THIRD DIVISION
|
ANGELITA DELOS REYES Petitioner, - versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 185614
Present:
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, PERALTA, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: February 5, 2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
This
petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed by petitioner Angelita delos Reyes Flores,
assails the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[1]
dated July 10, 2008 and its Resolution[2]
dated December 9, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR No. 30105.
The
facts of the case are as follows:
Sometime
in 2000, private complainants Felix Cornejo (Felix), Jonathan Caibigan (Jonathan)
and Blesilda Caibigan (Blesilda) met petitioner through Simon Onda (Simon).
Petitioner told private complainants that, as a member of Club Panoly Resorts
International (Club Panoly), she could sponsor them in going to P100,000.00
as processing fee; P50,000.00 for plane ticket; and $3,000.00 as show
money.[3]
After
raising enough money, private complainants met with petitioner on three
separate occasions, at which Felix paid P100,000.00;[4]
while Jonathan and Blesilda paid a total amount of P168,000.00 (or P84,000.00
each).[5]
Petitioner,
however, failed to make good her promise. This prompted private complainants to
inquire at Club Panoly about the status of their applications. They were informed
by Club Panoly that it did not allow or authorize its members to use their
membership to recruit workers for possible placement abroad.[6]
Upon further inquiry with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration,
private complainants learned that petitioner was not a licensed recruiter of
workers for overseas employment.[7]
They forthwith demanded from petitioner the return of their money and
documents.[8] As
their demand remained unheeded, private complainants filed criminal cases
against petitioner.
In
separate Informations, petitioner was charged before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of
To
the charges, petitioner interposed the defense of denial, alleging that she
never promised them employment abroad. She, likewise, denied having received money
from them.[10]
After
trial, the RTC rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of three (3) counts of estafa. In Criminal Case Nos. 01-2318 and 01-2319,
petitioner was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years of reclusion temporal as maximum, for each
count; and in Criminal Case No. 01-2321, she was meted the indeterminate
penalty of 12 years of prision mayor
as minimum to 15 years of reclusion
temporal as maximum. Petitioner was, likewise, ordered to indemnify
Jonathan and Blesilda P84,000.00 each, and Felix P100,000.00, as
actual damages.[11]
Earlier, in an Order dated June 27,
2003, the case filed by Simon[12]
was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.
On
appeal, the CA affirmed petitioner’s conviction but modified the minimum and
maximum terms of the indeterminate penalties imposed by the trial court.[13]
Petitioner
now comes before this Court on the sole issue of:
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
FINDING PETITIONER GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S
FAILURE TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[14]
Petitioner
insists that she did not make any false pretense or fraudulent act, nor did she
employ any means to induce private complainants to part with their money. She explains that she only promised that she
could help them facilitate their visa applications, but did not misrepresent
that she could deploy them for work in
We
find no reason to reverse petitioner’s conviction. Hence, we affirm, but with
modification.
Findings
of fact of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are generally accorded great respect by the appellate court. The assessment of the credibility of
witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because it is in a position
to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses’
deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied the
appellate court.[15]
Article
315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) punishes estafa, committed as follows:
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.
The elements of the crime are: (1)
the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and
(2) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation.[16]
Here,
it has been sufficiently proven that petitioner represented herself to private
complainants as capable of sending them to
However,
while we affirm the conviction for three (3) counts of estafa, we modify the penalty imposed by the CA, as correctly
recommended by the Office of the Solicitor General in its Comment.[18]
Article 315 of the RPC fixes the
penalty for estafa, viz.:
Art. 315. Swindling
(estafa). – x x x.
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 and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the
penalty shall be termed prision mayor or
reclusion temporal, as the case may
be.
In
Criminal Case No. 01-2318, the amount involved is P84,000.00, which
exceeds P22,000.00. Accordingly, the penalty should be imposed in its
maximum period, which is six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21)
days to eight (8) years, to which we should add one year for every additional P10,000.00,
provided the total penalty does not exceed 20 years. Hence, since the amount of the fraud exceeds P22,000.00
by P62,000.00, a total of six (6) years should be added to the
above-stated maximum period.
In
Criminal Case No. 01-2319, the amount involved is also P84,000.00. Thus, the same penalty should be imposed.
In
Criminal Case No. 01-2321, since the amount defrauded is P100,000.00,
which exceeds P22,000.00 by P78,000.00, seven (7) years should be
added to the maximum period.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
maximum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be that which could be properly
imposed under the RPC as discussed above.
On the other hand, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should
be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by
the Code, which is prision correccional in
its minimum and medium periods, which ranges from six (6) months and one (1)
day to four (4) years and two (2) months.[19]
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals
Decision dated July 10, 2008 and Resolution dated December 9, 2008, in CA-G.R.
CR No. 30105, are MODIFIED with
respect to the indeterminate penalties imposed on petitioner for three (3)
counts of estafa, to wit:
(1) In Criminal Case Nos. 01-2318 and
01-2319, petitioner is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years
and two (2) months of prision
correccional as minimum, to fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal as maximum, for each of the two (2) estafa cases.
(2) In Criminal Case No. 01-2321, she is
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2)
months of prision correccional as
minimum, to fifteen (15) years of reclusion
temporal as maximum.
In all other respects, the assailed
decision and resolution are AFFIRMED.
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 Ricardo R. Rosario, with Associate Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Vicente S.E. Veloso, concurring; rollo, pp. 81-95.
[2]
[3] Rollo, pp. 83-84.
[4] Felix paid P100,000.00 in three installments:
P35,000.00 in May 2000; P30,000.00 on June 6, 2000; and P35,000.00 on June 27, 2000.
[5] Jonathan and Blesilda paid P168,000.00 in three installments:
P68,000.00 in May 2000; P50,000.00 on June 6, 2000; and P50,000.00 on June 27, 2000.
[6] Rollo, pp. 85-86.
[7]
[8]
[9] Raffled to Branch 117.
[10] Rollo, p. 87.
[11]
[12] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 01-2320.
[13] In Criminal Case Nos. 01-2318 and 01-2319, petitioner was sentenced by the CA to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each count. In Criminal Case No. 01-2321, petitioner was meted the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
[14] Rollo, p. 19.
[15] People
v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473,
[16]
[17] Lapasaran v. People, G.R. No. 179907, February 12, 2009, 578 SCRA 658; People v. Comila, G.R. No. 171448, February 28, 2007, 517 SCRA 153; People v. Ballesteros, 435 Phil. 205 (2002).
[18] Rollo, pp. 352-376.
[19] Lapasaran v. People, supra note 17, at 665.