SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233486. February 5, 2018.]
LYSSA GRACE S. PAGANO-CALDE, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated05 February 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 233486 (Lyssa Grace S. Pagano-Calde vs. People of the Philippines). — This Petition for Review 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated January 17, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 36844, affirming the Decision 3 dated June 30, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 6 in Criminal Case No. 28198-R.
The Facts
As culled from the records, the antecedent facts are as follows:
Sometime in January 2005, Maria Louisa Gaerlan Saunders (private complainant) secured the legal services of accused Lyssa Grace S. Pagano-Calde (petitioner), a lawyer, to cause the preparation of the Deed of Conditional Sale covering the property located at No. 1, Tacay Road, Quezon Hill, Baguio City owned by Virgilio Gaerlan (Virgilio) which she intended to buy.
The amount of Php500,000.00 was given by private complainant to petitioner as partial payment to Virgilio, which petitioner shall hold in trust pending realization of the sale. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the said amount.
When the sale did not materialize, private complainant demanded the return of the Php500,000.00 but petitioner failed to return the same claiming that she had given the money to private complainant's mother, Adelia Gaerlan (Adelia). Adelia denied having received money from petitioner. She likewise denied signing an acknowledgment receipt which petitioner allegedly let her sign upon turning over the amount.
Petitioner was thereafter charged with Estafa by misappropriation under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
In its Decision 4 dated June 30, 2014, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, [petitioner] is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 par. 1 (b) of the [RPC] as charged in the Information. She is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
[Petitioner] is likewise directed to return the amount of Php500,000.00 to the private complainant, Maria Louisa Saunders which amount shall earn legal interest of 6% upon the finality of this decision.
Costs against the [petitioner].
SO ORDERED.5
Petitioner interposed an appeal but the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC in its Decision 6 dated January 17, 2017, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed June 30, 2014 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6 of Baguio City in Criminal Case No. 28198-R is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.7
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was likewise denied for being a mere rehash of arguments and issues already discussed and passed upon in the assailed CA decision. 8
Hence, this petition.
The Issues
I. Whether or not the CA erred in adopting the factual findings of the trial court and in affirming the latter's ruling; and
II. Whether or not the CA erred in giving full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
Ruling of the Court
Petition is bereft of merit.
ART. 315. Swindling (Estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property. 9 (Underscoring Ours)
The elements of Estafa under this provision are: (a) the offender's receipt of money, goods, or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return the same; (b) misappropriation of conversion by the offender of the money or property received, or denial of receipt of the money or property; (c) the misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) demand by the offended party that the offender return the money or property received. 10
Misappropriation or conversion may be proved by the prosecution by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. The failure to account upon demand, for funds or property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. In the present case, petitioner failed to account for the money received in trust from her client. As a lawyer, petitioner is bound by high ethical and moral standards to deliver her client's funds properties as they fall due or upon demand. All the elements of Estafa as defined under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the RPC is present in this case. aScITE
Apart from petitioner's bare and self-serving assertion that she gave the money to private complainant's mother, the only other piece of evidence adduced to prove such fact was the acknowledgment receipt which petitioner claimed was signed by the mother. The trial court was however convinced that the signature was forged given that it was different from the specimen signatures of private complainant's mother. Moreover, from petitioner's own statements, she was aware that private complainant had already revoked the power of attorney given to his mother. In other words, the mother had no authority to sign and receive money on behalf of private complainant. It is hard to believe that a lawyer would act in such a careless manner.
In sum, petitioner failed to adduce any cogent reason to reverse or refute the findings of the trial court. The Court has repeatedly held that trial courts are in the best position to determine the credibility and observe the demeanor of the witnesses thus their findings are entitled to great respect and even finality. In the absence of proof that the trial court and the appellate court misapplied the law or overlooked facts and circumstances of weight that would warrant a reversal of their judgment, their findings are binding upon this Court.
Penalty modified in accordance with11
The decisive factor in determining the criminal and civil liability for the crime of Estafa depends on the value of the thing or the amount defrauded. 12 The ruling of the RTC insofar as the penalty is concerned should be modified on the basis of R.A. No. 10951, viz.:
SEC. 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.
"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." (Emphasis Ours)
The amount misappropriated by the petitioner was established to be Php500,000.00. The penalty for Estafa involving the amount of Php500,000.00 is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. Hence, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law or Act No. 4103, the minimum penalty shall be taken from the range of penalty one degree lower than prision correccional, as minimum. The penalty to be thus imposed is two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, petitioner Lyssa Grace S. Pagano-Calde is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa as defined by Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. She is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as maximum.
Petitioner Lyssa Grace S. Pagano-Calde is likewise ordered to return the amount of Php500,000.00 to the private complainant, Maria Louisa Gaerlan Saunders, which shall earn interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the filing of the Information on April 10, 2008 until June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-39.
2.Id. at 40-49.
3.Id. at 75.
4.Id. at 75-102.
5.Id. at 102.
6. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring; id. at 40-49.
7.Id. at 48.
8.Id. at 50-51.
9. REVISED PENAL CODE, as amended.
10.Benabaye v. People, 755 Phil. 144, 154 (2015).
11. 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. Approved on August 29, 2017.
12.Pamintuan v. People, 635 Phil. 514 (2010).