THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233962. January 24, 2018.]
NORBERTO O. COSTELO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 24, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 233962 (Norberto O. Costelo v. People of the Philippines). — This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the February 22, 2017 Decision 1 and the August 30, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 37411. The CA affirmed with modifications the December 29, 2014 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 146 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 09-450 to 09-451. The RTC found petitioner Norberto O. Costelo (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of estafa through falsification of a public document.
Factual Antecedents
Petitioner was charged with two counts of estafa through falsification under Article 315, par. 2 (a) in relation to Articles 171 (2) and 172 (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in two Informations, which read:
For Criminal Case No. 09-450
On or about the 23rd day of July 2008, in the City of Makati, the Philippines, the accused by means of false pretenses and fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud complainant Plaridel Surety and Insurance Corporation, herein represented by Virgilio A. Abinales, in the following manner, to wit: by presenting to the complainant for approval various documents relative to the claim of one Harry Legaspi who purportedly executed an Affidavit dated July 9, 2008 notarized by Atty. Eduardo D. Mariano under Doc. No. 268, Page No. 37, Book No. 96, Series of 2008, and as such, a public document, and therein alleging his involvement in an accident which occurred on June 29, 2008 at Talavera, Nueva Ecija, said accused knowing fully that said Harry did not execute said Affidavit; and when the said claim was approved and Chinabank check no. 1111085 in the amount of P85,000.00 was issued by the complainant in connection with the claim, said accused encashed the check and once in possession of the proceeds thereof, misappropriated and converted for his own personal use the value of the said check in the amount of P85,000.00, to the damage and prejudice of the complainant in the aforementioned amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
For Criminal Case No. 09-451
On or about the 15th day of September 2008, in the City of Makati, the Philippines, the accused by means of false pretenses and fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud complainant Plaridel Surety and Insurance Corporation, herein represented by Virgilio A. Abinales, in the following manner, to wit: by presenting to the said complainant for approval various documents relative to the claim of one Ella Blan who purportedly executed an Affidavit dated July 14, 2008 notarized by Atty. Ramon M. Hilario under Doc. No. 239, Page No. 129, Book No. 49, Series of 2008, and as such, a public document, and therein alleging the involvement of her car in an accident which occurred on July 14, 2008 at Paniqui, Tarlac, said accused knowing fully well that said Ella Blan did not execute said Affidavit; and when the said claim was approved and Chinabank check no. 11114447 in the amount of P98,500.00 was issued in connection with the claim, said accused encashed said check and once in possession of the proceeds thereof, misappropriated and converted for his own personal use the value of said check in the amount of P98,500.00 to the damage and prejudice of the complainant in the aforementioned amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty for the two charges. Thereafter, trial ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
Plaridel Surety and Insurance Corporation (Plaridel) alleged that petitioner, its former claims manager, committed two counts of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document. The criminal charges emanated from the compulsory third party liability (CTPL) insurance claims filed by Harry Legaspi (Legaspi) and Ella Blan (Blan) with Plaridel. Legaspi made the claim after he met an accident in Nueva Ecija resulting in the death of Patrick G. Dionisio; while Blan's claim alleged that her vehicle figured in an accident resulting in the death of Fermin Canlas Cantillon. Both claims were recommended by petitioner for approval. Plaridel thus issued two check vouchers and two Chinabank checks as payment to Ramon Dionisio and Rosa Cantillon, the heirs of the deceased. Plaridel later discovered that the claims were fake and that Legaspi and Blan do not exist after it investigated another anomalous claim evaluated and approved by petitioner. Plaridel found out that all the documents, including the notarized affidavits of Legaspi and Blan, and circumstances supporting the claims were forged at petitioner's instance.
