THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243469. July 1, 2019.]
MA. CESARIA N. GAUDIA, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 1, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243469 (Ma. Cesaria N. Gaudia v. People of the Philippines). — Petitioner Ma. Cesaria N. Gaudia was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code in an information filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 87, which reads:
That on or about the period from June, 2010 to February, 2011 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above named accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud SPO1 LEILANI ANDRES y GEMENTIZA in the following manner, to wit: the above named accused received in trust from the said SPO1 LEILANI ANDRES y GEMENTIZA the amount of Eighty-Seven Thousand Pesos, Philippine currency (PhP87,000.00) for the specific purpose of spending the same as expenses to facilitate the transfer to the name of the offended part[y] a taxi franchise the offended party purchased from a third party and effect the release of the registration papers of the said taxicab in the name of the offended party from the Land Transportation Office (LTO) or return the money to the offended party if the transfer does not push through, but the said accused, once in possession of the said money, with unfaithfulness, abuse of confidence and with intent to defraud, did then and there fail to return the money to the offended party after the above named accused failed to facilitate the transfer of the taxi franchise to the offended party, thus misappropriating and converting the amount of Eighty-Seven Thousand Pesos, Philippine currency (PhP87,000.00) for her own personal use and benefit and despite oral and written demands, she failed and refused and still fails and refuses to account for the said money thereof, to the damage and prejudice of the offended party in the amount aforementioned. 1
The prosecution alleges that petitioner initially charged Senior Police Officer 1 Leilani Andres (Andres) PhP75,000.00 for the processing of the taxi franchise. Andres gave an initial down payment of PhP35,000.00, but petitioner issued a receipt only for PhP24,000.00. Succeeding payments in the aggregate amount of PhP52,000.00 were made by Andres to petitioner bringing the total amount paid to PhP87,000.00. When petitioner was unable to secure a taxi franchise, she promised to return PhP87,000.00 by executing two promissory notes. Petitioner was only able to return a total of PhP70,000.00 to Andres, leaving a balance of PhP17,000.00. Thereafter, Andres filed a complaint for Estafa against petitioner. During the hearing set by the Assistant City Prosecutor, petitioner neither appeared nor submitted any counter-affidavit. Relying solely on the complaint, the Assistant City Prosecutor found probable cause to charge petitioner for Estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code. At the arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Petitioner also failed to appear during the trial.
In a Decision 2 dated February 1, 2017, the trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa, and sentenced her as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding the accused MA. CESARIA N. GAUDIA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ESTAFA defined and penalized under Art. 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The accused is hereby found guilty of the crime of Estafa and is sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of Two (2) Years, Ten (10) Months and Twenty-One (21) Days of Prision Correccional as minimum to Six (6) years, Eight (8) months and Twenty-One (21) days Pris[i]on Mayor as maximum. 3
The trial court held that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements for the crime of Estafa, thus proving the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. According to the trial court, the prosecution was able to prove that petitioner received from Andres the total amount of PhP87,000.00 as evidenced by receipts and a bank deposit slip. The trial court ruled that the element of misappropriation was proven by circumstantial evidence and that the failure to return the money naturally caused prejudice and damage to Andres.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated July 11, 2018, 4 affirmed the judgment of conviction but modified the penalty imposed, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 1 February 2017 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 87, Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-11-177120 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS, that accused-appellant is sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months and twenty (20) days of arresto mayor in its medium period as minimum and six (6) months of arresto mayor in its maximum period as maximum. 5
The appellate court added that the failure of petitioner to account for, upon demand, the money which she received in trust to process the taxi franchise constitutes circumstantial evidence of misappropriation and conversion to her own personal use. The appellate court dismissed the alleged inconsistency cited by petitioner as a minor detail which will not impinge on the integrity of the testimony of Andres. The appellate court however applied Section 85 6 of Republic Act No. 10951 in lowering the penalty. A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner but it was denied in a Resolution 7 dated December 5, 2018.
In her Petition for Review, petitioner insists that the inconsistent testimonies of Andres as to the amount she paid to petitioner demonstrate her propensity to be untruthful which casts doubts over her credibility as a witness. Petitioner notes that Andres's claim that she paid PhP35,000.00 to petitioner but was only issued a receipt for PhP24,000.00 is contrary to human nature. Petitioner further argues that the bank receipt and other receipts presented by Andres did not in any way prove that these were indeed payment for the processing fee.
We affirm the guilt of petitioner.
Records show that the prosecution has sufficiently established the following elements of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code: (1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or a denial of the receipt thereof; (3) that the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender. 8
First, petitioner received several amounts from Andres as evidenced by a deposit slip, acknowledgment receipt and promissory note executed by petitioner herself. Second, a legal presumption of misappropriation arises when the accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the items to behold and fails to give an account of their whereabouts. 9 In this case, misappropriation is deducible from petitioner's failure to return the money entrusted to her. Third, Andres is deemed to have suffered damage when she parted with her money and did not receive a taxi franchise in exchange therefor. And fourth, Andres made several demands to petitioner to pay.
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951, provides that the imposable penalty is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, which is from two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) months when the amount of the fraud does not exceed PhP40,000.00. Considering that no mitigating and aggravating circumstance was present, the proper penalty should be within the range of three (3) months and eleven (11) days to four (4) months and twenty (20) days. The Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not be applied in this case since the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year. 10 Thus, the penalty of four (4) months and twenty (20) days of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods was correctly imposed by the Court of Appeals.
Furthermore, petitioner should also be ordered to pay Andres the unpaid balance of PhP17,000,00 plus interest. In conformity with our ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 11 the sum of PhP17,000.00 shall earn interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the time of its judicial demand, i.e., filing of the Information, until June 30, 2013 and thereafter at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of this Resolution. From then, the entire amount of judgment award shall earn six percent interest (6%) per annum until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 11, 2018 and Resolution dated December 5, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39846 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioner Ma. Cesaria N. Gaudia is directed to pay private complainant SPO1 Leilani Andres the amount of PhP17,000.00 which shall be subject to interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the filing of the Information on October 18, 2011 until June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of this Resolution. Thereafter, the entire amount payable shall be subject to interest of six percent (6%) per annum until full satisfaction thereof.
SO ORDERED."PERLAS-BERNABE, J., additional member per Raffle dated June 19, 2019 vice INTING, J.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 32-33.
2.Id. at 59-67.
3.Id. at 66-67.
4.Id. at 29-41; penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of this Court) concurring.
5.Id. at 40.
6. 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:
Article 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:
xxx xxx xxx
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[.]
7.Rollo, pp. 43-45.
8.Gamaro v. People, 818 SCRA 640, 653-654 (2017).
9.Balerta v. People, 748 Phil. 806 (2014).
10. Sec. 2. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life-imprisonment; to those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; to those convicted of piracy; to those who are habitual delinquents; to those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; to those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, nor to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof.
11. 716 Phil. 267 (2013).