FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245509. July 30, 2019.]
GRACE ELIZALDE y QUIBAEL, petitioner, vs.THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 30, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245509(Grace Elizalde y Quibael vs. The People of the Philippines)
Petitioner Grace Elizalde y Quibael (Elizalde) assails in this petition 1 the Decision 2 dated January 23, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38071 which affirmed her conviction for the crime of estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Private complainant Police Chief Inspector Reycon Garduque (Garduque), of the Makati Police Station, and Elizalde's husband were classmates in the Philippine National Police Academy. Elizalde visited Garduque twice in his office and tried to convince him to invest in A7 Corporation, a construction supply business which Elizalde claims to own. On her third visit, Elizalde was able to persuade Garduque to invest in her corporation. Garduque gave Elizalde the amount of P750,000.00 for the purchase of construction materials, which will later on be sold for profit to the clients. 3
Elizalde, then, issued three checks to Garduque as follows: (1) P750,000.00 (March 2011); (2) P100,000.00 (April 2011); and (3) P100,000.00 (May 2011). Garduque did not deposit the 1st check upon Elizalde's request. When the due date of the 2nd check was approaching, Elizalde finally called Garduque and made assurances that the business is doing well. A month after, Garduque deposited all the three checks, however, all were dishonored due to the reason "Account Closed." 4
Garduque went to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to verify the address of A7 Corporation, and found out that A7 Corporation is located in Parañaque City, contrary to Elizalde's claim that the business is in Caticlan, Aklan. Worse, the records from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) showed that the business is registered under the name of one Obed C. Aprentado 5 and that Elizalde is not one of the shareholders of the corporation.
Garduque sent Elizalde a demand letter for payment of the amounts covered by the three dishonored checks. In an encounter with Elizalde, Garduque reiterated his demand for the sum of P1,050,000.00 representing the return of his investment plus interests accrued. Explaining that there were some delays in the collection of payments from the clients, Elizalde instead made a promissory note in favor of Garduque, promising to pay only the amount of P950,000.00 (P750,000.00 original investment and P200,000.00 interest for two months) on or before July 15, 2011. Two demand letters were again sent to Elizalde — the last one was received by Elizalde only after crossing out the amount of P1,050,000.00 and replacing the same with P950,000.00. 6
On January 9, 2012, an Information was filed against Elizalde charging her for the crime of estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC, the accusatory portion of which reads:
Sometime in the month of November 2011, in the City of Makati, the Philippines, accused, by means of false pretense or fraudulent act executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud complainant Reycon L. Garduque, in the following manner: accused by means of false pretenses or fraudulent representations made to complainant to the effect that she was engaged in the construction and supply business under the name A7 Corporation located in Caticlan, Aklan which business accepts investments from investors, and by means of other deceit of similar import, succeeded in inducing complainant to give and deliver, as, in fact, he gave and delivered to the accused the amount of Php750,000 representing his investment to said A7 Corporation; the accused knowing fully well that the same were false and fraudulent, and were made solely to obtain as in fact she obtained the total amount of Php750,000, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
In her defense, Elizalde argued that there was no misrepresentation because she actually maintains an existing business, as shown by the Certification 8 from the DTI and emails 9 from steel companies, which were her suppliers for the construction materials. Elizalde said that Garduque parted with his money voluntarily and with consent. 10
On July 23, 2015, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Elizalde guilty as charged. According to the RTC, the fraudulent act was Elizalde's representation to Garduque that she was authorized by A7 Corporation to secure investors for the company. The facts also showed that Elizalde continuously tried to defer the payment for the return of Garduque's investment. 11 The RTC imposed upon Elizalde the penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum and ordered Elizalde to pay Garduque the sum of P950,000.00 with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum plus attorney's fees in the amount of P100,000.00. 12
On appeal, the CA in a Decision dated January 23, 2018 affirmed with modification the RTC Decision. The CA ruled that all the elements of the crime of estafa by deceit under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC are present. The CA found that Elizalde misrepresented herself as the owner of A7 Corporation, made Garduque believe that she is authorized to act on behalf of the said corporation, used such false representations to convince Garduque to invest in the said company, and eventually caused Garduque to issue three checks in favor of Elizalde. These checks were, however, all dishonored. The CA upheld the penalty of imprisonment imposed by the RTC, but modified the legal interest from 12% to 6%. Finally, the CA directed the RTC to forfeit the bond posted for Elizalde's provisional liberty and ordered her immediate arrest. The dispositive part of the assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, for want of merit, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED.
