G.R. Nos. 114967-68 : January 26, 2004 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. CRISPIN BILLABER y MATBANUA, Appellant.
[G.R. Nos. 114967-68 : January 26, 2004]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. CRISPIN BILLABER y MATBANUA, Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
Convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa,
Crispin Billaber y Matbanua appeals
the decision of Branch 18 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
The Information in
Criminal Case No. 92-108577, charging the accused with illegal recruitment in
large scale reads, as follows:
That on or about and during the period comprised between May 3,
1992 and June 16, 1992, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused, representing himself to have the capacity to contract, enlist and
transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, for a fee, recruit, and promise employment/job placement to the
following persons, namely:Raul Durano y
Juabal, Elizabeth Genteroy y Evangelista and Tesita Onza y Paala without first
having secured the required license or authority from the Department of Labor.
CONTRARY TO LAW.1
That in Criminal Case No. 92-108578 for the crime of estafa
That on or about May 3, 1992, in the City of Manila, Philippines,
the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
defraud Raul Durano y Juabal in the following manner, to wit:the said accused, by means of false
manifestations and fraudulent representations which he made to said Raul Durano
y Juabal to the effect that he had the power and capacity to recruit and employ
said Raul Durano y Juabal and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent
papers if given the necessary amount to meet the requirements thereof, and by
means of similar deceits, induced and succeeded in inducing said Raul Durano y
Juabal to give and deliver, as in fact he gave and delivered to said accused
the amount of
P18,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and
representations, said accused well knowing that the same were false and fraudulent
and were made solely to obtain, as in fact he did obtain the amount of P18,000.00
which amount once in his possession, with intent to defraud, he willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted to his own
personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said Raul Durano y
Juabal in the aforesaid amount of P18,000.00 Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.2
Upon arraignment on 6 October 1992, the accused pleaded not guilty to the
crimes charged.3 Joint trial ensued thereafter.
The prosecution presented as witnesses, private complainants
Elizabeth Genteroy, Raul Durano and Tersina4 Onza, as well as police
investigator PO2 Venerando R. Mias.The
evidence offered by the prosecution established the following facts.
Sometime in April 1992, private complainant Elizabeth Genteroy, a
public school teacher, was introduced to accused Crispin Billaber by her
friends, Laarni Nova and Olivia Montemayor, at the office of Kingly Commodities
in Makati.5 The accused told Genteroy that he
could help her acquire the necessary papers and find her a job as a seamstress
in the United States
for a fee of
P40,000.00.6 The accused also informed
Genteroy that he was in need of someone who was willing to work as a driver in
Sometime in the same month, Genteroy introduced the accused to
private complainant Raul Durano somewhere in Makati.8 The accused offered Durano a job as his (the accuseds) personal driver
in the US.The accused charged Durano a fee of
for the processing of his papers.9 The accused further assured Durano that he would be able to leave for
within one month.10
On 3 May 1992,
at about 7:00 p.m., Durano
paid the accused
P18,000.00 at Minims Restaurant at the corner of Taft Avenue and U.N. Avenue, Manila.11 Durano asked for a receipt, but
the accused said it was not necessary since they will leave together within a
On 4 May 1992,
at about 7:00 p.m., private
complainant Genteroy also paid the accused
P10,000.00 in Jollibee,
Tayuman Branch at the corner of Rizal
Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila.13 The accused said that the amount
would be used to secure the pertinent papers, like a passport, visa and the
ticket.14 The accused likewise told
Genteroy that she may give the balance of P30,000.00 at the airport, or
she could settle the amount in the US.15 Like Durano, Genteroy requested
a receipt, but the accused declined and assured her that she, together with the
group and the accused, will be leaving together16 on the 3rd week of
June 1992.17 The departure date was subsequently re-set to 23 July 199218 because there were others who
wanted to join them.19
Meanwhile, sometime in the first week of June 1992, Genteroy
