SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225245. September 26, 2016.]
NESTOR CABADA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 26 September 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225245 — Nestor Cabada vs. People of the Philippines
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari for: (1) having been filed beyond the extended period; (2) lack of competent evidence of identity of the affiant who signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping; (3) raising purely factual issues; and (4) failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 36903 committed any reversible error in affirming the Decision dated February 25, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 111, Pasay City (RTC) convicting him of Estafa under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case Nos. 07-1678-CFM, 07-1681-CFM and 07-1687-CFM.
In its Resolution dated August 10, 2016, this Court granted petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time seeking an additional period of 30 days from July 14, 2016 or until August 13, 2016 within which to file his Rule 45 petition. Despite the given extension, however, petitioner filed the instant petition only on August 26, 2016 or 13 days beyond the extended period.
In any case, the arguments of the petitioner that the Union Membership Development Program is different from the "investment program" introduced by his co-accused Ricardo "Erick" Bolaños; that none of the prosecution witnesses testified that they dealt with him regarding the "investment program" or that they gave him money; and that he has no knowledge of the "investment program", all pertain to factual matters which are beyond the ambit of this Court's jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition. Unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions, which are not present in this case, this Court's jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition is limited to the review of pure questions of law. 1
Besides, the CA was correct in holding that the prosecution had successfully established in this case all the elements of Estafa under paragraph 2 (a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, viz.:
1. that there is a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;
2. that the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means is made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
3. that the offended party relies on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he is induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; and
4. that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. 2
Petitioner enticed private complainants Dominador De Vera, Joselito Coloma and Winsure Borre to invest in an "investment program" that will earn a 2.5% monthly interest. To guarantee that private complainants will recoup their investment and earn profits in the form of interest, petitioner offered to issue postdated checks to them. Because of this prior false pretenses of petitioner, said private complainants were lured into investing their money to said "investment program." At first, the postdated checks issued to them were paid, but the subsequent ones issued to cover their roll-over investments were dishonored for the reason "closed account." The private complainants demanded payment, but to no avail. Thus, they suffered financial losses in the following amounts: SEDICa
|
Criminal Case Nos.
|
Private Complainant
|
Amount
|
|
07-1678
|
Joselito Coloma |
P1,126,029.00
|
|
07-1681
|
Dominador De Vera |
73,200.00
|
|
07-1687
|
Winsure Borre |
472,500.00
|
Considering the amount involved in each case, We find no error on the part of the CA and the RTC in imposing the indeterminate penalty of 3 years and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, in Criminal Case Nos. 07-1678-CFM and 07-1687-CFM. Both lower courts are also correct in meting out the indeterminate penalty of 3 years and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 12 years of prision mayor, as maximum, in Criminal Case No. 07-1681.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed June 17, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36903.
SO ORDERED.(Carpio, J., on official leave; Brion, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per S.O. No. 2374 dated September 14, 2016)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Miro vs. Vda. de Erederos, 721 Phil. 772, 786 (2013).
2. Espino vs. People, 713 Phil. 377, 389 (2013).