim;[11] and
Belen Blones, employee of the Licensing Branch of the Philippines Overseas
Employment Agency (POEA). Taken altogether, the evidence
of the prosecution established the following facts:
In 1993, Felix Biacora went to
On
[He could] leave for P160,000.00,
and [his] salary would be US$700.00 per month as a farm worker.[14]
On the above-quoted representation
on the same date, Biacora paid petitioner Ritualo the amount of P40,000.00
as downpayment, with the balance to be completed before he left for
On P20,000.00 as additional payment, making the total amount
received by the latter P60,000.00. Again, petitioner Ritualo issued a Cash Voucher.[17]
Subsequently, Biacora was
informed by petitioner Ritualo that all he needed in securing an employment in
On P20,000.00 and told the latter to be patient. As with the other amounts given, proof of payment[19]
was similarly issued to acknowledge receipt thereof.
Several dates were set for
Biacora’s departure, but none pushed through. To top it all, his Australian Visa application
was denied by the Australian Embassy. Consequently,
on P80,000.00. The latter promised to pay back the money on
Thereafter, Biacora filed the
subject criminal complaints against petitioner Ritualo.
In two Certifications dated 23
October 2000[20] and 5
November 2003,[21]
respectively, both identified by Belen Blones of the Licensing Division of the POEA,
it was confirmed that “per available records of [its] Office, CARMEN
RITUALO, in her personal capacity is not licensed by this Administration to
recruit workers for overseas employment”[22];
and that “[a]ny recruitment activity undertaken by [her] is deemed illegal.”[23]
To rebut the foregoing evidence
presented by the prosecution, the defense presented a diametrically opposed
version of the facts of the present case through the sole testimony of Ritualo.
In her testimony, Ritualo
narrated that it was Libutan and Biacora who asked her to introduce them to a
certain Anita Seraspe, the person responsible for sending petitioner Ritualo’s
own sister to Australia;[24] that she had no agreement with
Biacora respecting the latter’s employment in Australia; that any talk of money
was made among Libutan, Biacora and Seraspe only; that she received a total of P80,000.00
from Biacora, but that the same was merely entrusted to her because Libutan and
Biacora had just met Seraspe,[25] and
that she turned over all the payments to Seraspe who acknowledged receipt of
the same by writing on pieces of paper said acceptance; that she accompanied
Biacora to Batasan Pambansa at his request; that she did not earn any money out
of her referral and introduction of Libutan and Biacora to Seraspe; that even
if she did not earn any money out of the subject transaction, she returned P10,000.00
and P31,000.00, or a total of P41,000.00, to Biacora out of fear
that the latter would file charges against her; that she tried to find Seraspe,
but the latter could not be found at her last known address; and that she gave
Biacora an additional P6,000.000 to obviate any more scandal befalling
her family.[26]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds accused CARMEN RITUALO y RAMOS, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of:
1. Simple Illegal Recruitment (Criminal
Case Number 01-0076) under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8042 otherwise known
as the ‘Migrant Workers Act of 1995,’ and sentences her to suffer an
Indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Six (6) years and ONE (1) day, as
minimum, to EIGHT (8) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P200,000.00.
2. In Criminal Case Number 01-0077 for
Estafa, herein accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty
of prison term of six (6) months and One (1) day of Prission (sic) Correctional
(sic), as minimum, to seven (7) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days
of Prision Mayor, as maximum and is ORDERED to indemnify Felix Biacora actual
damages in the amount of P66,000.00 which is minus the amount of P14,000.00
which the private complainant admitted to have been refunded to him.
Cost de oficio.[27]
Ritualo’s
Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court’s decision was subsequently
denied in an Order[28]
dated
In
an Order[29]
dated
The
Court of Appeals, in its Decision promulgated on
The
penalties imposed on Ritualo by the trial court, however, were modified by the
Court of Appeals on the ground that the latter erred in imposing in the Illegal
Recruitment case, an indeterminate sentence ranging from six (6) years and one
(1) day, as minimum, to eight (8) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P200,000.00,”[34]
in view of the penalty prescribed under Sec. 7 of Republic Act No. 8042; and,
in the Estafa case, another indeterminate sentence ranging from six (6) months
and one (1) day of prision correcional, as minimum, to seven (7)
years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision mayor, as
maximum, contrary to the wordings of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
The fallo
of the Court of Appeals decision is restated:
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF
THESE CASES, THUS, the appealed decision finding the accused-appellant Carmen Ritualo y Ramos guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Simple Illegal Recruitment and Estafa is AFFIRMED, with the
following MODIFICATIONS –
1. In Criminal Case No. 01-0076 (Simple
Illegal Recruitment), the accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
2. In Criminal Case No. 01-0077 (Estafa),
the accused-appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4)
years and two (2) months of prision
correctional (sic), as minimum,
to twelve (12) years of prision mayor,
as maximum, and to indemnify the private complainant Felix Biacora the sum of P66,000.00
with the interest thereon at the legal rate from September 21, 2000 until the
same is fully paid.
