THIRD DIVISION
ROSALINDA SERRANO,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
123896
June 25, 2003
-versus-
COURT OF APPEALS
AND PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
D E C I S I
O N
CARPIO-MORALES,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Assailed in this petition
for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the
decision[1]
of December 18, 1992 and resolution[2]
of February 13, 1996 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. No. 10802,
"People
of the Philippines v. Rosalinda Serrano," which affirmed the decision[3]
of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 117, finding
Rosalinda
Serrano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa through falsification
of commercial documents.
Three informations were
filed on June 18, 1985, charging petitioner, along with Nelia Giron
(Nelia)
and Edna Sibal (Edna), with estafa through falsification of commercial
documents as follows:
Criminal Case No. 85-8239
That on or
about the 21st day of September, 1984 in Pasay, Metro Manila,
Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another,
with intent to deceive and defraud one Ramon C. Mojica thru Centerre
Bank,
New York, USA, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
falsify a Centerre Bank draft No. 00362562 dated September 7, 1984
payable
to cash for the amount of $12,000.00 United States currency, by making
it appear that the said draft was drawn and issued by said bank in St.
Louis, Misouri (sic), USA and signed by its authorized officers, when
in
truth and in fact as said accused well knew, the said draft was
fraudulent/fictitious
in that the same was not issued by the bank and that the signature
appearing
thereon was not of an officer of the bank but fictitious, and once in
possession
of, and armed with said draft falsified in the manner aforesaid, the
above-named
accused, through fraudulent manifestations and false representation
gave
and delivered the same to Ramon C. Mojica in exchange of (sic) the sum
of P246,000.00 which amount the herein accused willfully, unlawfully
and
feloniously converted to their personal use and benefit; that when the
said draft was presented to the drawee bank for payment, the same was
dishonored
for being fraudulent and despite repeated demands made upon the accused
to pay the amount of $12,000.00 or its equivalent in peso, said accused
failed and refused and still fails and refuses to do so, to the damage
and prejudice of the complainant Ramon C. Mojica in the aforesaid
amount.
Contrary to law.[4]
Criminal Case No.
85-8238-P
That on or
about the 24th day of September, 1984 in Pasay, Metro Manila,
Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another,
with intent to deceive and defraud one Ramon C. Mojica thru Centerre
Bank,
New York, USA, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
falsify a Centerre Bank draft No. 00362563 dated September 7, 1984
payable
to cash for the amount of $10,000.00 United States currency, by making
it appear that the said draft was drawn and issued by said bank, in St.
Louis, Missouri, USA, and signed by its authorized officers, when in
truth
and in fact as said accused well knew, the said draft was
fraudulent/fictitious
in that the same was not issued by the bank and that the signature
appearing
thereon was not of an officer of the bank but fictitious, and once in
possession
of, and armed with said draft falsified in the manner aforesaid, the
above-named
accused, through fraudulent manifestations and false representation,
gave
and delivered the same to Ramon C. Mojica in exchange of (sic) the sum
of P160,000.00 which amount the herein accused willfully, unlawfully
and
feloniously converted to their personal use and benefit; that when the
said draft was presented to the drawee bank for payment, the same was
dishonored
for being fraudulent and despite repeated demands made upon the accused
to pay the amount of $10,000.00 or its equivalent in peso, said accused
failed and refused and still fails and refuses to do so, to the damage
and prejudice of the complainant Ramon C. Mojica in the aforesaid
amount.chanrobles virtual law library
Contrary to law.[5]
Criminal Case No.
85-8237-P
That on or
about the 25th day of September, 1984 in Pasay, Metro Manila,
Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another,
with intent to deceive and defraud one Ramon C. Mojica thru Citizens
National
Bank, San Francisco, California, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously falsify a Citizens National Bank draft No. 68534807
dated
August 24, 1984 payable to cash for the amount of $5,000.00 United
States
currency, by making it appear that the said draft was drawn and issued
by said bank in San Francisco, California, USA, and signed by its
authorized
officers when in truth and in fact as said accused well knew, the said
draft was fraudulent/fictitious in that the same was not issued by the
bank and that the signature appearing thereon was not of an officer of
the bank but fictitious, and once in possession of, and armed with said
draft falsified in the manner, aforesaid, the above-named accused,
through
fraudulent manifestations and false representation gave and delivered
the
same to Ramon C. Mojica in exchange of (sic) the sum of P102,000.00
which
amount the herein accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
converted
to their personal use and benefit; that when the said draft was
presented
to the drawee bank for payment, the same was dishonored and refused
payment
for being fraudulent and despite repeated demands made upon the accused
to pay the amount of P102,000.00 or its equivalent in peso, said
accused
failed and refused and still fails and refuses to do so, to the damage
and prejudice of the complainant Ramon C. Mojica in the aforesaid
amount.
