Briguera v. People

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 229992. June 5, 2017.]

LEOPOLDO T. BRIGUERA, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 5, 2017, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 229992 (Leopoldo T. Briguera vs. People of the Philippines). — Before Us is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the July 29, 2016 Decision 1 and January 16, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 36648 convicting petitioner of the crime of estafa by means of deceit punishable by Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

The facts, according to the CA, are as follows:

Version of the Prosecution

Sometime in September 1996, Roland Briones, an employee of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), introduced petitioner to his friend, herein private complainant Atty. Florencio R. Rosales (Atty. Rosales). Petitioner allegedly represented himself to be a student of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) and to having connections within the DPWH since his cousin, Engineer Jake Tria, was then serving as the Director of DPWH Region V.

Petitioner asked Atty. Rosales to finance the implementation of barangay road concreting projects in several municipalities in Camarines Sur. To convince the latter, petitioner presented the following documents:

1) A photocopy of a document captioned "Releases for Infrastructure Projects" (Releases) purportedly issued by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) for the concreting projects of three municipalities in Camarines Sur, for a total project cost of P2,850,000.00.

2) Photocopies of three "Notice of Funding Check Issued Fund 103" (Notices) dated December 3, 1996, each allocating payment in the amount of P950,000 per road project.

3) Photocopies of letters from the DBM addressed to the Mayors of the municipalities of Calabanga and Sipocot, informing them of the inclusion of their local priority project amounting to P1,000,000.00; the said projects being allegedly included in SARO No. A9-96-0984 (PWA) covering the release of the total amount of P2,850,000.00, net of reserve, for the implementation of priority projects in Region V.

Relying on petitioner's representations and documents that he presented, Atty. Rosales agreed to advance P570,000.00 representing twenty percent (20%) of the total project cost in several transactions. The said transactions were witnessed by Atty. Rosales' driver, Manuel Rubia.

Upon handing the P570,000.00 to petitioner, Atty. Rosales inquired with the DBM to verify the authenticity of the photocopies of the documents that petitioner presented to him. In a Letter-Reply dated May 10, 1999, then DBM Secretary Benjamin Diokno informed Atty. Rosales that no such documents were issued by their office, and that the signatures of DBM officers appearing thereon were falsified. 3

Thus, on January 31, 2000, petitioner and his wife, Rebecca Briguera, were charged with the crime of estafa through falsification of official documents in an Information, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about and during the period between the later part of September, 1996, in the City of Naga, 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 defraud and prejudice the herein complaining witness, ATTY. FLORENCIO R. ROSALES, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify official documents of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) consisting of Releases for Infrastructure Projects and Notices of Funding Check issued Fund 103, when in truth and in fact as said accused well knew, said documents were not issued by the DBM and its contents and signatures appearing therein not genuine, and that by virtue of said falsifications and false manifestations and fraudulent representations, accused were able to defraud the complaining witness in the total amount of P570,000.00 which they willfully, unlawfully and feloniously appropriated and converted to their own use and benefit, and despite repeated demands, accused failed to return said amount to the complaining witness, to his damage and prejudice in the amount of no less than FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND (P570,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Version of the Defense

Petitioner, for his part, claimed that he had no knowledge of any road concreting projects in Camarines Sur and denied receiving P570,000.00 from Atty. Rosales for an alleged DPWH project in Bicol. On the contrary, petitioner alleged that it was Atty. Rosales who approached him requesting information regarding forthcoming projects of the DPWH in Bicol and for personal assistance in the renewal of his Philippine Contractor Accreditation Board (PCAB) license. Atty. Rosales allegedly gave petitioner money amounting to P46,000.00 and crabs worth P8,500.00 at different times to follow up on certain matters in Manila. 4 Petitioner later signed three blank pieces of paper bearing the letterhead "ROLA Construction" to serve as his authorization letters to enable him to claim Atty. Rosales' PCAB license. These blank pieces of paper, according to petitioner, turned out to be Acknowledgment Receipts.

