FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236682. April 23, 2018.]
VIRGINIA ALMADEN y TALIMAN, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 23, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236682 (Virginia Almaden y Taliman v. People of the Philippines). CHTAIc
For Our review is the Decision 1 dated August 9, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 37714, which affirmed with modification the Judgment 2 dated July 24, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256, in Criminal Case No. 93-3328, finding petitioner Virginia Almaden y Taliman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. The CA Resolution 3 dated January 8, 2018, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration is likewise impugned herein.
Preliminarily, this Court GRANTS the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari dated February 5, 2018 filed by the petitioner through counsel.
After a judicious study of the case, this Court resolves to DENY the instant petition for failure of the petitioner to show any reversible error in the assailed CA Decision.
However, in view of the recent passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951, entitled An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on which a Penalty is Based and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815 otherwise known as the "Revised Penal Code," as amended, which accordingly reduced the penalty applicable to the crime charged herein, We find it proper to modify the penalty imposed. The said recent enactment, being favorable to the accused, shall find application regardless of whether its effectivity comes after the time when the judgment of conviction is rendered. 4
Section 85 of R.A. 10951 states that "[a]ny person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by x x x the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if such amount is over P40,000 but does not exceed P1,200,000." cHDAIS
Thus, in this case, the amount involved is P327,418.17, an amount over P40,000 but less than P1,200,000. Pursuant to the said provision, the prescribed penalty therefor is arresto mayor in its maximum to prision correccional in its minimum. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty to be imposed should be within the range of one degree lower than the prescribed penalty, i.e., arresto mayor minimum and medium, which has a prison term of one (1) month and one (1) day to four (4) months. The maximum penalty, on the other hand, taking into consideration the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, should be within the range of the prescribed penalty in its medium period, i.e., arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum in its medium period, which has a prison term of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 9, 2017 and Resolution dated January 8, 2018 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioner VIRGINIA ALMADEN y TALIMAN is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor in its medium period as minimum to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional in its minimum period as maximum.
SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by CA Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Jhosep Y. Lopez; Rollo, pp. 33-44.
2. Penned by Presiding Judge Leandro C. Catalo. Id. at 63-67.
3.Id. at 46-47.
4.Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, December 5, 2017.