FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235072. February 13, 2019.]
FERNANDO GERONIMO A.K.A. FERNANDO "DONN" DEL ROSARIO GERONIMO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 13, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235072 (FERNANDO GERONIMO a.k.a. FERNANDO "DONN" DEL ROSARIO GERONIMO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent) — We resolve the Motion for Reconsideration (of the January 31, 2018 Resolution with Motion to Reduce Penalty pursuant to Republic Act No. 10951) filed by herein petitioner. The petitioner maintained that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's judgment of conviction considering that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of illegal recruitment and estafa. As an alternative relief, the petitioner prayed for the reduction of the penalties imposed upon him pursuant to Section 85 of Republic Act No. 10951.
After a judicious consideration of the petitioner's arguments, the Court maintains its ruling that the Court of Appeals (CA) did not commit reversible error in affirming the petitioner's conviction for illegal recruitment and estafa. Nonetheless, the Court finds it necessary to modify the penalties imposed in Criminal (Crim.) Case Nos. Q-05-133521 and Q-08-154776, both for estafa, in light of Republic Act No. 10951 1 which adjusted the threshold amounts and corresponding penalties for said crime.
Section 85 of R.A. No. 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:
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision 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 prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. CAIHTE
2nd. The penalty of prision 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 prision 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) x x x
In its January 4, 2016 Joint Decision, 2 the trial court found that the amount defrauded through estafa in Crim. Case No. Q-05-133521 was P46,423.20. As for Crim. Case No. Q-08-154776, the amount defrauded was P40,000.00.
Applying R.A. No. 10951, the prescribed penalty for estafa in Crim. Case No. Q-05-133521 should be arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. While in Crim. Case No. Q-08-154776, the penalty should be arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum period of the indeterminate sentence shall be taken from the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, after considering the modifying circumstances in the commission of the crime. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances present in this case, the maximum term should be within the medium period of the prescribed penalty. On the other hand, the minimum period of the indeterminate sentence shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that provided by law. 3
Hence, in Crim. Case No. Q-05-133521, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence shall be within the range of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods. For Crim. Case No. Q-08-154776, the indeterminate sentence law finds no application because the maximum imposable term of imprisonment does not exceed one year. 4
Consequently, the petitioner is sentenced in Crim. Case No. Q-05-133521 to suffer two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum. In Crim. Case No. Q-08-154776, Geronimo is sentenced to suffer a straight penalty of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor.
ACCORDINGLY, We DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit, and AFFIRM the January 31, 2018 Resolution with MODIFICATION that the petitioner Fernando Geronimo a.k.a. Fernando "Donn" Del Rosario Geronimo is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum for one (1) count of estafa in Crim. Case No. Q-05-133521, and four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor for one (1) count of estafa in Crim. Case No. Q-08-154776. DETACa
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Republic Act No. 10951, 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, signed on August 29, 2017 and published in the Official Gazette, Vol. 113, No. 37, p. 6767 on September 11, 2017.
2.Id. at 71-79.
3.People v. Cabanada y Rosauro, G.R. No. 221424 (Notice), October 1, 2018.
4. Section 2, Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law), as amended, December 5, 1933.