introduced the accused to private complainant Tersina Onza, a seamstress, at
the office of Kingly Commodities.20 The accused asked Onza if she
was interested in managing a dress shop that the accused was to put up in California.21 For a fee of
the accused would process Onzas passport and other papers.22 Onza accepted the accuseds
On 16 June
1992, Onza received a phone call from the accused telling her that
he needed the
P10,000.00 because he will catch up the time so she
could leave with them for the US
on the 23rd of July.24 That evening, at about 8:30, Onza gave P10,000.00 to
the accused in front of Jollibee, at the corner of Avenida and Tayuman Streets,
Manila.25 Just like with the other private
complainants, the accused, despite demand, did not issue Onza a receipt.26 He assured her that it was not
necessary since they would be leaving together with him on 23 July 1992.27
Thereafter, the accused instructed the three private
complainants, Genteroy, Durano and Onza, to meet him on 23 July 1992 at the airport, where he
would bring them their travel papers.28 The three private complainants,
including others also allegedly recruited by the accused, did as they were told
and waited at the airport on the date specified.29 The accused, however, failed to
show up at the airport.30
On 25 July
1992, Durano chanced upon the accused at the canteen of Emilio Aguinaldo
College in Manila.31 A commotion ensued when Durano
tried to stop the accused from leaving the canteen.32 A police officer who happened to
be taking a snack at the canteen brought both Durano and the accused to the
United Nations Station of the Western Police District (WPD) for investigation.33
The prosecution also offered in evidence a Certification,34 dated 28 July 1992, from the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) stating that the accused was not
licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.
The accused, the sole witness for the defense, is a resident of Honolulu, Hawaii.35 He described himself as a
part-time travel agent36 who came to the Philippines
to put up a travel agency.37 He failed in that venture, however,
because he did not have any money.38
The accused denied receiving any money from private complainants,39 who were merely his
acquaintances.40 He said that he did not receive any money from private complainant Tersina Onza,
who purportedly handed her payment to private complainant Raul Durano.41 Durano allegedly misled Onza
into believing that he (Durano) turned over the money to the accused.42 The accused further claimed that
Durano asked his (Duranos) common law-wife, private complainant Genteroy, to
talk to Onza so the latter would file a case against him (the accused). 43
Many times before, Durano allegedly had tried to extort money
from the accused without success.44 Durano even offered to drop the
case against him in exchange for money.45
The claims of frame-up and extortion notwithstanding, the trial
court gave credence to the testimonies of private complainants, which it found
highly credible. On 24
February 1994, the trial court rendered a decision convicting the
accused of the crimes charged, as follows:
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 92-108577, this Court finds the
accused, Crispin Billaber y Matbanua, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and sentences him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P100,000.00, plus the
costs.The accused is further ordered to
pay actual damages to the complainants, Raul Durano, Elizabeth Genteroy and
Tesina Onza the sums of P18,000.00, P10,000.00 and P10,000.00,
respectively, with interest thereon at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the
date of filing these criminal cases, July 27, 1992, until the amount shall have
been fully paid.
In Criminal Case No. 92-108578, this Court also finds the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa under Article 315,
subdivision Nos. 2 and 3, of the Penal Code (as regards Complainant Raul
and sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of one (1) year,
eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional as minimum to five (5) years, five (5) months
and eleven (11) days of prision
correccional as maximum and to pay the costs.
The accused, now appellant, assigns the following errors:
1.In not taking into
consideration that Accused-appellant was picked-up on July 25, 1992, invited
by police operatives without any warrant at the instance of complainant Tresina
Onza, 45 years old, who did not even state the amount allegedly taken or paid
by her to Accused-appellant left blank in her statement made before the WPD
operatives who stole his watch and wallet containing $350.00 in cash and
in Philippine currency.