Ruling of the RTC

In a Decision dated February 25, 2014, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 61, found petitioner guilty of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of official document but acquitted Rebecca of the same crime. The dispositive portion of the Decision states:

WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established beyond reasonable doubt the offense of Estafa through Falsification of Official Documents committed by accused Leopoldo Briguera, he is CONVICTED of the said crime, and this Court imposes on him the penalty of imprisonment based on an indeterminate penalty of four years, two months of prision correccional as minimum and eight years of prision mayor as maximum; and to indemnify the private complainant the sum of four hundred nine thousand five hundred pesos (P409,500.00); and likewise to pay One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) in attorney's fees; and Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) in moral damages.

And for insufficiency of evidence, accused Rebecca Briguera is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

SO ORDERED.

Ruling of the CA

On appeal, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, disposing of the case in this wise:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 25 February 2014 rendered by Branch 61, Regional Trial Court of Naga City is hereby AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATIONS to read as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established beyond reasonable doubt the crime of estafa by means of deceit and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, accused Leopoldo Briguera is CONVICTED of the said crime, and this Court imposes on him the penalty of imprisonment based on an indeterminate penalty of four years, two months of prision correccional as minimum and twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum; and to indemnify the private complainant the sum of four hundred nine thousand five hundred pesos (P409,500.00).

And for insufficiency of evidence, accused Rebecca Briguera is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

The amount of damages awarded is subject further to interest of six (6%) percent per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until it is fully paid.

xxx xxx xxx

SO ORDERED.

In ruling thus, the CA adjudged the petitioner guilty only of the crime of estafa due to petitioner's fraudulent representation to petitioner that he has the power and influence to secure DPWH contracts for barangay road concreting projects in Camarines Sur. The CA found that petitioner falsely represented to Atty. Rosales that he has connections within the DPWH Bicol for being a cousin of the then DPWH Regional Director who could very well obtain contracts for infrastructure projects within the region for them. 5 However, due to the failure of the prosecution to establish all the elements of the crime of falsification, the court a quo ruled that the commission of estafa cannot be complexed with the crime of falsification of public or official documents. The CA noted that petitioner merely presented photocopies of the Notices and Releases. DBM Secretary Diokno's certification that the Notices and Releases were never issued by their office, only proves that the said photocopies were false and the originals inexistent, according to the appellate court. The CA went on to rule that a mere photocopy is not a falsified document considering that, in the instant case, no original copy thereof exists, and a photocopy is not even one of the modes of falsifying a document enumerated in Art. 171 of the RPC. 6

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the same in its January 16, 2017 Resolution. Hence, this petition.

Petitioner seeks the reversal of the adverted Decision based on the appellate court's alleged misapprehension of facts and erroneous judgment when it convicted him of estafa despite clearing him of the complex crime of estafa through falsification. 7

Issue

Whether or not the CA erred in convicting petitioner of the component crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the RPC even though charged of complex crime of estafa through falsification of public or official document.

Our Ruling

The petition is denied.

In Tanenggee v. People, 8 We explained that when the offender commits on a public, official or commercial document any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 as a necessary means to commit another crime like estafa, theft or malversation, the two crimes form a complex crime. Under Article 48 of the RPC, there are two classes of a complex crime. A complex crime may refer to a single act which constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies or to an offense as a necessary means for committing another.

Citing Domingo v. People, 9Tanenggee further elucidates that the falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a means of committing estafa, since prior to utilizing the falsified document to defraud another, the crime of falsification has already been consummated. Actually utilizing that falsified public, official or commercial document to defraud another is estafa. But the damage is caused by the commission of estafa, not by the falsification of the document. Therefore, the falsification of the public, official or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit estafa. Consequently, for an accused to be convicted of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document, all the elements of the two crimes of estafa and falsification of public document must exist. 10 The prosecution must show that he committed estafa thru any of the modes of committing falsification.

Nevertheless, Gonzaludo v. People 11 underscores that the lack of criminal liability for one component crime will not necessarily absolve the accused from criminal liability arising from the charge of the second component of a complex crime:

When a complex crime has been charged in an information and the evidence fails to support the charge on one of the component offenses, can the defendant still be separately convicted of the other offense? The question has long been answered in the affirmative. In United States vs. Lahoylahoy and Madanlog (38 Phil. 330), the Court has ruled to be legally feasible the conviction of an accused on one of the offenses included in a complex crime charged, when properly established, despite the failure of evidence to hold the accused of the other charge.

