SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255265. July 5, 2021.]
ARIES CAMANTIGUE y IGNACIO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 July 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 255265 (Aries Camantigue y Ignacio v. People of the Philippines). —
In this petition for review on certiorari, Aries Camantigue y Ignacio (petitioner) seeks to reverse and set aside the verdict of conviction for estafa rendered against him by the Court of Appeals under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). He faults the appellate court for affirming the findings of the trial court that he received the amount of P100,000.00 from private complainant Dario Crisostomo (Dario), deposited it in his personal account, and failed to return the same to Dario despite the latter's demand. He invokes a different factual version to convince the Court that Vice Mayor and ABC President Chona Garcia already returned the amount to Dario. 1
Clearly, the petition raises pure questions of fact which the Court, not being a trier of facts, cannot take cognizance of via Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. Said Rule only allows questions of law to be raised before the Court, thus:
Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied)
Surely, it is not the function of the Court to weigh anew or recalibrate the evidence which the courts below had already exhaustively considered and evaluated not once, but twice in this case.
Suffice it to state that the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded the highest respect, 2 in the absence of any showing, as in this case, that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which could very well affect the outcome of the case. 3 This rule assumes more significance where these factual findings carry the full concurrence of the Court of Appeals.
In fine, we affirm the verdict of conviction against petitioner for estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the RPC. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found that petitioner, as barangay treasurer, received in trust the amount of P100,000.00 from Dario for the purpose of turning it over to John Andres should the latter return to the Philippines. Petitioner deposited the money in his personal account and failed to account for it or to return it to Dario, despite demand, thus, causing prejudice to the latter as owner of the amount.
Penalty
Under Article 315 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951 (RA 10951), 4 any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned therein shall be sentenced to arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, if such amount is over Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) but does not exceed One Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,200,000.00).
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the sentence shall be that which could be properly imposed in view of the attending circumstances, and the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC. 5 Thus, the Court of Appeals properly sentenced petitioner to three (3) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prisión correccional as maximum.
In accord with the Court's pronouncement in Arrivas v. Bacotoc, 6 petitioner is also directed to return to Dario the amount of P100,000.00 plus interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 6, 2021 and Resolution dated January 21, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 4306 are AFFIRMED.
Petitioner Aries Camantigue y Ignacio is found GUILTY of ESTAFA under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to three (3) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prisión correccional as maximum, with the accessory penalties of suspension of the right to hold office and the right to suffrage. He is further ordered to RETURN to private complainant Dario Crisostomo the amount of P100,000.00 which shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from filing of the Information until finality of this Resolution. The total amount shall, in turn, earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until full payment. 7
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-19.
2.People v. Ascarraga, 836 Phil. 735, 737 (2018).
3.People v. Collamat, 838 Phil. 888, 894-895 (2018).
4. 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.
5.Fantastico v. People, 750 Phil. 120, 139 (2015).
6. G.R. No. 228704, December 2, 2020.
7. Supreme Court (Second Division) Resolution dated October 3, 2018.