Contrary to law.[6]
Of the three accused,
only
petitioner was brought to the jurisdiction of the trial court, Nelia
and
Edna having remained at large. When duly arraigned on February
18,
1987,[7]
petitioner entered a plea of not guilty.
The facts of the case
are as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
On September 21, 1984,
businessman Ramon C. Mojica (Mojica) contacted his friend Nelia Oliva
(Oliva),
who worked at Banco Filipino (the bank) in Makati, for the purpose of
buying
U.S. dollars for the importation of machinery spare parts for his
blanket
factory in Cainta, Rizal.cralaw:red
As Oliva told Mojica
that her co-employee Mel Lazo (Mel) knew people who were in the
business
of selling dollars, Mojica, by telephone, talked to Mel who informed
him
that she was acquainted with people who had cashier’s checks drawn from
US banks. After the two agreed on the exchange rate at P20.50 to
a US dollar and to meet at the bank, Mojica repaired that same day,
September
21, 1984, to the bank where he was introduced by Oliva to Mel,
petitioner
and Nelia.cralaw:red
Petitioner then instructed
Mojica to go with her and Nelia to the lobby of the then Regent of
Manila
Hotel (the Regent), now the Heritage Hotel, in Roxas Boulevard, Pasay
City,
telling him that the check to be sold to him was with a certain Edna
Sibal
(Sibal) who would meet them there.[8]
At the lobby of the
Regent, petitioner, Nelia and Edna presented Check No. 00362562[9]
dated September 7, 1984 drawn by and against Centerre Bank, St. Louis,
Missouri, U.S.A. for $12,000.00. Assured that it was fully funded,[10]
Mojica accepted the check in exchange for which he handed them
Metrobank
Cashier’s Check No. CC-002880[11]
dated September 21, 1984 in the amount of P246,000.00. Nelia and
petitioner later returned the cashier’s check and, upon petitioner’s
request,
Mojica replaced it with Metrobank Cashier’s Check Nos. CC-002882[12]
and CC-002883,[13]
both dated September 21, 1984, for P168,000.00 and P78,000.00,
respectively.cralaw:red
The Metrobank checks
were encashed on September 24, 1984 by petitioner whose signature,
address
and
voter’s affidavit number[14]
appear at the checks’ dorsal portions.cralaw:red
On September 24, 1984,
petitioner phoned Mojica and inquired whether he was still willing to
purchase
some dollars, informing him that she, Nelia and Edna had another dollar
check in the amount of $10,000.00 and that they were willing to sell
the
same to him at the same rate of exchange.[15]
Mojica, who accepted the offer, met with them that afternoon at the
hotel,
bringing with him, on their request, two cashier’s checks, one for
P150,000.00
and the other for P45,000.00.[16]chanrobles virtual law library
At the Regent, Nelia,
Edna and petitioner handed Mojica Check No. 00362563[17]
dated September 7, 1984 drawn by and against Centerre Bank, St. Louis,
Missouri, U.S.A. for $10,000.00 in exchange for Metrobank Cashier’s
Check
Nos. 002891[18]
and 002890,[19]
both dated September 24, 1984, for P160,000.00 and P45,000.00,
respectively.
Nelia, Edna, and petitioner once again assured Mojica that the dollar
check
was sufficiently funded.[20]
On that same day, petitioner encashed the Metrobank cashier’s checks.[21]
The following day,
September 25, 1984, petitioner phoned Mojica again and offered to sell
a $5,000.00 check to him at the same exchange rate of P20.50 to a U.S.
dollar.[22]
Mojica agreed and as usual, as instructed, he brought a cashier’s check
for P102,500.00 when they met that same afternoon at the Regent.[23]
As was their agreement,
Mojica was handed by petitioner Check No. 68534807[24]
dated August 24, 1984 drawn by and against the Citizens National Bank
of
San Francisco, California for $5,000.00 in exchange for Metrobank Check
No. 002894[25]
dated September 25, 1982 for P102,500.00. Nelia, Edna and
petitioner
again assured Mojica that the dollar check was genuine and sufficiently
funded.[26]
They later returned the Metrobank checks to Mojica and requested him to
replace it with two checks, one for P80,000.00, and the other for
P22,500.00.
