THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236228. April 4, 2018.]
MA. CHONA S. OLIMBERIO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236228 (Ma. Chona S. Olimberio, Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent.) — Complainant Winston L. Kawsek (Kawsek) engaged the services of the petitioner to expedite the transfer of the title of a condominium unit located in Mandaluyong City. Allegedly, the petitioner represented that she was capable and well-experienced in facilitating the transfer of titles for the Wack Wack Twin Tower Condominium, 1 and she gave him a list of expenses. He paid her P170,460.13 for that purpose at his office, and also handed to her the documents pertaining to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) requirements, capital gains tax, certificate of title, deed of sale and tax declaration. She undertook to complete the task within two weeks, and to turn over to him all the documents thereafter. 2 However, two weeks went by without any word from her. She then denied having committed to complete the task within two weeks. Accordingly, he engaged a lawyer to demand the return of the documents and the money given to her. On her part, she returned the documents but not the P170,460.13. As a consequence of the delay in transferring the property, he incurred interests, surcharges and penalties thereon. 3 He then instituted a complaint for estafa in the Regional Trial Courts in Makati City and Mandaluyong City.
In her defense, the petitioner represented that one Francisco Manalaysay (Manalaysay) approached her to assist in registering a property in the name of Kawsek; that she accepted the referral; 4 that she enlisted the help of alias Botchok to handle the transactions with the BIR and the Register of Deeds, and gave Manalaysay a commission of P10,000.00; that a month later, she followed up on the status of the transfer with Botchok; that Manalaysay subsequently demanded the return of the documents from her; that unfortunately, she lost contact with Botchok, and immediately informed Kawsek and Manalaysay about it; that Kawsek then forced her to sign a promissory note for P1,300,000.00 in his favor; that she entered into a settlement with Kawsek by paying his lawyer the amount of P288,051.20 in exchange for the dismissal of the cases against her; and that the case in the RTC in Makati City was terminated, but the case in the RTC in Mandaluyong City remained.
On November 25, 2015, the RTC convicted the petitioner of the crime charged, disposing:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused, CHONA OLIMBERIO, GUILTY for Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
In view thereof, accused, CHONA OLIMBERIO, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion temporal and to reimburse to the private complainant, Winston L. Kawsek, the following:
a) the amount of one hundred seventy two (sic) thousand four hundred sixty pesos and 13/100 (P170,460.13) with interest at twelve (12%) per annum reckoned from January 3, 2008;
b) the amount of forty nine thousand six hundred eighty one and 46/100 (P49,681.46), representing the additional expense incurred by the private complainant relative to the penalty and surcharge as a result of the late payment of the BIR documentary stamps and capital gains tax;
c) the amount of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), as attorney's fees;
d) the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), as exemplary damages; and
e) the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED. 5
The motion for reconsideration of the petitioner was subsequently denied by the RTC.
In the decision promulgated on August 29, 2017, the CA denied the petitioner's appeal, holding:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated November 25, 2015 and the Order dated April 6, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 213, in Criminal Case No. MC09-12130 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that: (1) Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum; (2) She is further ordered to reimburse private complainant the total amount of P220,141.59 as actual damages, with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the filing of the complaint until June 30, 2013, and interest of six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment; and (3) The awards of attorney's fees and exemplary damages are DELETED.
Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED. 6
The CA held that all the elements of the crime of estafa by means of deceit were established; that the petitioner's representations that she had the capacity to facilitate the transfer of the title of the condominium unit in the Wack Wack Twin Tower Condominium to Kawsek's name was an outright falsehood and done only to induce him to part with his P170,460.13; that despite her claim of being a broker for many years, the records were bereft of any indication that she was licensed by the Department of Trade and Industry or had the necessary permit from the government agencies to engage in such activity; that because Kawsek had known of her before the transaction, there was reason for him to rely on her representations; and that the law did not require as an element of the crime proof that she had misappropriated or converted the swindled money or property. 7
The petitioner's final attempt to be exonerated from criminal liability was her insistence that she had already settled the issue with Kawsek by paying her liability to him. The CA noted, however, that such settlement concerned the case pending in the Makati City RTC involving her failure to account for the funds entrusted to her for the registration and transfer of Kawsek's other property located in San Juan City.
The CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration through the resolution promulgated on December 19, 2017. 8
The petitioner has come to the Court to seek the reversal of the assailed decision of the CA upon the following grounds, to wit:
(a) The Court of Appeals' ruling are unfounded in law or contrary to the judicial precedents of the Supreme Court when it affirmed the RTC's Judgment and Decision; and
(b) The Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner's payment of P220,141.59 was exclusively in settlement of the other Estafa case filed by the private complainant against the petitioner in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 141, docketed as Criminal Case No. 09-100 and not for both cases including that in the RTC. 9
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
First of all, the issues raised by the petitioner are a mere rehash of those already considered and decided by the RTC and the CA. She would have us review the facts and evidence on record and pass upon the same factual issues. But such review is not within the province and competence of this Court, which is not a trier of facts. Moreover, such a review would be superfluous considering that the Court is now concluded and bound by the common findings of fact made by the RTC and the CA. We do not deviate from their common findings unless she would have shown to us that the lower courts had conflicted in their findings, or had grossly misappreciated or misapprehended the facts. But the lower courts did not conflict with each other on their findings, and did not misappreciate or misapprehend the facts. On the contrary, their findings firmly rested on the records.
And, secondly, the findings and conclusions of the CA conformed to the law and pertinent jurisprudence.
The elements of estafa by means of deceit under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code are the following:
(a) There must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;
(b) Such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
(c) The offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, and was thereby induced to part with his money or property; and
(d) As a result, the offended party suffered damage. 10
The petitioner and Kawsek were shown to have known each other prior to the transaction. She had been his customer in his business center. Their having been acquainted with each other led to her convincing him that she had the power and influence to facilitate the transfer of the title to his condominium unit. He then parted with his money amounting to P170,460.13, the amount necessary to cover the cost of transferring the title to his name. After the lapse of more than a month, she still failed to do what she had undertaken to accomplish, which was to his prejudice.
All the elements of estafa were present. We note, however, that the penalty imposed by the CA was not in accord with the recent developments in legislation. Republic Act No. 10951, which took effect on September 14, 2017, already modified the penalty to be imposed on estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. As the law on estafa now stands, the following extent of the penalty appropriate for this case is as follows:
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinabove shall be punished by:
xxx xxx xxx
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 (P40,000.00) but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000.00).
xxx xxx xxx
With the petitioner having defrauded Kawsek in the amount of P170,460.13, which is more than P40,000.00 but less than P1,200,000.00, the appropriate penalty under the amendment is imprisonment that ranges from four months and one day to two years and four months. Accordingly, in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper imposable penalty is the medium period of the imposable penalty, or one year and one day to one year and eight months of prision correccional.
Pursuant to Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court, in imposing a prison sentence, is mandated to prescribe an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, can be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the offense. The minimum of the indeterminate sentence is taken from the degree next lower, which is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods (that is, one month and one day to four months).
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from two months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one year and one day of prision correccional, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on August 29, 2017 IN ALL RESPECTS subject to the MODIFICATION that petitioner Ma. Chona Olimberio shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from two months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one year and one day of prision correccional, as maximum.
The petitioner shall pay the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 37.
2.Id. at 38.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 39-40.
5.Id. at 41-42.
6.Id. at 50.
7.Id. at 44-45.
8.Id. at 54-55.
9.Id. at 13.
10. People v. Tibayan, G.R. No. 209655-60, January 24, 2015, 746 SCRA 259, 268.