2.Failure to take into
consideration the various pleas made by Accused-appellant in asking for WPD
police officers that he be afforded the assistance of counsel which was turned
down and detained for seventy (70) days when arraigned on October 6, 1992,
before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Br. 24, City of Manila, by City Court Judge Aida Rangel
3.Failure to take into
consideration the unnecessary delays in scheduling the pre-trial of a detained
American tourist when Judge Aida Roque scheduled the pre-trial on November 12,
1992, exactly 106 days of detention, when the scheduled pre-trial was again
moved to December 15, 1992, when all was again reset for December 22, 1992 over
the vehement objection of defense counsels for dismissal of the cases for
failure to prosecute when the trial was again reset for the fourth time on
January 19, 1993, for lack of material time over the objection of defense
de-oficio counsel as Accused was scheduled to fly back to Hawaii since December
22, 1992, on time for Christmas season.
4.Failure to take into
consideration the plight of Accused who had already served sentence and was
ordered discharged by RTC Judge David G. Nitafan of Branch 52, Manila, in appealed Crim.
Case Nos.93-125980 and 125981 with
complaining witnesses Elizabeth Genteroy and Teresiana Onza, respectively, when
the same Judge Nitafan directed the Prison Officer thru the City Jail Warden to
discharge from custody Accused Billaber on March 20, 1994, after taking note in his
seven-page Order that
With the above conclusion, it is clear that the accused had
overstayed in jail.
5.The Court further failed
to take into consideration that double jeopardy exists when Judge P. Laguio,
Jr. convicted accused Billaber to life sentence in Criminal Case nos.92-108577-78 when on April 5, 1994, Judge
Laguio, Jr. promulgated the decision convicting accused Billaber without taking
into consideration that the other two (2) appealed cases before Judge David G.
Nitafan were already dismissed since March 20, 1995.Judge Laguio failed to take judicial notice
of the March 20, 1994,
dismissal order leaving the uncorroborated testimony of complainant Raul
6.Judge Perfecto AS.
Laguio, Jr. committed falsification by antedating his decision to February
24, 1994, upon realizing that the accused Billaber was ordered released from
the City Jail when he promulgated his alleged decision on April 5, 1994, or
forty (40) days late if ever he had the decision prepared as early as
February 24, 1994, when he had no valid or plausible reason to delay the
promulgation of his very late decision when the case was terminated on November
24, 1993, and submitted for decision when the erring judge took him five (5)
months (November 24, 1993 to April 5, 1994) to decide after he had taken
judicial notice that Judge David G. Nitafan had already dismissed accused
Billaber for having overstayed in jail in the application of the mandatory
provision of article 70 of the Revised Penal Code on simultaneous service of
one year in Criminal Case Nos.286919-20
as promulgated by Judge Aida Rangel Roque of Branch 24, Metropolitan Trial
Court, City of Manila, when accused has already served THREE YEARS AND FOUR
MOS. from his illegal arrest on July 25, 1992, up to the present November 15,
1995, deprived of his liberty.
7.The Court a quo erred in
holding accused guilty of illegal recruitment as charged when only one (1)
case of Estafa with Raul Durano as complaining witness was well within the
competent jurisdiction of Judge Perfecto AS. Laguio, Jr. as the other two
estafa cases filed by Elizabeth Genteroy and Teresina Onza were already DISMISSED
on March 24, 1994, two weeks ahead of the delayed promulgation of the
questioned decision of Judge Laguio on April 5, 1994, antedating the same
decision to February 24, 1994, and after five (5) months from the time the case
was submitted for decision on November 24, 1993.47
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in not considering
that he was accosted without a warrant on 25 July 1992.