Costs shall
also be taxed against the accused-appellant.[35]
Hence, Ritualo filed the instant petition for review.
In this
petition, Ritualo prayed for the reversal of the decision of the RTC, as
affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals, on the basis of the
following assignment of errors:
I.
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING WITH MODIFICATION THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD COULD NOT SUPPORT A CONVICTION; and
II.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE PETITIONER IS CULPABLE, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN MODIFYING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT AS REGARDS THE TERM OF SENTENCE IN THE ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT CASE.[36]
Essentially,
she argues that there “was no proof beyond reasonable doubt that x x x [she]
gave Biacora a distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send
him abroad for work such that the latter was convinced to part with his money.”[37]
Petitioner Ritualo maintains that
Biacora transacted with Seraspe and not with her. Assuming for the sake of argument that she and
Biacora had any agreement with each other, petitioner Ritualo insisted that it
was merely to facilitate the latter’s application for an Australian Visa. Particularly, she pointed out that the
prosecution failed to present other witnesses who could have corroborated the
claim of Biacora that she (Ritualo) promised him employment abroad. Anent the penalty imposed by the courts,
petitioner disputed the appellate court’s reasoning and claimed that the same
was improper in view of the ruling of this Court in People v. Gallardo,[38]
in which therein respondent was also convicted of Simple Illegal Recruitment.
The Office of the Solicitor
General, for the People of the
Philippines, on the other hand, asserted that the findings of the Court of
Appeals were supported by the records of the case, i.e., “Biacora was consistent in his testimony that it was
petitioner who illegally recruited him for work as a farmhand in
We
find no merit in the petition.
Having
weighed the evidence for the contending parties, there is no cogent reason to
reverse the findings and conclusion of the RTC as affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.
The crime
of Simple Illegal Recruitment is defined and penalized under Sec. 6 of Republic
Act. No. 8042, which reads:
SEC. 6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority:
(a) To charge or
accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that specified in the
schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment,
or to make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him
as a loan or advance;
(b) To furnish or
publish any false notice or information or document in relation to recruitment
or employment;
(c) To give any
false notice, testimony, information or document or commit any act of
misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or authority under the Labor
Code;
(d)
To induce or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his employment
in order to offer him another unless the transfer is designed to liberate a
worker from oppressive terms and conditions of employment;
(e)
To influence or attempt to influence any person or entity not to employ any
worker who has not applied for employment through his agency;
(f)
To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful to public
health or morality or to the dignity of the Republic of the
(g)
To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment or by his duly authorized representative;
(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement
vacancies, remittance of foreign exchange earnings, separation from jobs,
departures and such other matters or information as may be required by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment;
(i)
To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts
approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the time
of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the
expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor and
Employment;
(j)
For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to become an
officer or member of the Board of any corporation engaged in travel agency or to
be engaged directly or indirectly in the management of a travel agency;
(k)
To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers before departure
for monetary or financial considerations other than those authorized under the Labor Code and its
implementing rules and regulations;
(l)
Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by the Department
of Labor and Employment ; and
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
The persons criminally liable for the above
offenses are the principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical
persons, the officers having control, management or direction of their business
shall be liable.
Art. 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal
Code, on the other hand, enumerates one of the modes of committing estafa, thus:
x x x x
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
Illegal recruitment is committed
when two essential elements concur:
(1) that the
offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to
lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers, and
(2) that the
offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of “recruitment and
placement” defined under Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated
under Article 34 of the Labor Code.[39]
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code
defines recruitment and placement as:
Any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad,
whether for profit or not: Provided,
that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
placement. (Emphasis supplied.)