The pronouncement in Gonzaludo is reiterated in the more recent case of People v. Valdez, 12 wherein the Court explained in no uncertain terms that the failure to prove one component crime of a complex crime does not preclude a conviction for the other component crime that may have been proved otherwise:

It is not amiss to point out that in charging a complex crime, the information should allege each element of the complex offense with the same precision as if the two (2) constituent offenses were the subject of separate prosecutions. Where a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the component offenses, the defendant can be convicted of the offense proven. (Emphasis supplied)

Applying the foregoing disquisition in the present case, petitioner can still be convicted of only the component crime of estafa despite the CA's finding that the charge of falsification was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Petitioner's conviction for estafa

At this point, it bears reiterating the basic principle that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari, 13 for it is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh findings of fact all over again, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court. 14 In this regard, and especially in criminal cases, factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding on and accorded great respect by this Court. 15 It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant matters, that this Court will re-calibrate and evaluate the factual findings of the court below.

We hold that the general rule applies in the case at bar. In the present case, the court a quo ruled that based on established facts, the prosecution was only able to prove the elements of estafa, and not the commission of falsification.

Petitioner's conviction is based on the commission of estafa by means of deceit under paragraph 2 (a) of Article 315 of the RPC, which states:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by: x x x

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. x x x

Thus, estafa under the foregoing provision requires that: 1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; 2) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be 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, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; and 4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. 16

Although the falsification of alleged DBM documents was a means of committing estafa, deceit, nevertheless, was established independently of the falsification. Petitioner's use of deceit is not confined to the utilization of the Releases and Notices; his deceit lies in his false pretensions and representations to Atty. Rosales that he has the power and influence to secure DPWH projects due to his connections with the then DPWH Region V Director. Indubitably, this fraudulent misrepresentation induced Atty. Rosales to part with his money, thinking that petitioner can secure the DPWH contracts for him, resulting in his damage and prejudice.

The penalty imposed by the CA is likewise affirmed. Art. 315 17 of the RPC provides that the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed if the amount of the fraud is over P12,000.00. but does not exceed P22,000.00. If such amount exceeds the latter sum, the aforestated penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional P10,000.00; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty (20) years.

The range of the penalty provided for in Article 315 is composed of only two periods. To get the maximum period of the indeterminate sentence, the total number of years included in the two periods should be divided into three. 18 Article 65 of the RPC 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. 19

Considering that the amount subject of fraud as established by evidence is P409,500.00, the penalty must be taken from the maximum period of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, which is six (6) years, eight (8) months, and twenty-one (21) days to eight (8) years. Since the total amount of fraud exceeds P22,000.00 by P387,500.00, the correct maximum penalty imposable is twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal. However, for purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum imposable penalty must be taken within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by Article 315, which is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. The penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months of prision correccional as the minimum to twenty (20) years reclusion temporal as maximum imposed by the CA, therefore, is proper.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36648, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision and Resolution.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Pedro B. Corales; rollo, pp. 32-49.

2.Id. at 51-52.

3.Id. at 36-37.

4.Id. at 9.

5.Id. at 40.

6.Id. at 42.

7.Id. at 11, 28.

8. G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013.

9. G.R. No. 186101, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 488.

10.Gonzaludo v. People, G.R. No. 150910, February 6, 2006.

11. G.R. No. 150910, February 6, 2006.

12.People v. Valdez, G.R. Nos. 216007-09, December 8, 2015. (citations omitted)

13.Pascual v. Burgos, et al., G.R. No. 171722, January 11, 2016.

14.Nicolas v. People, G.R. No. 186107, April 20, 2016, citing Soriamont Steamship Agencies, Inc. v. Sprint Transport Services, Inc., 610 Phil. 291, 300 (2009).

15.People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, 14 April 2010, 618 SCRA 276.

16.Erquiaga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124513, October 17, 2001.

17. 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.

18.Uy v. People, G.R. No. 174899, September 11, 2008.

19.Id.