The details of the alleged arrest are sketchy at best.It appears that appellant was brought to the
police station, together with private complainant Durano, not because of the
present charges but because of the commotion that ensued between the two at the
canteen of the Emilio
Aguinaldo College.48 At the police station, Durano
and the two other private complainants then executed statements charging
appellant with illegal recruitment and estafa.49
Any question, if at all, as to whether there was an actual arrest50 or whether, in the commotion,
appellant committed, was actually committing, or was attempting to commit an offense,51 have been rendered moot.Appellant did not allege any irregularity in
a motion to quash before entering his plea,52 and is therefore deemed to have
waived any question of the trial courts jurisdiction over his person.53
Appellant also maintains that he was denied his right to counsel
while he was at the police station.Any
person under investigation for the commission of an offense has, among other
rights, the right to competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice.54 Any confession or admission
obtained in violation of this right shall be inadmissible in evidence against
the accused.55 The allegation that appellant was deprived his right to counsel, even if true,
would not alter the outcome of this case for it does not appear that the
prosecution offered in court any confession or admission obtained as a
consequence of an un-counseled custodial investigation.
The claim that the pre-trial conference and the trial were
repeatedly postponed in violation of appellants right to speedy trial is not
supported by the record.
After appellants arraignment and plea on 6 October 1992, the trial court
scheduled the pre-trial conference for 12 November 1992.56 On the latter date, the trial
court, upon appellants own instance, issued an Order dispensing with the
In the same Order, the trial court set the date for trial on 15 December 1992.58 Private complainants, however,
failed to appear on said date, prompting the defense to move for the dismissal
of the case.59 The trial court denied the motion since it was only the first time that the
private complainants failed to appear.60 The trial court then reset the
trial to 22 December 1992,
warning that should the prosecution witnesses fail to appear, [the court] will
be constrained to dismiss [the] case for failure to prosecute.61
The records further reveal that on 22 December 1992, the court again reset the
trial to 19 January 1993,
this time with the agreement of both the prosecution and the defense.62
The prosecution conducted the direct examination of private
complainant Raul Durano in the trial of 19 January 1993, but his cross-examination was postponed
to 28 January and 2 February
1993 for lack of time.63 Evidently, the trial court had
to hear two other cases awaiting trial on the same day.64
Over the defenses objection, the hearing of 28 January 1993 was again postponed
when private complainants Genteroy and Durano, who were present in court, left
because they thought that trial would not push through that morning.65
Trial proceeded until 24 November 1993, when the defense rested.66 Other than the 30 September 1993 hearing,
when the accused asked for postponement because of his counsels absence,67 trial was continuous.
The Constitution mandates that in all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall have a speedy trial.68 The right to speedy trial is
deemed violated only when the proceedings is attended by vexatious, capricious,
and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked
for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of
time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.69
None of these circumstances attended the proceedings below. Only
twice did the prosecution fail to present a witness, resulting in the resetting
of the trial, once on the private complainants erroneous belief that the
hearing was not going to push through.That the cross-examination of private complainant Durano on 19 January 1993 had to be
postponed because of two other cases pending hearing does not constitute a
violation of the accuseds right to speedy trial.The parties in said two cases likewise
deserve a speedy disposition of their cases70 and, understandably, the trial
judge had to budget the courts time to accommodate them.All in all, there was actually only one
unjustified postponement in the proceedings below, which cannot be described as
vexatious, capricious or oppressive.
Appellant next claims that his conviction constituted double
jeopardy since these cases were allegedly already dismissed by Branch 52 of the
Manila RTC, presided by Judge David Nitafan. Apparently, private complainants
Genteroy and Onza filed separate complaints for estafa (MeTC Crim. Case Nos. 286919-20)
against appellant prior to the filing of the complaints for estafa by private
complainant Durano and for illegal recruitment in large scale by all
three.Convicted by the Metropolitan
Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila
of two counts of estafa and sentenced in each case to one year of prision correccional, the accused
appealed to the Manila RTC, Branch 52 (Crim. Case Nos. 93-125980-81) .Judge Nitafan ordered the release of the
accused on the ground that service of the accuseds sentence should be simultaneous
and that the accused had served such sentence.