Obliging, Mojica delivered to them replacement Metrobank Cashier’s
Check
Nos. CC-002897[27]
and CC-002898,[28]
both dated September 25, 1984 for P80,000.00 and P22,500.00,
respectively,
which checks were encashed by petitioner on the same day, September 25,
1984.[29]
Mojica deposited the
dollar checks to his Foreign Currency Deposit Unit (FCDU) Savings
Account
at the Cubao branch of Metrobank several weeks after which he was
notified
that all the dollar checks were fraudulent,[30]
drawing him to demand the return of his money from Nelia, Edna and
petitioner
who, however, failed to comply. Hence, the filing of the three
criminal
cases against them.cralaw:red
By decision of May 29,
1990, the trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of
three (3) counts of estafa through falsification of commercial
documents.
The dispositive portion of the decision reads:chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds the accused Rosalinda Serrano GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt for estafa thru falsification of [commercial] documents defined
and
penalized under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 and paragraph 1 of
Article
172 of the Revised Penal Code on three (3) counts and sentences her as
follows:
1. In Criminal
Case
No. 85-8237-P, to an indeterminate penalty ranging from SIX (6) YEARS
and
ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS of prision
mayor
as maximum; to indemnify Ramon C. Mojica the amount of P102,000.00,
without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay 1/3 of the
proportionate
costs.
2. In Criminal
Case
No. 85-8238-P, to an indeterminate penalty ranging from TEN (10) YEARS
and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and
EIGHT (8) MONTHS of reclusion temporal as maximum; to indemnify Ramon
C.
Mojica the amount of P160,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in
case
of insolvency and to pay 1/3 of the proportionate costs.
3. In Criminal
Case
No. 85-8239-P, to an indeterminate penalty ranging from TEN (10) YEARS
and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) and EIGHT
(8) MONTHS of reclusion temporal as maximum; to indemnify Ramon C.
Mojica
the amount of P246,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency
and to pay 1/3 of the proportionate costs.
SO ORDERED.[31]
Petitioner interposed
an
appeal with the Court of Appeals which, by Decision of December 18,
1992,
affirmed the judgment of conviction but modified the penalties as
follows:
(1) In
Criminal
Case No. 85-8237-P, six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision
Mayor
as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal
as
maximum; to indemnify private complainant Ramon C. Mojica the amount of
P102,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and
to pay 1/3 of the proportionate costs.
(2) In Criminal
Case
No. 85-8238-P, ten (10) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as
minimum
to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of Reclusion
Temporal
as maximum; to indemnify the private complainant Ramon C. Mojica the
amount
of P160,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
and
to pay 1/3 proportionate costs.
(3) In Criminal
Case
No. 85-8239-P, ten (10) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as
minimum
to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of Reclusion
Temporal
as maximum; to indemnify the private complainant Ramon C. Mojica the
amount
of P246,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
and
to pay 1/3 of the proportionate costs.chanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.[32]
Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration having been denied by the Court of Appeals by
Resolution
of February 13, 1996, the present petition was filed.
Petitioner posits that
from the handwritten memorandum dated June 8, 1988 reading:
Witnesses hereat confirms
(sic) that Edna Sibal signed a promissory note for P553,500.- dated
October
9, 1984 in favor of Mr. Ramon C. Mojica. This supersedes the
promissory
note of Edna Sibal signed in favor of Rosalina (sic) Serrano.[33]below which Mojica affixed
his
signature
along with two others, she is exculpated from criminal liability.cralaw:red
By petitioner’s claim,
under the promissory note dated October 9, 1984 mentioned in the
above-quoted
handwritten memorandum which note was, by the way, never presented in
evidence,
Edna undertook to return the proceeds of the subject dollar
transactions,
which undertaking was allegedly unconditionally accepted by
Mojica.
To petitioner, the acceptance by Mojica of Edna’s promise to pay
effectively
converted or novated the transactions of the parties into ordinary
creditor-debtor
relationship, hence, Mojica is in estoppel to insist on their original
relationship.[34]chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner’s position
is bereft of merit. Novation is not one of the grounds prescribed
by the Revised Penal Code for the extinction of criminal liability.[35]
x
x x, [I]t is well-settled that criminal liability for
estafa is not affected by compromise or novation of contract, for it is
a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the
Government
on its own motion though complete reparation should have been made of
the
damage suffered by the offended party. As was said in the case of
People vs. Gervacio, ‘a criminal offense is committed against the
People
and the offended party may not waive or extinguish the criminal
liability
that the law imposes for the commission of the offense’. The
fact,
therefore, that the accused herein had, with the consent of the
offended
party, assumed the obligation of paying the rentals, which he
collected,
out of his own salary after he had committed the misappropriation, does
not obliterate the criminal liability incurred.[36]
(underscoring supplied.)
