THIRD DIVISION
|
ROSITA SY, Petitioner, - versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 183879
Present:
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, PERALTA, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: April 14,
2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
Before
the Court is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision[1]
dated July 22, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 30628.
Rosita
Sy (Sy) was charged with one count of illegal recruitment in Criminal Case No.
02-0537 and one count of estafa in
Criminal Case No. 02-0536. In a joint decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Sy was exonerated of the illegal recruitment charge. However, she was convicted
of the crime of estafa. Thus, the instant
appeal involves only Criminal Case No. 02-0536 for the crime of estafa.
The
Information[2] for estafa reads:
That sometime in the month of March
1997, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud Felicidad Mendoza-Navarro y Landicho in the
following manner, to wit: the said accused by means of false pretenses and
fraudulent representation which she made to the said complainant that she can
deploy her for employment in Taiwan, and complainant convinced by said
representations, gave the amount of P120,000.00 to the said accused for
processing of her papers, the latter well knowing that all her representations
and manifestations were false and were only made for the purpose of obtaining
the said amount, but once in her possession[,] she misappropriated, misapplied
and converted the same to her own personal use and benefit, to the damage and
prejudice of Felicidad Mendoza-Navarro y
Landicho in the aforementioned amount of P120,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
On
May 27, 2007, Sy was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged.
Joint trial ensued thereafter.
As
summarized by the CA, the facts of the case are as follows:
Version of the Prosecution
Sometime
in March 1997, appellant, accompanied by Corazon Miranda (or “Corazon”),
went to the house of Corazon’s sister, Felicidad Navarro (or “Felicidad”),
in Talisay, Batangas to convince her (Felicidad) to work abroad. Appellant assured Felicidad of a good salary
and entitlement to a yearly vacation if she decides to take a job in
Two
days later, Felicidad succumbed to appellant’s overseas job solicitation. With Corazon in tow, the sisters proceeded to
appellant’s residence in Better Homes, Moonwalk, Las Piñas City. Thereat, Felicidad handed to appellant the
amount of Php60,000.00. In the third
week of March 1997, Felicidad returned to appellant’s abode and paid to the
latter another Php60,000.00. The latter
told her to come back the following day.
In both instances, no receipt was issued by appellant to acknowledge
receipt of the total amount of Php120,000.00 paid by Felicidad.
On
Felicidad’s third trip to appellant’s house, the latter brought her to Uniwide
in Sta. Cruz, Manila, where a male person showed to them the birth certificate
that Felicidad would use in applying for a Taiwanese passport. The birth certificate was that of a certain
Armida Lim, born to Margarita Galvez and Lim Leng on 02 June 1952. Felicidad was instructed on how to write
Armida Lim’s Chinese name.
Subsequently,
appellant contacted Felicidad and thereafter met her at the Bureau of
Immigration office. Thereat, Felicidad,
posing and affixing her signature as Armida G. Lim, filled out the application
forms for the issuance of Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) and Immigrant
Certificate of Registration (ICR). She
attached to the application forms her own photo. Felicidad agreed to use the name of Armida
Lim as her own because she already paid to appellant the amount of
Php120,000.00.
In
December 1999, appellant sent to Felicidad the birth certificate of Armida Lim,
the Marriage Contract of Armida Lim’s parents, ACR No. E128390, and ICR No.
317614. These documents were submitted
to and eventually rejected by the Taiwanese authorities, triggering the filing
of illegal recruitment and estafa cases against appellant.
Version of the Defense
Appellant
denied offering a job to Felicidad or receiving any money from her. She asserted that when she first spoke to
Felicidad at the latter’s house, she mentioned that her husband and children
freely entered
Three
weeks later, Felicidad and Corazon came to her house in Las Piñas and asked her
if she knew somebody who could help Felicidad get a Chinese ACR and ICR for a
fee.
Appellant
introduced a certain Amelia Lim, who, in consideration of the amount of
Php120,000.00, offered to Felicidad the use of the name of her mentally
deficient sister, Armida Lim. Felicidad
agreed. On their second meeting at
appellant’s house, Felicidad paid Php60,000.00 to Amelia Lim and they agreed to
see each other at Uniwide the following day.
That was the last time appellant saw Felicidad and Amelia Lim.[4]
On January 8, 2007, the
RTC rendered a decision,[5]
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered the court finds the accused Rosita Sy NOT GUILTY of the
crime of Illegal Recruitment and she is hereby ACQUITTED of the said offense.
As regards the charge of Estafa, the court finds the accused GUILTY thereof and
hereby sentences her to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years of prision
correctional as minimum to 11 years of prision mayor, as maximum. The accused
is ordered to reimburse the amount of sixty-thousand (Php60,000.00) to the
private complainant.
SO ORDERED.[6]
Aggrieved, Sy filed an
appeal for her conviction of estafa.
On July 22, 2008, the CA rendered a Decision,[7]
affirming with modification the conviction of Sy, viz.:
WHEREFORE, with the MODIFICATION sentencing
accused-appellant to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two
(2) months of prision correccional,
as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in all other
respects.
SO
ORDERED.[8]
Hence, this petition.
The sole issue for
resolution is whether Sy should be held liable for estafa, penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC).[9]
Swindling or estafa is punishable under Article 315
of the RPC. There are three ways of committing estafa, viz.: (1) with
unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; (2) by means of false pretenses or
fraudulent acts; or (3) through fraudulent means. The three ways of committing estafa may be reduced to two, i.e., (1) by means of abuse of
confidence; or (2) by means of deceit.
The elements of estafa in general are the following: (a)
that an accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence, or by means of
deceit; and (b) that damage and prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is
caused the offended party or third person.
