Costelo v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 236934. June 11, 2018.]

NORBERTO O. COSTELO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 11, 2018which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 236934 — Norberto O. Costelo vs. People of the Philippines.

Acting on petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to file Petition for Review on Certiorari praying for additional thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period or until March 15, 2018 within which to file the petition, the Court resolves to GRANT the same.

After a judicious review of the allegations, issues and arguments raised by petitioner, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CR No. 39113 committed any reversible error in affirming the August 31, 2016 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 139 in Criminal Case No. 12-1380. aScITE

"Estafa is generally committed when (a) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation." 1 "Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegation or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury." 2

The elements of estafa by means of deceit under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) are:

a) There must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;

b) Such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;

c) 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;

d) As a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. 3

Article 172, paragraph 1 of the RPC provides for the following elements of falsification:

1) The offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position;

2) The offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171; and

3) The falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document. 4

We agree with the CA that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt the foregoing elements of estafa by means of deceit and of falsification as charged in the Information. DETACa

As regards petitioner's employment of deceit, we quote with approval the CA's observation on this point. Thus:

"As borne by the records, appellant's representations were outright distortions of the truth perpetrated for the sole purpose of inducing PSIC to hand to him the check amounting to Php100,000.00 purportedly for the Compulsory Third Party Liability (CTPL) Claim of Edna Delos Santos against the company. Since appellant was the Claims Manager, there was reason for PSIC to rely on appellant's representations, that (1) sometime in 2008, there was a CTPL claim of one Edna Delos Santos against PSIC; (2) the claim allegedly involved a vehicular accident along Sumulong Highway, Barangay Sta. Cruz, Antipolo City on August 31, 2008; x x x

xxx xxx xxx

In this case, false pretenses or fraudulent acts were employed by appellant prior to or simultaneous with the commission of fraud by falsely pretending to possess the documents necessary for the successful claims against PSIC." 5

The elements of falsification under Article 172 also obtain in this case. First, during the time material, petitioner was an employee of PSIC. Second, he prepared or caused to be prepared an Approval Sheet for Edna attaching various documents which appeared to be genuine but, in truth and in fact as he fully knew, were forged and falsified documents. Third, most of the documents falsified were public documents.

Taken in its entirety, the established facts indubitably showed that petitioner could not have gotten hold of the check purportedly issued in favor of Edna without falsifying the questioned documents. The falsification was, therefore, a necessary means to commit estafa; in fact, falsification had already been consummated even before the falsified documents were used to defraud PSIC. The conviction of petitioner for the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public and Private Documents by the lower courts was thus proper.

Pursuant to Article 48 of the RPC, the penalty to be imposed in a complex crime should be that corresponding to the most serious crime, the same to be applied in its maximum period. HEITAD

The penalty for falsification under Article 172 of the RPC is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, the range of which is from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years. The penalty for estafa, on the other hand, under Article 315 (1) of the same Code, is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period if the amount defrauded does not exceed P22,000.00; and if it exceeds, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. However, on August 29, 2017, Republic Act No. 10951 6 was enacted amending Article 315, the pertinent portion of its third paragraph providing:

"3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if such amount is over Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) but does not exceed one million two hundred pesos (P1,200,000.00).

The amount defrauded in this case is P100,000.00 and based on the penalty imposable as stated in the above provision, the crime of falsification appears to be more serious offense than estafa. Hence, a modification of the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA is warranted.

As earlier mentioned, the penalty for falsification under article 172 of the RPC is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. It being the more serious crime, the penalty shall be applied in its maximum period the range of which is 4 years, 9 months and 11 days to 6 years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period with a range of 4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months. Thus, the indeterminate penalty that should be imposed upon petitioner is 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 4 years, 9 months and 11 days of prision correccional as maximum.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated August 17, 2017 and January 18, 2018, respectively, in CA G.R. CR No. 39113 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that petitioner is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor, as minimum to 4 years, 9 months and 11 days of prision correccional, as maximum.

SO ORDERED." Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018 Tijam, J., on official leave; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018. aDSIHc

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.People vs. Bayker, 780 Phil. 489, 505 (2016).

2.People vs. Balasa, 356 Phil. 362, 382 (1998).

3.Ison vs. People, 786 Phil. 690, 701 (2016).

4.Ltc. Guillergan (Ret.) vs. People, 656 Phil. 527, 533 (2011).

5.Rollo, pp. 43-45.

6. 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.