The Decision dated 23 July 2015 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, of Makati City, in Criminal Case No. 12-083 is AFFIRMED subject to the MODIFICATION that the total amount adjudicated shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum, to be reckoned from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
The bondsman of appellant is ordered to surrender appellant to the court a quo within ten (10) days from notice and to report to this Court the fact of surrender, within ten (10) days from notice of such fact.
In case of non-surrender, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Makati City is DIRECTED to:
i. Forfeit the bond posted for appellant's provisional liberty;
ii. Order the appellant's immediate arrest; and
iii. Immediately commit appellant to the Makati City Jail — Female Dormitory.
SO ORDERED.13 (Emphasis and italics in the original)
Elizalde's Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a CA Resolution 14 dated February 19, 2019.
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Elizalde argues that the Information clearly charged her of fraudulently misrepresenting herself as someone engaged in the business and not for falsely representing herself as the owner of the A7 Corporation. Also, the owner of the A7 Corporation never repudiated the fact that Elizalde is engaged in the construction and supply business. Elizalde likewise questions the penalty imposed because under Republic Act No. (R.A.) 10951 15 only the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed if the amount involved is over P40,000.00 but not more than P1,200,000.00.
The petition is without merit.
To warrant conviction for estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC, the following elements must be present:
(a) That there must be a false pretense of fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;
(b) That such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
(c) That the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and
(d) That, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. 16
The above-mentioned elements were clearly proven, as correctly found by both the RTC and the CA.
Elizalde's defense merely relied on the technicalities as well as the proper interpretation of her statements, and did not specifically deny the fact that fraudulent statements were actually made. The records further show that the cause-and-effect relationship between the false pretense committed by Elizalde and the damage suffered by Garduque was proven by the prosecution. It is also abundantly clear that the profits promised to Garduque would not be realized. This is shown by the fact that the checks representing the promised profits were dishonored, and that Elizalde continuously evaded payment of the same.
In addition, the charge stated in the Information of being engaged in the business is broad enough to cover the finding of "falsely representing herself as an owner." This technicality, however, is not a sufficient ground to overturn Elizalde's conviction since the element being considered is the false pretense made by Elizalde, and not the degree of misrepresentation or fraud made. What is of vital importance is the determination of whether Elizalde was convicted of the crime charged in the Information as embraced within the allegations contained therein. 17 A reading of the Information yields an affirmative answer. The Information filed against Elizalde sufficiently charges estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC.
As regards the penalty imposed, it is worthy to note that pending resolution of this case R.A. No. 10951 18 was enacted into law.
Section 100 19 of R.A. No. 10951 expressly provides for its retroactive effect if it is favorable to the accused. The imposable penalty under the RPC is prision mayor in its maximum to reclusion temporal. On the other hand, R.A. 10951 imposes arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. The penalty imposed under R.A. No. 10951 is definitely lower than that of the RPC. Since it is favorable to Elizalde, the retroactive effect shall apply.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated January 23, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38071 which found petitioner Grace Elizalde y Quibael GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of estafa penalized under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the period of imprisonment shall be two (2) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to one (1) year and two (2) months, as maximum. Elizalde is further ORDERED to pay Garduque the following:
(a) P750,000.00 for the original investment and PHP200,000.00 return on investment, with interest of six percent (6%) per annum until fully paid;
(b) attorney's fees in the amount of P100,000.00; and
(c) costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-56.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring; id. at 64-76.
3.Id. at 66.
4.Id. at 66-67.
5.Id. at 67-68.
6.Id. at 68-69.
7.Id. at 65.
8.Id. at 153.
9.Id. at 202-213.
10.Id. at 150-152.
11.Id. at 81-82.
12.Id. at 83.
13.Id. at 75.
14. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring; id. at 61-62.
15. 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.
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:
xxx xxx xxx
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 (P1,200,000.00).
xxx xxx xxx.
16. Sy v. People, 632 Phil. 276, 284 (2010).
17. Ko Bu Lin v. Court of Appeals, 204 Phil. 211, 227 (1982).
18. Republic Act No. 10951 adjusted the values of the property and damage on which various penalties are based. The said law took into consideration the present value of money.
19. Sec. 100. Retroactive Effect. — This Act shall have retroactive effect to the extent that it is favorable to the accused or person serving sentence by final judgment.