The act complained of in the instant case is penalized under
Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC, wherein estafa
is committed by any person who shall defraud another by false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud. It is committed by using fictitious name, or by pretending to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the
following, viz.: (a) that there must
be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;
(b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the
offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a
result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[10]
In the instant case, all the foregoing elements are
present. It was proven beyond reasonable doubt, as found by the RTC and
affirmed by the CA, that Sy misrepresented and falsely pretended that she had
the capacity to deploy Felicidad Navarro (Felicidad) for employment in P120,000.00). It was Sy’s misrepresentation and
false pretenses that induced Felicidad to part with her money. As a result of Sy’s
false pretenses and misrepresentations, Felicidad suffered damages as the
promised employment abroad never materialized and the money she paid was never
recovered.
The
fact that Felicidad actively participated in the processing of the illegal
travel documents will not exculpate Sy from liability. Felicidad was a hapless victim of circumstances
and of fraud committed by Sy. She was forced to take part in the processing of
the falsified travel documents because she had already paid P120,000.00.
Sy committed deceit by representing that she could secure Felicidad with
employment in
Illegal recruitment and estafa cases may be filed
simultaneously or separately. The filing of charges for illegal recruitment
does not bar the filing of estafa,
and vice versa. Sy’s acquittal in the illegal recruitment case does not prove that
she is not guilty of estafa. Illegal recruitment
and estafa are entirely different
offenses and neither one necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
other. A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be
convicted of estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2(a) of the RPC.[11]
In the same manner, a person acquitted of illegal recruitment may be held
liable for estafa. Double jeopardy
will not set in because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, in which there is no necessity to prove criminal
intent, whereas estafa is malum in se, in the prosecution of which,
proof of criminal intent is necessary.[12]
The
penalty prescribed for estafa under
Article 315 of the RPC is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if
the amount defrauded is over Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) but does
not exceed Twenty-two Thousand Pesos (P22,000.00), and if such amount
exceeds the latter sum, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period,
adding one year for each additional Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00); but the total penalty that may be imposed
shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the
accessory penalties that may be imposed under the provisions of this Code, the
penalty shall be termed prision mayor
or reclusion temporal, as the case
may be.
The
addition of one year imprisonment for each additional P10,000.00, in excess of P22,000.00, is the
incremental penalty. The incremental penalty rule is a mathematical formula for
computing the penalty to be actually imposed using the prescribed penalty as
the starting point. This special rule is applicable in estafa and in theft.[13]
In
estafa, the incremental penalty is
added to the maximum period of the penalty prescribed, at the discretion of the
court, in order to arrive at the penalty to be actually imposed, which is the
maximum term within the context of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL).[14]
Under the ISL, attending circumstances in a case are applied in conjunction
with certain rules of the Code in order to determine the penalty to be actually
imposed based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense. The
circumstance is that the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00, and
the incremental penalty rule is utilized to fix the penalty actually imposed.[15]
To
compute the incremental penalty, the amount defrauded shall be subtracted by P22,000.00, and the difference shall be divided by P10,000.00, and any fraction of P10,000.00
shall be discarded.[16]
In
the instant case, prision correccional
in its maximum period to prision mayor
in its minimum period is the imposable penalty. The duration of prision correccional in its maximum
period is from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years;
while prision mayor in its minimum period is
from six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years. The incremental penalty
for the amount defrauded would be an additional nine years imprisonment,
to be added to the maximum imposable penalty of eight years. Thus, the CA
committed no reversible error in sentencing Sy to an indeterminate penalty of four
(4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
As
to the amount that should be returned or restituted by Sy, the sum that
Felicidad gave to Sy, i.e., P120,000.00,
should be returned in full. The fact
that Felicidad was not able to produce receipts is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution since she was able to prove by her positive testimony that Sy was
the one who received the money ostensibly in consideration of an overseas employment
in
WHEREFORE, in view
of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 22, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR No. 30628,
sentencing petitioner Rosita Sy to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years
and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, is hereby AFFIRMED. We, however, MODIFY the CA Decision as to the amount
of civil indemnity, in that Sy is ordered to reimburse the amount of One
Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P120,000.00) to private complainant Felicidad Navarro.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador, with Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurring; rollo, pp. 21-37.
[2] Rollo, p. 48.
[3]
[4]
[5] Penned by Judge Erlinda
Nicolas-Alvaro, RTC, Branch 198, Las
[6]
[7] Supra note 1.
[8]
[9] Petitioner assigned the following errors in the CA Decision:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER OFFERED OVERSEAS JOB TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER MISREPRESENTED AND
FALSELY PRETENDED TO RESPONDENT THAT SHE HAD THE POWER AND CAPACITY TO DEPLOY
HER FOR A WORK IN
III
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER’S MISREPRESENTATION AND FALSE PRETENSES WAS WHAT INDUCED RESPONDENT TO PART WITH HER MONEY. (Rollo, p. 13).
[10] R.R. Paredes v. Calilung, G.R. No. 156055, March 5, 2007, 517 SCRA 369; Cosme, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 149753, November 27, 2006, 508 SCRA 190; Jan-Dec Construction Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 146818, February 6, 2006, 481 SCRA 556.
[11] People v. Billaber, 465 Phil. 726 (2004).
[12]
[13] People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008, 574 SCRA 258.
[14] Under
the ISL, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised
Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence an accused to an
indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view
of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of
the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty
next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense
is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum
fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term
prescribed by the same.
[15] People v. Temporada, supra note 13, at 263-264.
[16]
[17] People v. Gonzales-Flores, 408 Phil. 855 (2001); People v. Mercado, 364 Phil. 148 (1999).