Version of the Defense
The CA encapsulated the defense's version of the facts as follows:
Costelo testified that he is the head of [Plaridel]'s Claims Department in 2000 until he became the Claims Manager in 2004. His primary duty as Claims Manager was to evaluate the claims and documentations submitted by the claimants where he gave his favorable recommendation if he found the same in order. The job of verifying the authenticity and reliability of the documents submitted by the claimants belongs to the Claims Assistants. 6
The RTC Decision
The RTC found enough circumstantial evidence establishing the elements of estafa through falsification of a public document. As the prosecution was able to prove that the supporting public documents submitted for the Legaspi and Blan claims were fake, the RTC concluded that their affidavits were falsified as well. It also found that petitioner indeed received the checks covering the claims' payments. The RTC gave weight to the testimony of the manager of the motor shop accredited by Plaridel, stating that he received the checks from petitioner for rediscounting; and the absence of evidence proving petitioner duly gave the checks to the heirs of the assured. The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads: aScITE
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Norberto Costelo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Two Counts of the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents. For Criminal Case No. 09-450 he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of Four (4) Years Two (2) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional as minimum to Fifteen (15) Years and One (1) Day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum. For Criminal Case No. 09-451, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of Four (4) Years Two (2) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional as minimum to Sixteen (16) Years and One (1) Day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum.
Accused is also civilly liable in the amount of Eighty Five Thousand pesos (P85,000.00) as actual damages in Criminal Case No. 09-450 and Ninety Eight Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P98,500.00) as actual damages in Criminal Case No. 09-451, payable to the complainant.
SO ORDERED. 7
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.
The CA Decision
The CA denied the appeal and affirmed the finding of guilt by the RTC. It ruled that, in spite of the absence of any direct witness to the commission of the crimes, sufficient circumstantial evidence was presented to sustain petitioner's conviction. It did not agree with petitioner's explanation that it was not his duty to verify the authenticity of the claims because, as claims manager, such duty is included in his job description. His recommendation for approval of what he knew to be fake claims was an act of deceit, an essential element of estafa. Further, the CA pointed out that petitioner's affidavit dated October 28, 2008 showed petitioner's admission of his participation in the elaborate scam to defraud Plaridel.
However, the CA modified the penalty imposed by the RTC. As the crime charged is a complex crime, the imposable penalty is the one for the most serious crime, in its maximum period. The penalty for estafa is thus the one applicable. After making the necessary computations guided by the pertinent provisions of the RPC and the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), the CA arrived at the indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prisión correccional, as minimum, to 14 years of reclusión temporal, as maximum, for Criminal Case No. 09-450; and the indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prisión correccional, as minimum, to 15 years of reclusión temporal, as maximum, for Criminal Case No. 09-451. The dispositive portion of the CA's Decision states:
WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DENIED. The December 29, 2014 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 146, in Criminal Case Nos. 09-450 to 09-451, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the penalty imposed,viz. (a) In Criminal Case No. 09-450, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal as maximum; and (b) in Criminal Case No. 09-451, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
SO ORDERED.8
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated August 30, 2017. Hence, this appeal.
Issue
WHETHER THE GUILT OF PETITIONER FOR THE CRIMES
Petitioner argues that not all the elements of the crime were established during trial, thus, the CA erred in affirming the guilty verdict handed down by the RTC. He highlights the prosecution's failure to present evidence directly pointing to him as the author of the falsified affidavits of the insurance claimants. Petitioner also claims that the CA erred in disregarding his defense of denial.
The Court's Ruling
The Court resolves to deny the petition for raising substantially factual issues not within the purview of a Rule 45 petition.
Even if the Court considers the factual issues raised in the petition, there are no reversible errors in the CA's Decision that must be corrected. Contrary to petitioner's position, the findings of the RTC were not based on speculation, surmises or conjectures. The absence of any direct witness to the commission of the crimes left the trial court with no recourse but to determine if there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Basing such a verdict on sufficient circumstantial evidence is allowed under the Rules of Court. 9 As declared in People v. Baltazar: 10
Clearly, for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence to prosper, the prosecution must establish more than one circumstance indubitably linking the accused to the commission of the crime. Likewise, the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved and that the combination of all these circumstances must produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. x x x 11
The CA soundly reasoned that the testimonies and documents offered by the prosecution during trial clearly linked petitioner to the commission of the crimes. The Court respects the factual conclusions reached by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, and does not see any reason to reverse the latter, especially since, as stated earlier, they were not merely based on speculations, surmises or conjectures.
