THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 211243. June 9, 2014.]
ROGELIO GUANIO AND EMMANUEL HERNANDEZ y GUANIO, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 9, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 211243 (Rogelio Guanio and Emmanuel Hernandez y Guanio v. People of the Philippines). — Considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision dated June 28, 2013 and Resolution dated January 22, 2014 as to warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
It is well settled that appellate courts generally do not disturb the findings of the trial court with regard to the assessment of the credibility of witnesses, 1 the reason being that the trial court has the opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and "note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination." 2 The exceptions to this rule are when the trial court's findings of facts and conclusions are not supported by the evidence on record, or when certain facts of substance and value likely to change the outcome of the case have been overlooked by the lower court, or when the assailed decision is based on a misapprehension of facts. No such reason exists in this case to warrant a deviation from the general rule. 3
As to conspiracy, the trial court and the CA were correct in holding that even assuming that it was only Margarita Pedreno (Pedreno) who was responsible for the falsification of the certificate of registration and official receipt, petitioners Rogelio Guanio and Emmanuel Hernandez are still liable for Estafa through Falsification of Public Document as it was through their misrepresentation and assurance that these documents were authentic and genuine that the spouses Jesus and Alicia Alvarez were defrauded and the crime committed. As pointed out by the appellate court, the damage to another is not caused by the falsification of the document but by the commission of estafa. 4 Thus, considering the unity of their purpose and intention in the commission of the crime, as evidenced from their concerted acts, petitioners are equally liable with Pedreno for the crime committed against the spouses Alvarez.
The decisions of the RTC and the CA must, therefore, be sustained. However, pursuant to BSP Circular No. 799 Series of 2013, which became effective on July 1, 2013 and set the legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum and not twelve percent (12%) as imposed by the CA, the interest on the PhP150,000 owed to the private complainants by petitioners must be reduced from 12% to 6% per annum from the finality of judgment until fully paid. DIcSHE
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the June 28, 2013 Decision and January 22, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 34105 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION:
Petitioners Rogelio Guanio and Emmanuel Hernandez y Guanio are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal as maximum, pay a fine of PhP2,000 each, jointly and severally pay the spouses Alvarez the amount of PhP150,000 with six percent interest (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision until fully paid, and pay the costs of the suit. (Villarama, Jr., J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. People v. Alverio, G.R. No. 194259, March 16, 2011, 645 SCRA 658; People v. Malana, G.R. No. 185716, September 29, 2010, 631 SCRA 676.
2. People v. Malate, G.R. No. 185724, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 817, 825.
3. People v. Burgos, G.R. No. 117451, September 29, 1997, 279 SCRA 697, 705.
4. Citing Ilumin v. Sandiganbayan, No. L-85667, February 23, 1995, 241 SCRA 586.