SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232930. April 10, 2019.](Formerly UDK-15878)
EVELIA JACABAN, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232930 (Formerly UDK-15878) — Evelia Jacaban versus People of the Philippines
At the outset, a close examination of the Petition reveals that the issues tendered by petitioner involve factual and evidentiary matters. Petitioner is raising the same issues ruled upon by the Court of Appeals (CA), which hinges on the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) evaluation of the evidence in convicting her of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document.
It is clear therefore that the resolution of the issues raised would require a re-evaluation and recalibration of the evidence, which are, however, outside the Court's scope of review in Rule 45 petitions. While questions of fact have been entertained by the Court in justifiable circumstances, petitioner herein failed to establish that the case falls within the allowable exceptions. Hence, not being a trier of facts but of law, the Court defers to the concurrent factual findings of the RTC and the CA.
Nonetheless, after reviewing the Petition and its annexes, the Court finds no reversible error committed by the CA in affirming petitioner's conviction as the findings are sufficiently supported by the facts and controlling jurisprudence. A review under Rule 45 is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. In this regard, it bears stressing that findings of fact made by the RTC, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding on the Court absent any substantial error made by the courts below.
Be that as it may, a modification of the penalty imposed by the CA is in order in light of the recent enactment of Republic Act No. (RA) 10951, 1 which adjusted the value of the damage on which a penalty is based. In this connection, pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the penalty for a complex crime is that prescribed for the most serious component offense, in its maximum period; here, Estafa is the graver felony. Thus, as amended by RA 10951, Article 315 of the RPC now reads:
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 toprisióncorreccional 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). 2 (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, as determined by the CA, the damage incurred by petitioner squarely falls within the range of the third paragraph in the above-cited provision. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court is guided by its recent disposition in Costelo v. People, 3 which also involved the application of RA 10951 vis-à-vis the third paragraph of Article 315, as amended:
The amount involved in Criminal Case No. 09-450 is P85,000.00; while in Criminal Case No. 09-451, it is P98,500.00. The penalty for each count is thus governed by the 3rd paragraph quoted above,viz.:arresto mayor in its maximum period, which is 4 months and 1 dayto 6 months, to prisióncorreccional in its minimum period, which is 6 months and 1 dayto 2 years and 4 months of imprisonment. After dividing into three periods the total time covered by these two periods per Article 65 of the RPC, the penalty for each count is set at the computed maximum period in accordance with Article 48 of the RPC, which is 1 year 8 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months. Since this penalty lasts more than 1 year, petitioner can enjoy the beneficial application of the ISL.
Applying ISL, the minimum term should fall within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC for the offense. The next lower penalty to arresto mayor at its maximum period to prisióncorreccional at its minimum period is arrestomayor at its minimum period to arrestomayor at its medium period, which spans 1 month to 2 months to 2 months and 1 day to 4 months.
From the foregoing, the Court sentences petitioner to suffer for each count of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document the indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of 1 month and 11 days ofarrestomayor, as minimum, to 1 year 8 months and 1 day ofprisióncorreccional, as maximum.4 (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated December 14, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 02565, is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Petitioner is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of one (1) month and eleven (11) days of arrestomayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prisióncorreccional, as maximum. Petitioner is ordered to pay Abdon Añora the amount of P100,000.00, with interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum computed from the filing of the Information until June 30, 2013; and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of this Resolution. The total amount shall thereafter earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until its full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 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, August 29, 2017.
2. RA 10951, Sec. 85.
3. G.R. No. 233962, January 24, 2018 (Unsigned Resolution).
4.Id. at 7.