The handwritten
memorandum,
even assuming that the alleged promissory note of Edna mentioned
therein
actually exists, cannot exculpate petitioner from criminal liability,
especially
in the absence of a showing that there was an unmistakable intent to
extinguish
the original relationship between Mojica on the one hand, and
petitioner,
Nelia and Edna on the other.
Petitioner then avers
that her participation in the questioned dollar transactions was
limited
to her act of introducing Nelia and Edna to Mel who in turn introduced
them to Oliva and eventually to Mojica. Such role, she submits,
cannot
in any way be considered criminal and cannot be construed as part of a
conspiracy,[37]
her interest in the success of the dollar transactions having been
solely
motivated by her desire to enforce and collect outstanding obligations
of Nelia and Edna to her.[38]
This Court is not persuaded.
Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary
to
prove conspiracy as it may be deduced from the acts of the perpetrators
before, during and after the commission of the crime which are
indicative
of a common design, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.[39]
As the trial court found:chanrobles virtual law library
Serrano claims that
she had no participation in the transactions and was merely present to
collect the alleged indebtedness of her co-accused Giron and Sibal to
her.
However, in her direct and cross examination on April 11, 1989, it
clearly
showed that Serrano knew every single detail of the three (3)
transactions.
She was not only a participant, but was also an instrument in the
commencement
and consequently in the consumation (sic) of the three (3)
transactions.
She arranged their meeting with Mojica and in all these transactions
aside
from being present she personally called and advised him to buy
additional
bank drafts in the September 24 & 25, 1984 transactions. It
was
also shown that Serrano personally received all the proceeds of the
Metrobank
Cashier’s Checks issued and/or exchanged by Mojica with the subject
bank
drafts. As a matter of fact, she admitted that she was the one
who
encashed and received the proceeds of the three (3) fraudulent checks;
that she likewise caused and formally applied for the issuance of
Metrobank
Cashier’s Check No. 002897 dated September 25, 1984 in the amount of
P80,000.00
(t.s.n., August 23, 1988, pp. 34-35). It has also been
established
that Serrano, Giron, and Sibal guaranteed the genuineness of the three
(3) subject bank drafts and that they were sufficiently funded (t.s.n.,
October 14, 1987, pp. 11-12). So that because of this (sic) false
pretenses and fraudulent representations of the three accused, Mojica
was
induced to part with his money in the amount of P550,000.00 All
these
facts belied the claim of Serrano that she has no participation.
As a matter of fact, she admitted that she kept part of the proceeds,
but
claim (sic) that it was in payment of the alleged indebtedness of Giron
and Sibal to her. In each transactions (sic) she received
P25,000.00,
so that she received a total of P75,000.00 which shows that this was
her
share in the subject fraudulent transactions.[40]
Factual findings of
the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals,
are
final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal except: (1) when
the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2)
when
there is a grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the finding is grounded
entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the
judgment
of the Court of Appeals is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5)
when
the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in
making its findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same is
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7)
when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the
trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions
without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the
Court
of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by
the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a
different
conclusion; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals
are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the
evidence
on record.[41]chanrobles virtual law library
From a review of the
evidence on record, there is no cogent reason to disturb the factual
findings
of the trial court and the Court of Appeals which both found that there
was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the acts committed by petitioner
constitute the complex crime of estafa through falsification of
commercial
documents.cralaw:red
Article 172 of the Revised
Penal Code punishes any private individual who shall commit any of the
acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 in any public or
official
document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document.cralaw:red
Article 171 provides:
Art. 171. Falsification
by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister.- The
penalty
of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed
upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of
his
official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the
following
acts:
1. Counterfeiting or
imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear
that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did
not
in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons
who have participated in any act or proceeding statements other than
those
in fact made by them;chanrobles virtual law library
4. Making untruthful
statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration
or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated
form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no
such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary
to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any
instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol,
registry,
or official book.cralaw:red
The same penalty shall
be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the
offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with
respect
to any record or document of such character that its falsification may
affect the civil status of persons. (emphasis supplied.)
