Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - NESTOR TUGUINAY, Appellant. |
G.R. No. 186132
Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, BRION, ABAD,* PEREZ, and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: February
27, 2012 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
BRION, J.:
We resolve the appeal, filed by
accused Nestor Tuguinay (appellant),
from the July 21, 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. H.C. CR- No. 02206.[1]
The RTC Ruling
In
its October 29, 2003 decision,[2]
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of P63,500.00, P75,000.00,
P70,000.00 and P70,000.00, respectively. It rejected the
appellants bare and uncorroborated denial.
For the crime of illegal recruitment in
Criminal Case No. 19287-R, the RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and ordered him to pay a P100,000.00 fine.
For each count of estafa committed against Aguilar, Tany and Bangcawayan in
Criminal Case Nos. 19288-R, 19290-R and 19291-R, it sentenced the appellant to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 12 years of prision mayor, as maximum. For the crime
of estafa committed against Balicdang in Criminal Case No. 19289-R, the RTC
sentenced the appellant to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2
months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to 13 years of reclusion
temporal, as maximum. It did not impose any civil liability on the
appellant, noting that he had already settled his civil obligations to the
complainants.
The CA Ruling
On intermediate appellate review,[6] the CA
affirmed the RTC's decision, giving full respect to the RTC's assessment of the
testimonies and credibility of the complainants.
We now rule on the final review of
the case.
Our Ruling
We deny the appeal, but modify the
penalties imposed.
The three elements
of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, to wit: a) the offender has
no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage
in recruitment and placement of workers; b) the offender undertakes any of the
activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated
under Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042); and
c) the offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually
or as a group, are present in this case.
The prosecution adduced proof beyond
reasonable doubt that the appellant enlisted the four complainants for overseas
employment without any license to do so. The four complainants adequately
testified on the demand for placement fees made by the appellant, and the
payments they made. No motive affecting their credibility was ever imputed
against them. We, therefore, rule that the lower courts correctly found the appellant
guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.
Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042
prescribes a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00
nor more than P1,000,000.00 if the illegal recruitment constitutes
economic sabotage, i.e., illegal
recruitment in large scale and illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate.
The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, imposed upon the appellant the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of only P100,000.00. Since the fine of P100,000.00
is below the minimum set by law, we increase the same to P500,000.00.
We likewise affirm the appellants conviction
for the crime of estafa. The two elements of estafa (a) that the accused
defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that
damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended
party or third person are also present in this case. The prosecution evidence
duly proved that due to the appellants false representations of overseas jobs,
the complainants paid placement fees to the appellant who failed to secure the
promised overseas jobs.
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
prescribes the penalty for estafa, when the amount of fraud is over P22,000.00,
of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, adding one year
to the maximum period for each additional P10,000.00, provided that the
total penalty shall not exceed 20 years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law (ISL), we take the minimum term
from the penalty next lower than the minimum prescribed by law, or anywhere
within prision correccional minimum
and medium (i.e., from 6 months and 1
day to 4 years and 2 months). Thus, the lower courts correctly imposed the
minimum term in the 4 counts of estafa at 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, since this is within
the range of prision correccional
minimum and medium.
For the maximum term under the ISL,
we take the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, adding one year of imprisonment
for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, provided that the
total penalty shall not exceed 20 years. To compute the maximum period of the
prescribed penalty, the time included in prision
correccional maximum to prision mayor
minimum shall be divided into three equal portions, with each portion forming a
period. Following this computation, the maximum period for prision correccional maximum to prision
mayor minimum is from 6 years, 8 months, and 21 days to 8 years. The
incremental penalty, when proper, shall thus be added to anywhere from 6 years,
8 months, and 21 days to 8 years, at the discretion of the court. In computing
the incremental penalty, the amount defrauded shall be subtracted by P22,000.00,
the difference shall be divided by P10,000.00, and any fraction of a
year is discarded.[7]
Upon review, we modify the maximum
term of the indeterminate sentence imposed on the appellant in Criminal Case Nos.
19288-R to 19291-R.
In Criminal Case No. 19288-R, since the
amount defrauded of P63,500.00 exceeds P22,000.00 by P41,500.00, 4 years shall
be added to the maximum period of the prescribed penalty (anywhere between 6
years, 8 months, and 21 days to 8 years). In the absence of any aggravating
circumstance, we add the 4 years of incremental penalty to the lowest of the
maximum period, which is 6 years, 8 months and 21 days. The maximum term,
therefore, of the appellant's indeterminate sentence in Criminal Case No. 19288-R
is only 10 years, 8 months and 21 days of prision
mayor.
In Criminal Case No. 19289-R, since the
amount defrauded of P75,000.00 exceeds P22,000.00 by P53,000.00, 5 years shall
be added to the maximum period of the prescribed penalty (anywhere between 6
years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years). In the absence of any aggravating
circumstance, we add the 5 years of incremental penalty to the lowest of the
maximum period, which is 6 years, 8 months and 21 days. The maximum term,
therefore, of the appellant's indeterminate sentence in Criminal Case No. 19289-R
is only 11 years, 8 months and 21 days of prision
mayor.
In Criminal Case Nos. 19290-R and
19291-R, since each of the amounts defrauded of P70,000.00 exceeds P22,000.00 by P48,000.00,
4 years shall be added to the maximum period of the prescribed penalty
(anywhere between 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years) in each case. In
the absence of any aggravating circumstance in these cases, we add the 4 years
of incremental penalty to the lowest of the maximum period, which is 6 years, 8
months and 21 days. The maximum term, therefore, of the appellant's
indeterminate sentence in Criminal Case Nos. 19290-R and 19291-R is only 10
years, 8 months and 21 days of prision
mayor.
WHEREFORE, the July 21, 2008 decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. H.C. CR No. 02206 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant
Nestor Tuguinay is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment
in large scale in Criminal Case No. 19287-R and is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. He is likewise
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of estafa and sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to 10 years, 8 months and 21 days of prision
mayor, as maximum, in Criminal Case Nos. 19288-R, 19290-R and 19291-R; and
an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to 11 years, 8 months and 21 days of prision
mayor, as maximum, in Criminal Case No. 19289-R.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
JOSE |
MARIA
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 Courts Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Second 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 Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per Raffle dated February 8, 2012.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Vicente Q. Roxas and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.; rollo, pp. 4-19.
[2] Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 19287-R to 19291-R; CA rollo, pp. 31-43.
[3] See LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 13(b), in relation to Articles 34, 38(b) and 39, as amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 1693, 1920 and 2018 and Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
[4] See REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 315, paragraph 2(a).
[5] Remains at large.
[6] The RTC forwarded the records of the case to the Court for automatic review. However, pursuant to People v. Mateo (G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640), we referred the case to the CA for intermediate appellate review; CA rollo, pp. 62-63.
[7] People
of the Philippines v. Rosario "Rose" Ochoa, G.R. No. 173792, August 31, 2011; People of the Philippines v. Dolores Ocden,
G.R. No. 173198,
June 1, 2011; and People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008, 574 SCRA 258, 299.