In this case, the first element is,
indeed, present. The prosecution established,
through Belen Blones of the Licensing Branch of the POEA, who identified and
confirmed the two Certifications issued by the POEA Licensing Branch, that “per
available records of [its] Office, CARMEN RITUALO, in her personal capacity
is not licensed by this Administration to recruit workers for overseas
employment.”[40]
As to the second element, it must
be shown that the accused gave the private complainant the distinct impression
that he/she had the power or ability to send the private complainant abroad for
work, such that the latter was convinced to part with his/her money in order to
be employed.[41] Thus, to be engaged in illegal recruitment, it
is plain that there must at least be a promise or an offer of employment from
the person posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad.[42] In the case at bar, the second element is similarly
present. As testified to by Biacora,
petitioner Ritualo professed to have the ability to send him overseas to be
employed as a farm worker in Australia with a monthly salary of US$700.00.[43] To further wet Biacora’s appetite, petitioner
Ritualo even showed him purported travel documents of other people about to
depart, whose overseas employment she supposedly facilitated. That petitioner Ritualo personally assisted Biacora
in the completion of the alleged requirements, i.e., securing a Letter of Request and Guarantee from the
Representative of his Congressional District in Batangas to ensure the approval
of Biacora’s application for an Australian Visa, even accompanying Biacora to
the Australian Embassy, all clearly point to her efforts to convince Biacora that
she (petitioner Ritualo) had, indeed, the ability and influence to make
Biacora’s dream of overseas employment come true.
The claim of petitioner Ritualo
that it was Anita Seraspe who was really the recruiter and the one who profited
from the subject illegal transaction holds no water. Petitioner Ritualo’s act of receiving payment
from Biacora and issuing personal receipts therefor; of personally assisting
Biacora to complete the “necessary” documents; of failing to present evidence
to corroborate her testimony despite several opportunities given her by the
trial court; of petitioner Ritualo having been positively identified as the
person who transacted with Biacora and promised the latter an overseas
employment and who personally received money from Biacora, all unhesitatingly
point to petitioner Ritualo as the culprit.
The following oral and documentary
evidence are worth reproducing:
COURT:
Q: How many times did you receive money
from private complainant?
WITNESS:
Three (3) times,
Your Honor.
Q: The first time?
A: My first time is Php40,000.00, Your
Honor.
Q: The second time?
A: Php20,000.00, Your Honor.
Q: Third time?
A: Php20,000.00, Your Honor.
Q: When you received these amounts of
money, who issued the private complainant a receipt?
A: I was the one, Your Honor.[44]
The first Cash Voucher issued by
petitioner Ritualo declares:
CASH VOUCHER
Payment for
document P40,000.00)
RECEIVED from Felix Evangelista
Biacora the amount of PESOS fourty
thousand pesos (P40,000.00) in full payment of amount
described above.
By:
(Sgd.) Carmen Ritualo[45]
The second, on
CASH VOUCHER
Payment for
document P20,000.00)
RECEIVED from Felix Biacora the
amount of PESOS twenty thousand (P20,000.00)
in full payment of amount described above.
By:
(Sgd.) Carmen Ritualo[46]
And the third receipt reads:
RECEIPT
No. _____________ Date:
RECEIVED from Felix
Biacora the sum of Pesos Twenty thousand (P20,000.00)
as payment for for Visa.
Partial _______ Cash _____√_____
Balance ______ Check No. _______
(Sgd.) Carmen Ritualo
Authorized
Signature[47]
Petitioner Ritualo next tried to impress
upon this Court that she received nary a centavo from the subject illegal
transaction; therefore, she should not be held liable.
We reject this outright. In the
first place, it has been abundantly shown that she really received the monies
from Biacora. Secondly, even without consideration for her services, she still
engaged in recruitment activities, since it was satisfactorily shown that she
promised overseas employment to Biacora. And, more importantly, Sec. 6 of Republic Act
No. 8042 does not require that the illegal recruitment be done for profit.
Petitioner Ritualo boldly but
vainly tried to inject reasonable doubt by complaining that the RTC and the
Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction despite failure of the prosecution to
present other vital witness, i.e.,
Biacora’s wife, who accompanied her husband to the house of petitioner Ritualo and,
hence, witnessed what happened on the first meeting between the latter and
Biacora. Non-presentation of said
witness, according to petitioner Ritualo, raises the presumption that her
testimony, if presented, would be adverse to the prosecution.
The
prosecution is entitled to conduct its own case and to decide what witnesses to
call to support its charges.[48] The defense posture that the non-presentation
of the wife of Biacora constitutes suppression of evidence favorable to
petitioner Ritualo is fallacious. In
fact, the same line of reasoning can be used against petitioner Ritualo. If the defense felt that the testimony of Biacora’s wife would support her defense, what she could
and should have done was to call her (Biacora’s wife) to the stand as her own
witness. One of the constitutional rights of the accused is "to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in
his behalf." And, in the same vein, since petitioner
Ritualo is setting the cloak of liability on Seraspe’s shoulder, she
(petitioner Ritualo) could and should have had the former subpoenaed as well.