Under the three above-quoted
informations, the mode of falsification attributed to petitioner and
her
co-conspirators is that of making it appear that the dollar checks were
drawn and issued by Centerre Bank, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A. and
Citizens
National Bank, San Francisco, California, U.S.A., when petitioner knew
very well that they were fraudulent in that they were not issued by the
aforementioned banks and the signatures appearing thereon were not the
signatures of officers of the bank.cralaw:red
The dollar checks were
undeniably spurious. While there is no direct proof that
petitioner
and her co-conspirators were the authors of the falsification, since
petitioner
was the possessor and utterer of the dollar checks and benefited from
the
proceeds of the cashier’s checks which were exchanged therefor, the
inevitable
conclusion is that she falsified them. It is an established rule
that when it is proved that a person has in his possession a falsified
document and makes use of the same, the presumption or inference is
justified
that such person is the forger.[42]chanrobles virtual law library
The rule is that if
a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of
it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the
presumption
is that he is the material author of the falsification. This is
especially
true if the use or uttering of the forged documents was so closely
connected
in time with the forgery that the user or possessor may be proven to
have
the capacity of committing the forgery, or to have close connection
with
the forgers, and, therefore, had complicity in the forgery.cralaw:red
In the absence of a
satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of a forged
document
and who used or uttered it is presumed to be the forger.[43]
The falsification of
the dollar checks was the necessary means for the commission of
estafa.
The informations allege, and the evidence established by the
prosecution
shows, the essential elements of estafa or swindling under paragraph
2(a)
of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code:[44]
1. That there must be
a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means.cralaw:red
2. That such false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.cralaw:red
3. That the offended
party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or
fraudulent
means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property
because
of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means.cralaw:red
4. That as a result
thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[45]
The acts of petitioner
in falsifying the dollar checks and misrepresenting to Mojica that they
were genuine and sufficiently funded on account of which he parted
with,
in exchange therefor, the Metrobank cashier’s checks constitute the
fraud
contemplated under the provision of Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the
Penal Code. That petitioner encashed the Metrobank checks and
appropriated
the proceeds thereof to the damage and prejudice of Mojica seals her
liability.chanrobles virtual law library
Accordingly, petitioner
is liable for 3 counts of estafa through falsification of commercial
documents
under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 and Article 172 in relation to
Article
171(2) of the Revised Penal Code.cralaw:red
The indeterminate penalty
imposed by the appellate court on petitioner needs modification,
however.
Estafa is punished as follows:
ART. 315. Swindling
(estafa) - Any person who shall defraud another by any of
the
means mentioned hereinbelow 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 case, 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;
x
x x
In complex crimes, under
Article 48[46]
of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the more serious crime shall
be applied in its maximum period.cralaw:red
In imposing a prison
sentence under the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the
Indeterminate
Sentence Law provides that the maximum term of the penalty shall be
that
which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly
imposed
under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum shall be within the
range
of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the
offense.[47]chanrobles virtual law library
The penalty next lower
should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for
the offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance
attendant
to the commission of the crime. The minimum of the indeterminate
penalty is left to the sound discretion of the court, to be fixed from
within the range of the penalty next lower without reference to the
periods
into which it may be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are
considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the
indeterminate
sentence.[48]
That the amount involved
in each of the cases at bar exceeds 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.
This interpretation of the law accords with the rule that penal laws
should
be construed in favor of the accused. Since the penalty
prescribed
by law for the estafa committed by petitioner is prision correccional
maximum
to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next lower would be prision
correccional
minimum to medium. Thus, the minimum term of the indeterminate
sentence
for each case should be anywhere within Six (6) Months and One (1) Day
to Four (4) Years and Two (2) Months while the maximum term should at
least
be Six (6) Years and One (1) Day because the amount involved in each
case
exceeds P22,000.00, plus an additional one (1) year for each additional
P10,000.00.[49]
In Criminal Case No.
85-8239-P, the amount involved is P246,000.00. Hence, the minimum
penalty should be reduced to Four (4) Years and Two (2) Months of
prision
correccional which is the maximum of the allowable minimum penalty of
the
indeterminate sentence. The maximum penalty should at least be
Six
(6) Years and One (1) Day of prision mayor plus a period of twenty-two
(22) years (one [1] year for each additional P10,000.00).
However,
since the law states that the total penalty shall not exceed twenty
years,
the maximum penalty is fixed at twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal.chanrobles virtual law library
In Criminal Case No.
