Flavier v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 247876-77. December 2, 2021.]

TEODORA BENZ ESPIRITU FLAVIER, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 2, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. Nos. 247876-77 — Teodora Benz Espiritu Flavier v. People of the Philippines.

This petition for review on certiorari prays for the reversal of the verdict of conviction against petitioner Teodora Benz Espiritu Flavier for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) based on her assertion that she did not receive the notice of dishonor of RCBC Check No. 1377939 dated July 15, 2008 and that the element of deceit in the estafa case was not sufficiently proved. In fine, petitioner raises pure factual issues which the Court, not being a trier of facts, will not take cognizance of.

For in petitions for review on certiorari via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court is narrowly confined to the review of legal issues. Hence, the Court will not take cognizance of the factual issues here, let alone, calibrate anew the evidence which had already been thoroughly evaluated and considered thrice by the tribunals below. 1 More, the factual findings of the trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals in full, are binding and conclusive on this Court, and will generally not be reviewed on appeal. 2 Indeed, in the absence of any showing that the assailed verdict of conviction was based on misapprehension of facts or pure speculation or was otherwise tainted with grave abuse of discretion, there is no cogent reason to depart from this general rule in the present case.

Verily, therefore, the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error when it affirmed the verdict of conviction against petitioner for estafa and two counts of violation of BP 22.

But in view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 10951 3 (RA 10951), there is a need to modify the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals in Criminal Case No. Q-10-165067 (estafa), i.e., six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to eight (8) years and nine (9) months of prision mayor as maximum.

Section 85 of RA 10951 provides:

Section 85. Article 315 of the same Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, Presidential Decree No. 1689, and Presidential Decree No. 818, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"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 [T]housand [P]esos (P40,000) but does not exceed One [M]illion [T]wo [H]undred [T]housand [P]esos (P1,200,000).

xxx xxx xxx."

Considering that the amount subject of defraudation in this case is P68,000.00, the applicable penalty is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances here, petitioner should be sentenced to four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as maximum. 4

As for violation of BP 22, we sustain the imposition of fine double the amount of the dishonored checks, that is, P136,000.00 for each of RCBC Check No. 1377908, and RCBC Check No. 1377939, each having a face value of P68,000.00. This is in accordance with Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 dated February 21, 2001 Re: Penalty for Violation of BP 22, thus:

Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 (An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check without Sufficient Funds for Credit and for Other Purposes) imposes the penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than one (1) year or a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which fine shall in no case exceed P200,000[.00], or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39673 and CA-G.R. CR No. 40658 dated January 29, 2019 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION:

1. In Criminal Case No. Q-10-165067 (estafa), petitioner TEODORA BENZ ESPIRITU-FLAVIER is GUILTY of ESTAFA under Article 315, Paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code. She is sentenced to four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as maximum.

2. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-12621-22-CR, petitioner TEODORA BENZ ESPIRITU-FLAVIER is GUILTY of violation of BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22. She is ORDERED to PAY a FINE in the amount of Two Hundred Seventy-Two Thousand Pesos (P272,000.00) for RCBC Check Nos. 1377908 and 1377939, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

3. Petitioner TEODORA BENZ ESPIRITU-FLAVIER is DIRECTED to PAY private complainant the amount of Three Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos (P340,000.00) as civil indemnity.

The award of civil indemnity shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

The notice of withdrawal of appearance of Atty. Juanito L. Garcia of Garcia and Associates Law Firm, as counsel for petitioner, with conformity, stating that he is already of advanced age and notices be sent to petitioner herself at #2299 Marconi Street, Brgy. San Isidro, Makati City, is NOTED, and his prayer that he and the firm be relieved of any and all responsibilities relative to this case, is GRANTED.

Let the petitioner be FURNISHED with a copy of the Resolution at her personal address.

SO ORDERED." Lopez, J.Y., J., no part; Dimaampao, J., designated as additional Member per Raffle dated November 24, 2021.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. See Gatan v. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257, 265 (2017).

2. See Pizarro-Espiritu v. People, G.R. No. 252812 (Notice), December 2, 2020.

3. 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, approved August 29, 2017.

4. Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.