As held by this Court, the adverse
presumption of suppression of evidence does not, moreover, apply where the
evidence suppressed is merely corroborative or cumulative in nature.[49] If presented, Biacora’s wife would merely
corroborate Biacora’s account which, by itself, already detailed what occurred
on the day of the parties’ first meeting at the house of petitioner Ritualo. Hence, the prosecution committed no fatal
error in dispensing with the testimony of Biacora’s wife.
Finally, Biacora, the private
complainant in this case, did not harbor any ill motive to testify falsely
against petitioner Ritualo. The latter failed
to show any animosity or ill feeling on the part of Biacora that could have
motivated him to falsely accuse her of the crimes charged. It would be against human nature and
experience for strangers to conspire and accuse another stranger of a most
serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings.[50]
The totality of the evidence in the
case at bar, when scrutinized and taken together, leads to no other conclusion
than that petitioner Ritualo engaged in recruiting and promising overseas
employment to Felix Biacora under the above-quoted Sec. 6 of Republic Act No.
8042 vis-à-vis Article 13(b) of the
Labor Code. Hence, she cannot now feign
ignorance of the consequences of her unlawful acts.
As to the sentence imposed upon
petitioner Ritualo for the crime of simple illegal recruitment, this Court
clarifies that the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals – a sentence of 12
years imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 - is partly incorrect, as
petitioner Ritualo is a non-licensee.[51] Under
Sec. 7(a) of Republic Act No. 8042, simple illegal recruitment is punishable by
imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than
twelve (12) years and a fine of not less than Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00)
nor more than Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). Applying the provisions of Section 1 of the
Indeterminate Sentence law, however, the correct penalty that should have been
imposed upon petitioner Ritualo is imprisonment for the period of eight (8) years
and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum.[52] The imposition of a fine of P500,000.00
is also in order.
With respect to the criminal charge
of estafa, this Court likewise affirms the conviction of petitioner Ritualo for
said crime. The same evidence proving
petitioner Ritualo’s criminal liability for illegal recruitment also
established her liability for estafa. It
is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal
recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042 in relation to the Labor Code, and
estafa under Art. 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. As this Court held in People v. Yabut[53]:
In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits
illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal
recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the
Revised Penal Code. The offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not
necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum
in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction.
Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for
offenses punishable by other laws. Conversely, conviction for estafa under par.
2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code does not bar a conviction for
illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows that one’s acquittal of
the crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime
of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa.
The prosecution has proven beyond
reasonable doubt that petitioner Ritualo was similarly guilty of estafa under
Art. 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code committed --
By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
Both elements of the crime were
established in this case, namely, (a) petitioner Ritualo defrauded complainant
by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (b) complainant Biacora
suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation as a result.[54] Biacora parted with his money upon the
prodding and enticement of petitioner Ritualo on the false pretense that she
had the capacity to deploy him for employment in
While this Court affirms the
conviction of the petitioner Ritualo for estafa, we find, however, that both
the trial court and the appellate court erroneously computed the penalty of the
crime. The amount of which the private
complainant, Biacora, was defrauded was Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00)
and not merely Sixty Six Thousand Pesos (P66,000.00).
Under the Revised Penal Code, an
accused found guilty of estafa shall be sentenced to:
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, 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 not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos;
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and
4th. By arresto mayor in its
maximum period, if such amount does not exceed 200 pesos, x x x.
Computing the penalty for the crime
of Estafa based on the above-quoted provision, the proper penalty to be imposed
upon petitioner Ritualo is the maximum term of prision correccional
maximum to prision mayor minimum as mandated by Article 315
of the Revised Penal Code. But
considering that the amount defrauded exceeded Twenty-Two Thousand Pesos (P22,000.00),
per the same provision, the prescribed penalty is not only imposed in its
maximum period, but there is imposed an incremental penalty of one (1) year
imprisonment for every Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) in excess of the
cap of Twenty-Two Thousand Pesos (P22,000.00).[55] As this Court held in People v. Gabres,[56]
“[t]he fact that the amounts involved in the instant case exceed P22,000.00
should not be considered in the initial determination of the indeterminate
penalty; instead, the matter should be so taken as analogous to modifying
circumstances in the imposition of the maximum term of the full indeterminate
sentence.”[57] And with respect to the computation of the
minimum term of the indeterminate sentence, in this case, given that the
penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge against petitioner Ritualo is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next
lower would then be prision correccional minimum
to medium per Art. 64 in relation to Art. 65, both of the Revised Penal Code.