For double jeopardy to exist, three requisites must be
present:(1) a first jeopardy must have
attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated;
and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.71
The cases before Branch 52
consisted of two counts of estafa
committed against Genteroy and Onza.On the other hand, the present cases, which sprang from Branch 18, are for one count of estafa committed against Durano and for illegal recruitment in large scale, filed at the instance of
Durano, Genteroy and Onza.Plainly,
there is no identity between the estafa cases in Branch 52 and the estafa case
in Branch 18 because each case arose from different sets of facts and committed
against different persons.Neither do
any of the estafa cases bar a prosecution for illegal recruitment, since they
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 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.There is no problem of jeopardy because illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum, in which the criminal intent is not necessary, whereas estafa
is malum in se in which the criminal intent of the accused is necessary.72 The claim of double jeopardy,
therefore, is patently without merit.
Appellant accuses Judge Laguio, Jr., who rendered the appealed
decision, of falsifying the rendition of the judgment of conviction.The Judge allegedly antedated the judgment to
make it appear that the decision was rendered on 24 February 1994.In a notice from the clerk of court, however,
defense counsel was informed that promulgation of judgment was to be made on 5 April 1994.The motive for such falsification was to
prevent double jeopardy from attaching because defense counsel had informed
Judge Laguio, Jr. that Judge Nitafan had already ordered appellants release in
the latters Decision dated 24
Appellant makes equally serious allegations against the police,
whom he accuses of taking his valuables, of arbitrary detention or delay in his
delivery to the judicial authorities, and of violating his right to counsel.
The accusations against the trial judge, as well as against the
police, have no bearing in the disposition of this appeal.They are not relevant in the adjudication of
his guilt and have no place in these proceedings.The veracity of appellants accusations will
have to await the filing of the appropriate charges and the conduct of an
investigation before the proper forum.
The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when
the following elements concur, to wit: (1) the offender has no valid license or
authority required by law to enable one to engage lawfully in recruitment and
placement of workers; (2) he or she undertakes either any activity within the
meaning of recruitment and placement defined under Article 13, paragraph (b),
or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; and
(3) that the accused commits the acts against three or more persons,
individually or as a group.73 All three elements were
established during the trial.The first
element is substantiated by the POEA certification.74 The second is supported by the
testimonies of the private complainants Durano, Genteroy and Onza. The third
element is evident from the number of complainants against whom the accused
committed illegal recruitment.
The absence of receipts to evidence payment to the recruiter
would not warrant an acquittal, a receipt not being fatal to the prosecutions
cause.75 The trial court found the
testimonies of private complainants to be credible.76 The assessment of the
testimonial evidence by the trial judge is accorded the highest respect for it
was he who had the distinct opportunity to directly perceive the demeanor of
witnesses and personally ascertain their reliability.
The penalty prescribed for illegal recruitment in large scale is
life imprisonment and a fine of
P100,000.00.Thus, the trial court imposed the correct
penalty for illegal recruitment in large scale upon appellant.
Appellant is also guilty of estafa, defined and punished by
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code:
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 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.
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.
There are three ways of committing estafa under Article 315 2(a)
of the Revised Penal Code:(1) by using
a fictitious name; (2) by falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;
and (3) by means of other similar deceits.Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable.77
In this case, private complainant Raul Durano was led by
appellant to believe that he possessed the power and qualifications to provide
Durano with work abroad, when in fact he was not licensed or authorized to do
so.Deceived, private complainant parted
with his money and delivered the same to appellant.Plainly, appellant is guilty of estafa.
The penalty prescribed by Article 315 is composed of only two,
not three, periods, in which case, Article 65 of the same Code requires the
division of the time included in the penalty into three equal portions of time
included in the penalty prescribed, forming one period of each of the three
portions.Applying the latter provision,
the maximum, medium and minimum periods of the penalty prescribed are:
Maximum - 6 years, 8 months, 21 days to 8
Medium-5 years, 5 months, 11 days to 6
years, 8 months, 20 days
Minimum -4 years, 2 months,1 dayto5
years, 5 months, 10 days
Appellant was proved to have defrauded private complainant Durano
in the amount of
P18, 000.00.Thus, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its medium period, or 5
years, 5 months and 11 days of prision
correccional to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days of prision mayor, as the amount defrauded does not exceed P22,000.0078 and as no aggravating or mitigating
circumstance is present.79
In imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the
Revised Penal Code, the Court is required to impose upon the accused an
indeterminate sentence.The maximum term thereof shall be that
which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under
the rules of the said Code.Here, the
maximum term is 5 years, 5 months and 11 days of prision correccional to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days of prision mayor.
