Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 201183 (People of the Philippines v. Mariano Bersabe). - We resolve the Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by accused Mariano Bersabe (accused), from the 29 November 2011 Decision and 24 February 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. CR No. 33636.^[1]

The RTC Ruling 

In its Decision promulgated on 2 July 2010,^[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa as defined and penalized under Article. 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (RPC). The court was convinced that the accused defrauded Alnie Rico (Rico) by means of deceit and that, as a consequence thereof, she suffered damages.

  The Court found that accused solicited money from Rico under the pretense that the money would be used as additional capital for his lending business, which was sanctioned by his employer, the Gaisano Mall; and that after a given period, the principal amount together with the income-interest earned, which was 10% to 15% of the principal, would be returned to Rico. However, when she demanded the return of her investments, including the interest, the accused failed to return the amount agreed upon.

It was later discovered that, contrary to the assertions of the accused, he never worked for the Gaisano Mall. Thus, he had no lending business supported by the mall. Considering that the primary reason why Rico handed over her money to him was that she believed it would earn interest, and that the lending business was sanctioned by the mall, the Court found the accused guilty of estafa. It thus ordered him to pay Rico P290,000.

The CA Ruling 

In dismissing the Petition filed by the accused under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, the CA upheld the factual findings of the RTC and ruled that the acts of the accused constituted the crime of estafa as defined in par. 2(a), Art. 315 of the RPC.

The CA ruled that the following false pretenses established that the accused, by committing fraud, was able to convince Rico to part with her money:

1. That he had a legitimate lending business authorized by Gaisano Mall.^[3]
2. That his lending business was not only safe, but also yielded high returns for its investors.^[4] 
3. That several of his partners held high positions in the Gaisano Mall.^[5]
4. That the collection of payments from borrower-employees would be done through salary deductions twice a month.

The appellate court sustained the trial court's finding that the accused "did not present an iota of evidence" to prove that the alleged lending business actually existed.^[6]

The CA also ruled that the element of damage was established when accused admitted that he has received various amounts of money from Rico on different occasions. Furthermore, receipts he signed in the amounts of P55,000 and P285,500 were presented to prove that he had received money from Rico.

While the minimum penalty imposed by the trial court was affirmed by the CA, the maximum penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal was increased to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal.

The CA also decreased the amount of P290,000 awarded to Rico by the trial court to P285,500, upon finding that this was "the exact amount invested by the complainant as found by the trial court."^[7]

The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied in the CA's 24 February 2012 Resolution.^[8]

Our Ruling 

We deny the Petition.

The Petition lacks merit. The accused merely raises the same two issues that have been thoroughly resolved by the CA and are anchored on the same facts found by the RTC.

We reverse the appellate court's ruling that modifies the liability of Rico by reducing it to P285,500 not P290,000 as ordered by the trial court. We also uphold the affirmance on the finding of estafa.

Her total claim, as stated in the Information, is P661,000.^[9] However, the evidence shows that she actually invested P340,000 only. The accused admitted that he had received this amount from her. The evidence further reveals that the accused returned to Rico P50,000 of the P340,000 invested. Thus, the trial court correctly held that the accused should be held liable for the remaining amount of P290,000, not merely P285,500.

The elements of the crime of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2(a) of the RPC, are as follows: (1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must have been made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means and was thus induced to part with his or her money or property; and (4) as a result, the offended party suffered damage.^[10]

In this case, the accused falsely pretended that he had a lending business authorized by Gaisano Mall. This false representation constituted fraud. It is clear from the testimony of Rico that she parted with her money because she believed that the accused's lending business was legitimate and authorized by the mall.

Furthermore, there is no question that the element of damage was established. The accused does not deny that he received the money of Rico, and that he failed to return it to her when it became due. He refutes this finding by alleging that he was willing to pay the correct amount of P288,180, but that Rico refused to accept it because she was unjustly asking for a "bloated amount" of P661,000.^[11] He argues that "an unlawful demand on the part of the private offended party cannot result in the default in the performance of accused obligation and also does not make such refusal to comply to an unlawful demand amount to ESTAFA."^[12]

The accused is mistaken. To sustain a conviction for estafa under paragraph 2(a), deceit or false representation to defraud and the damage caused thereby must be proved. No demand is necessary to establish the crime.^[13]

The penalty for estafa by means of deceit is provided in Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, which reads: 

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 cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.

We affirm the penalty imposed by the appellate court.

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the penalty shall be "that which in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed" under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum shall be "within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed" for the offense.

In Uy v. People,^[14] we explained that the two periods provided in the first paragraph of Art. 315 should be divided into three equal periods of time to get the maximum period of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to wit: 

The range of the penalty provided for in Article 315 is composed of only two periods, thus, to get the maximum period of the indeterminate sentence, the total number of years included in the two periods should be divided into three. Article 65 of the same code requires the division of the time included in the prescribed penalty into three equal periods of time, forming one period for each of the three portions. The maximum, medium and minimum periods of the prescribed penalty are therefore:

Minimum period � 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 5 years, 5 months and 10 days 

Medium period � 5 years, 5 months and 11 days to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days 

Maximum period � 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years

Since the amount Rico was defrauded of exceeds P22,000, the penalty should be the maximum period of six years, eight months, and twenty-one days to eight years of prision mayor. Art. 315 also provides that an additional year shall be imposed for each additional P10,000. Thus, 26.8 years should be added to the penalty. Due to the twenty-year limitation, however, the maximum penalty that should be imposed is twenty years of reclusion temporal. 

Following the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period should be within the range of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by Article 315 (2) (a) of the RFC. The penalty next lower than prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum is prision correccional minimum (six months and one day to two years and four months) to prision correccional medium (two years, four months and one day to four years and two months).^[15]cralaw

There being no reversible error attributable to the CA, its findings are affirmed, and the present Petition is denied.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The 29 November 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CR No. 33636 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION  that accused Mariano Bersabe is ordered to PAY Alnie Rico the amount of P290,000 with interest at 12% per annum.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 36-50; penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Danton Q. Bueser.

^[2] Rollo, pp. 20-35; docketed as Criminal Case No. 10810; penned by Judge Jose G. Dy. 

^[3] Rollo, p. 43. 

^[4] Id. at 44-45. 

^[5] Id.at 45. 

^[6] Id. at 44. 

^[7] Id. at 49. 

^[8] Id. at 59-60. 

^[9] Id. at 35. 

^[10] Franco v. People, G.R. No. 171328, 16 February 2011, 643 SCRA 474, 487 citing RCL Feeders PTE., Ltd. v. Hon. Perez, 487 Phil. 211, 220-221 (2004). 

^[11] Rollo, p. 14. 

^[12] Id. at 15. 

^[13] Balitaan v. Court of First Instance of Batangas, 201 Phil. 311 (1982) citing People v. Torres, 1 CA Rep. 833. 

^[14] G.R. No. 174899, 11 September 2008, 564 SCRA 542. 

^[15] Id.