Preceding from the above
discussion, thus, the prison term to be imposed upon petitioner Ritualo vis-à-vis the crime of Estafa is as
follows: the minimum term should be anywhere within six (6) months and one (1)
day to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional; while the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should be
within the range of six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days to
eight (8) years of prision mayor
considering that the amount involved exceeds P22,000.00, plus an added five
(5) years, as there are five (5) increments of P10,000.00 over the cap
of P22,000.00.[58]
Lastly, regarding the award of
indemnity due from petitioner Ritualo, both the RTC and Court of Appeals ordered
her to pay Biacora the amount of Sixty-Six Thousand Pesos (P66,000.00),
instead of the original amount defrauded, which is Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00),
in view of petitioner Ritualo’s payment of Fourteen Thousand Pesos (P14,000.00).
A thorough scrutiny of the record of the
case, however, yields the finding that as of the date of revival of the case
before the RTC, or on P21,000.00)
remains unpaid. The Motion to Revive
Case dated
I, MR. FELIX BIACORA, complainant against MRS. CARMEN RITUALO
with Case No. 01-0076-77. This case is temporary (sic) dismissed on
On P21,000.00 Twenty Thousand Pesos after 3 months but
she failed.
Due that (sic) her promise did not materialized (sic), I
personally request the
Respectfully
yours,
(Sgd.)
MR. FELIX BIACORA
With the foregoing submission of
Biacora, out of the amount of Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00), only Twenty-One
Thousand Pesos (P21,000.00) remains unpaid. Accordingly, the civil liability of petitioner
Ritualo is now merely Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (P21,000.00).
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 29393
promulgated on
(1) In
Criminal Case No. 01-0076, petitioner Carmen Ritualo is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Simple Illegal Recruitment, and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day as minimum, to twelve (12) years,
as maximum, and to pay a fine of P500,000.00; and
(2) In
Criminal Case No. 01-0077, petitioner Carmen Ritualo is also found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Estafa and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of four
(4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to eleven (11) years and eight (8) months and
twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as
maximum.
Petitioner Carmen R. Ritualo is
similarly ORDERED to indemnify Felix
E. Biacora the amount of P21,000.00.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTAAssociate Justice |
|
|
|
|
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Associate
Justice Lucas P. Bersamin was designated to sit as additional member replacing
Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per Raffle dated
[1] Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao with Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Sesinando E. Villon, concurring; rollo, pp. 95-115.
[2] Penned by Hon. Joselito J.
Vibandor, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 199, Las
[3] Records, p. 269.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] TSN,
[12]
[13] Records,
p. 8.
[14]
[15]
[16] TSN,
[17] Records, p. 164.
[18] TSN,
[19] Denominated
as “Receipt”; records, p. 165.
[20] Certification issued by Hermogenes C. Mateo, Director II, Licensing Branch, POEA; Exhibit “E”; records, p. 168.
[21] Felicitas Q. Bay, Director II, Licensing Branch, POEA; Exhibit “F-1”; records, p. 169.
[22]
[23]
[24] TSN,
[25]
[26] TSN,
[27] Rollo, p. 70.
[28] Records, p. 289.
[29]
[30]
[31] Rollo, p. 111.
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38] 436 Phil. 698 (2002).
[39] People v. Navarra, Sr., 404 Phil. 693,
701 (2001).
[40] Records, pp. 168-169.
[41] People v. Angeles, 430 Phil. 333, 346
(2002).
[42]
[43] Complaint-affidavit
which was admitted in evidence and its contents confirmed on the witness stand
by Biacora.
[44] TSN,
[45] Exhibit "B-1”; records, p. 164.
[46] Exhibit “B-3”; id. at 164.
[47] Exhibit “C”; id. at 165.
[48] People v. Armentano, G. R. No. 90803, 3 July 1992, 211 SCRA 82, 87.
[49] Tarapen v. People, G.R. No. 173824, 28 August 2008,
563 SCRA 577, 593, citing People v. De
Jesus, G.R. No. 93852, January 24, 1992, 205 SCRA 383, 391.
[50] People v. Reichl, 428 Phil. 643, 664
(2002).
[51] Sec. 7, Republic Act. No. 8042.
SEC. 7. Penalties. –
(a)
Any persons found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than
twelve (12) years and a fine or not less that Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)
nor more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00);
(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine
of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than
One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal
recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.
[52] People
v. Hu, G.R. No. 182232,
[53] 374 Phil. 575, 586 (1999).
[54] People
v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473,
[55] Provided that the total penalty that may be imposed shall not exceed 20 years.
[56] 335 Phil. 242 (1997).
[57]
[58] The additional five (5) years is in
view of the five (5) increments of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00)
representing the difference of the amount defrauded by petitioner Ritualo,
which is Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00), or Fifty Eight Thousand
Pesos (P58,000.00) more than the cap of Twenty-Two Thousand Pesos (P22,000.00)
provided by law.