85-8238-P, the amount involved is P160,000.00. The minimum
penalty
should then be reduced to Four (4) Years and Two (2) Months of prision
correccional. The maximum penalty should at least be Six (6)
Years
and One (1) Day of prision mayor plus a period of thirteen (13) years,
hence, the maximum imposable penalty should be Nineteen (19) Years and
One (1) Day of reclusion temporal.cralaw:red
In Criminal Case No.
85-8237-P, the amount involved is P102,000.00. Hence, the minimum
penalty should be reduced to Four (4) Years and Two (2) Months of
prision
correccional. The maximum penalty should at least be Six (6)
Years
and One (1) Day of prision mayor plus a period of eight (8) years for a
total maximum period of Fourteen (14) Years and One (1) Day of
reclusion
temporal.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the challenged
Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
1. In Criminal Case
No. 85-8239-P, petitioner is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty
of Four (4) Years and Two (2) Months of prision correccional, as
minimum,
to Twenty (20) Years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.cralaw:red
2. In Criminal Case
No. 85-8238-P, petitioner is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty
of Four (4) Years and Two (2) Months of prision correccional, as
minimum,
to Nineteen (19) Years and One (1) Day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum.chanrobles virtual law library
3. In Criminal Case
No. 85-8237-P, petitioner is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty
of Four (4) Years and Two (2) Months of prision correccional, as
minimum,
to Fourteen (14) Years and One (1) Day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum.
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Panganiban,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Corona, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 30-37.
[2]
Id. at 39-40.
[3]
Records at 24-24-J.
[4]
Id. at 15-16.
[5]
Id. at 8-9.
[6]
Id. at 8-9.
[7]
Id. at 133.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
TSN, October 14, 1987 at 4.
[9]
Exhibit "A", Records at 232.
[10]
TSN, August 12, 1987 at 6.
[11]
Exhibit "B", Records at 232.
[12]
Exhibit "C", Records at 232.
[13]
Exhibit "D", Records at 233.
[14]
TSN, August 23, 1988 at 46-47.
[15]
TSN, October 14, 1987 at 7.
[16]
Id. at 8.chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
Exhibit "E", Records at 233.
[18]
Exhibit "F", Records at 233.
[19]
Exhibit "G", Records at 234.
[20]
TSN, October 14, 1987 at 11.
[21]
TSN, August 23, 1988 at 43-45.
[22]
TSN, October 14, 1987 at 11.
[23]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
Exhibit "H", Records at 234.
[25]
Exhibit "I", Records at 234.
[26]
TSN, October 14, 1987 at 13.
[27]
Exhibit "J", Records at 234.
[28]
Exhibit "K", Records at 235.
[29]
TSN, October 14, 1987 at 14.
[30]
Id. at 18.chanrobles virtual law library
[31]
Records at 24-I-24-J.
[32]
Rollo at 7-8.chanrobles virtual law library
[33]
Exhibit "2", Records at 255.
[34]
Rollo at 21.chanrobles virtual law library
[35]
Articles 89 and 94, Revised Penal Code.
[36]
People v. Nery,10 SCRA 244, 248 (1964) (citations omitted).
[37]
Rollo at 22.chanrobles virtual law library
[38]
Id. at 23.chanrobles virtual law library
[39]
Erquiaga v. Court of Appeals, 367 SCRA 357, 364 (2001) (citation
omitted),
People v. Gonzales-Flores, 356 SCRA 723, 739 (2001) (citation omitted).
[40]
Records at 24-F-24-G.chanrobles virtual law library
[41]
Go v. Court of Appeals, 351 SCRA 145, 151-152 (2001) (citation omitted).
[42]
Koh Tieck Heng v. People, 192 SCRA 533, 546-547 (1990) (citation
omitted).
[43]
People v. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120, 141 (1978) (citation omitted).chanrobles virtual law library
[44]
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa).- Any person who shall defraud another by
any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
x
x xchanrobles virtual law library
2.
By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(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.
[45]
Erquiaga v. Court of Appeals, 367 SCRA 357, 365 (2001) (citation
omitted).chanrobles virtual law library
[46]
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.- When a single act constitutes two
or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime
shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.chanrobles virtual law library
[47]
People v. Sagaydo, 341 SCRA 329, 339-340 (2000) (citation omitted).
[48]
Quinto v. People, 305 SCRA 708, 719-720 (1999) (citation omitted).
[49]
People v. Gabres, 267 SCRA 581, 595-596 (1997) (citation omitted). |