As to the denial offered by petitioner, the CA is correct that it paled against the consistent evidence laid down by the prosecution. While there is truth to petitioner's argument that the truly innocent has no other defense to offer but denial, it is equally true that the "defense of denial assumes significance when the prosecution's evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt." 12 Unfortunately for petitioner, the prosecution overcame its burden in this case and, as a result, rendered useless his defense of denial.
As to the imposable penalty for the complex crimes committed here, Article 48 of the RPC calls for the application of the penalty for the most serious crime, in its maximum period. Petitioner's penalty should, thus, be determined using the provision on estafa as it is the more serious composite crime. 13 Further, with the effectivity of Republic Act No. 10951 on September 16, 2017, amending the penalty for estafa in a manner favorable to petitioner, the penalty imposed on him must be adjusted accordingly. HEITAD
Section 85 of R.A. No. 10951 amended Article 315 of the RPC by adjusting the amounts involved in the fraud in the following manner:
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over Two million four hundred thousand pesos (P2,400,000) but does not exceed Four million four hundred thousand pesos (P4,400,000), 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 Two million pesos (P2,000,000); 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 and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prisión mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
2nd. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000) but does not exceed Two million four hundred thousand pesos (P2,400,000).
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, if such amount is over Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000).
4th. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if such amount does not exceed Forty thousand pesos (P40,000): Provided, That in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means:
xxx xxx xxx.
The amount involved in Criminal Case No. 09-450 is P85,000.00; while in Criminal Case No. 09-451, it is P98,500.00. The penalty for each count is thus governed by the 3rd paragraph quoted above, viz.: arresto mayor in its maximum period, which is 4 months and 1 day to 6 months, to prisión correccional in its minimum period, which is 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months of imprisonment. After dividing into three periods the total time covered by these two periods per Article 65 of the RPC, the penalty for each count is set at the computed maximum period in accordance with Article 48 of the RPC, which is 1 year 8 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months. Since this penalty lasts more than 1 year, petitioner can enjoy the beneficial application of the ISL.
Applying ISL, the minimum term should fall within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC for the offense. The next lower penalty to arresto mayor at its maximum period to prisión correccional at its minimum period is arresto mayor at its minimum period to arresto mayor at its medium period, which spans 1 month to 2 months to 2 months and 1 day to 4 months.
From the foregoing, the Court sentences petitioner to suffer for each count of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document the indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of 1 month and 11 days of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 1 year 8 months and 1 day of prisión correccional, as maximum.
The actual damages of P85,000.00 for Criminal Case No. 09-450 and of P98,500.00 for Criminal Case No. 09-451 must also be subjected to legal interest of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full payment in consonance with current policy. 14
WHEREFORE, the February 22, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Petitioner NORBERTO O. COSTELO is sentenced to suffer (1) for Criminal Case No. 09-450, the indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of 1 month and 11 days of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 1 year 8 months and 1 day of prisión correccional, as maximum; and (2) for Criminal Case No. 09-451, the indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of 1 month and 11 days of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 1 year 8 months and 1 day of prisión correccional, as maximum. He is also ordered to pay private complainant Plaridel Surety and Insurance Corporation the following amounts as actual damages: (1) P85,000.00 for Criminal Case No. 09-450; and (2) P98,500.00 for Criminal Case No. 09-451. Both amounts are subject to legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date this judgment attains finality until full payment. (Martires, J., on official leave.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Edwin D. Sorongon, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob; rollo, pp. 36-51.
2.Id. at 53-54.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Encarnacion Jaja G. Moya; Id. at 70-81.
4.Id. at 36-37.
5.Id. at 37.
6.Id. at 41.
7.Id. at 81.
8.Id. at 50.
9. Sec. 4, Rule 134 of the Rules of Court.
10. 397 Phil. 762 (2000).
11.Id. at 767.
12.Franco v. People, 780 Phil. 36, 53 (2016).
13. See People v. Valdez, et al., 774 Phil. 723 (2015).
14.People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 225743, June 7, 2017; People v. Oandasan, Jr., G.R. No. 194605, June 14, 2016; People v. Combate, 653 Phil. 487 (2010).