On the other hand, the minimum
term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Code for the offense.The penalty next lower to that prescribed by Article 315 is prision correccional in its minimum
period (6 months, 1 day to 2 years and 4 months) to prision correccional in its medium period (2 years, 4 months and 1
day to 4 years and 2 months) .From this,
the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence shall be taken.
The trial court sentenced appellant to suffer imprisonment of 1
year, 8 months and 21 days of prision
correccional as minimum to 5 years, 5 months and 11 days of prision correccional as maximum.This indeterminate sentence is within the
maximum and minimum terms as determined above.The penalty imposed for estafa is correct.
The trial court, however, erred in awarding private complainants
Genteroy and Onza the amount of
P10,000.00 each as actual damages in the
illegal recruitment case (Crim. Case No. 92-108577) .Previously, the MeTC in the estafa cases
Genteroy and Onza filed (Case Nos. 286919-20) ordered appellant to pay private
complainants the same amounts.Section
1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides that, In no case may the offended
party recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the accused.
The rate of six percent (6%) per annum as interest imposed on the
actual damages of
P18,000.00 awarded to private complainant Durano is
also erroneous.As the amount of
P18,000.00 given by Durano in consideration of his placement constitutes a loan
or forbearance of money, the rate of interest should be twelve percent (12%)
per annum in line with this Courts pronouncement in Eastern Shipping Lines,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals:80
II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept
of actual or compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual
thereof, is imposed, as follows:
1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment
of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should
be that which may have been stipulated in writing.Furthermore, the interest due shall itself
earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded.In the absence of stipulation, the rate of
interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from
judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article
1169 of the Civil Code.81
WHEREFORE, in Criminal
Case No. 92-108577, appellant Crispin Billaber y Matbanua is found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large
scale under Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended, and sentences him to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
plus the costs.Accused-appellant is
further ordered to pay to private complainant Raul Durano the sum of P18,000.00
as actual damages, with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from July 27, 1992, the date of
filing of this criminal case, until the amount shall have been fully paid.
In Criminal Case No. 92-108578, appellant is found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa under Article 315 2(a) of the Revised
Penal Code and sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of one (1)
year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional as minimum to five (5) years, five (5) months
and eleven (11) days of prision
correccional as maximum and to pay the costs.
Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
4 Also appears as Tresina in the Records.
5 TSN, February 16, 1993,
8 TSN, January 19, 1993, p. 4.
13 TSN, February 16, 1993, p. 3.
16 TSN, February 16, 1993, p. 10.
20 TSN, February 23, 1993, p. 3.
22 TSN, February 23, 1993, p. 4.
24 TSN, February 23, 1993, pp. 4-5.
30 TSN, February 23, 1993, p. 7.
31 TSN, January 19, 1993, p. 9.
35 TSN dated November 24, 1993, pp. 1, 5.
48 TSN, 19 January 1993, p. 9.
49 TSN, 10 June 1993, pp. 2-3.
50 SECTION 1.Definition of arrest. Arrest is the taking
of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense.(Rule 113,
Rules of Court.)
51 See Section 5 (a),
113, Rules of Court.
52 See Section 3 (b) in relation to Section 1, Rule 117, Rules of
53 See Section 8, Rule 117, Rules of Court.
54 Const., art. III, sec. 12 (1).
art. III, sec. 12 (3).
68 Const., art. III, sec. 14 (2).
70 Const., art. III, sec. 16.
78 Revised Penal Code, art. 315.
79 Id., art. 65 in relation to art. 64.1.
80 G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78.
Back to Home | Back to Main