THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200207. November 11, 2015.]
EDGARDO NONO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 11, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200207 (Edgardo Nono vs. People of the Philippines). — The Court NOTES the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation (in Lieu of Comment) dated May 12, 2015 stating that it finds no cogent reason to deny petitioner's motion to withdraw appeal.
On June 7, 2004, Edgar Nono (petitioner), was charged with the crime of Estafa in relation to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1689. 1 His twin brother Eduardo and the purported officers of H-Factor Marketing and Trading Corporation, namely, Leo Andreau Hadi, Renesita Isla and Genaro Isla, were also included in the Information, which reads:
That on or about the period from June, 2002, to March, 2003, in the Municipality of Cuyapo, Province of Nueva Ecija, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, by means of false representation, and fraudulent manifestation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously defraud several persons by recruiting and convincing them to invest their moneys to [H-Factor] which will pay them interest at the rate of 6% per month, and to return their money or investment upon demand, and by reason of said misrepresentation, said persons parted with all their moneys to wit:
|
NAME
|
AMT. OF INVESTMENT
|
DATE
|
|
| Emilie Rose Paraiso |
P100,000.00
|
June 25, 2002
|
|
| Asuncion Erese |
P50,000.00
|
Dec. 08, 2002
|
|
| Fidela Galinato |
P50,000.00
|
June 14, 2002
|
|
| Fidela Galinato |
P50,000.00
|
Aug. 13, 2002
|
|
| Nemesio Balmonte n |
P50,000.00
|
Aug. 23, 2002
|
|
| Vilma Aquino |
P100,000.00
|
Aug. 13, 2002
|
|
| Lydia Valdez |
P50,000.00
|
Aug. 06, 2002
|
|
| Lydia Valdez |
P50,000.00
|
Mar. 06, 2002
|
|
| Jocelyn Casilan |
P100,000.00
|
Aug. 15, 2002
|
|
| Connie dela Torre |
P20,000.00
|
May 30, 2002
|
but once in possession of said amount, respondents misappropriate, and convert the same to their personal use and benefit, and despite several demands by the complainants to the respondents to give and/or return their money and the interest thereon, respondents still failed and refused to do so up to this date, to the damage and prejudice of the said complainants.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
After trial, in its Decision 3 dated November 20, 2006, the Regional Trial Court of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 33, in Criminal Case No. 2170-G convicted the petitioner of the crime of Estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to P.D. No. 1689. The dispositive portion of the assailed decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding both accused [petitioner] and Leo Andreau Hadi guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged[,] this Court sentences each of them to reclusion temporal and ordering them to pay the complainants jointly and severally, as follows:
a. Emilie Rose Paraiso — P100,000[.00] plus interest at 12% per annum from June 25, 2002 until fully paid[;]
b. Asuncion Erese — P50,000[.00] plus interest at 12% per annum from December 8, 2002 until fully paid[;]
c. Fidela Galinato — P100,000[.00] plus interest at 12% per annum from August 13, 2002 until fully paid[;]
d. Nemesio Belmonte — P50,000[.00] plus interest at 12% per annum from August 13, 2002 until fully paid[;]
e. Vilma Aquino — P100,000[.00] plus interest at 12% per annum from August 13, 2002 until fully paid[;]
f. Lydia Valdez — P100,000[.00] plus interest at 12% per annum from August 6, 2002 until fully paid[;]
g. Jocelyn Casilan — P100,000[.00] plus interest at 12% per annum from August 15, 2002 until fully paid[;]
h. Connie dela Torre — P20,000[.00] plus interest at 12% per annum from May 30, 2002 until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 4
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA), in its Decision 5 dated May 31, 2011, affirmed the petitioner's conviction under P.D. No. 1689 but modified the penalty. Section 1 of P.D. No. 1689 provides:
SEC. 1. Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall be punished by life imprisonment to death if the swindling (estafa) is committed by a syndicate consisting of five or more persons formed wit the intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme, and the defraudation results in the misappropriation of money contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon(s)", or farmers' associations, or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.
When not committed by a syndicate as above defined, the penalty imposable shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of the fraud exceeds [P]100,000 pesos. (Emphasis ours)
The appellate court held that since the crime was not shown to have been committed by a syndicate, and the amount involved exceeds P100,000.00, the imposable penalty under P.D. No. 1689 is reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, but in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty imposable is in the medium period, or sixteen (16) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. However, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) recommended the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to which the CA concurred.
On March 12, 2012, the petitioner came up to this Court on Appeal by Certiorari, 6 wherein he reiterated that he was not a party to the defraudation of the complainants but he acted merely as a conduit for their funds in a legitimate investment. On July 31, 2012, the OSG filed its Comment 7 upholding his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and praying for the denial of his petition.
On January 29, 2013, the petitioner filed his Reply. 8
On February 10, 2015, the petitioner's counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw Appeal, 9 upon instruction of the petitioner in his letter 10 dated September 20, 2014, which he sent from Cell No. 219, Medium Security Compound, Camp Sampaguita in Muntinlupa City, and was received by the counsel's law office on October 1, 2014, in which he authorized his counsel, for "some personal reason" to take all "necessary actions" in his behalf to withdraw his appeal in the Supreme Court. On May 12, 2015, the OSG filed a Manifestation in Lieu of Comment stating that it found no cogent reason to deny the petitioner's motion. 11
ACTING on petitioner Edgardo R. Nono's Motion to Withdraw Appeal dated February 6, 2015, to which the Office of the Solicitor General raised no objection, and finding the same to be voluntary and not contrary to law, morals or public policy, the motion is GRANTED." (Jardeleza, J.,no part in view of his participation in the Office of the Solicitor General; Carpio, J.,designated additional Member per Raffle dated May 20, 2015.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. INCREASING THE PENALTY FOR CERTAIN FORMS OF SWINDLING OR ESTAFA. Approved on April 6, 1980.
2. Rollo, pp. 39-40.
3. Rendered by Judge Ismael P. Casabar; id. at 39-48.
4. Id. at 47-48.
5. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, with Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring; id. at 23-35.
6. Id. at 9-20.
7. Id. at 121-132.
8. Id. at 162-169.
9. Id. at 173-175.
10. Id. at 177.
11. Id. at 180-183.
n Note from the Publisher: Also referred as "Belmonte" in some portion of the document.