THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227357. February 7, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MARCELITA AMIGO AND ESTEBAN F. CAYABYAB, accused; ESTEBAN F. CAYABYAB, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 7, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 227357 (People of the Philippines vs. Marcelita Amigo and Esteban F. Cayabyab, accused; Esteban F. Cayabyab, accused-appellant). — Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed August 28, 2015 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06482 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Marcelita Amigo and Esteban F. Cayabyab, Accused, Esteban Cayabyab, Accused-Appellant." In the questioned Decision, the CA affirmed with modification the February 12, 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 74, finding accused-appellant Esteban Cayabyab (Cayabyab) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment in Criminal Cases Nos. 222-07 and 262-08; and five counts of Estafa in Criminal Case Nos. 289-07 and 291-07.
A modification of the penalties imposed in his conviction for Estafa is, however, necessary in view of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 10951 1 (RA 10951).
Cayabyab was charged with the aforesaid crimes to which he pleaded not guilty during arraignment. His co-accused Amigo, however, remains at-large. The cases were tried jointly.
On February 12, 2013, the RTC rendered a Decision finding Cayabyab guilty of the charges against him, except for Criminal Case Nos. 290-07, 381-08 and 395-08, the fallo of which reads:
IN VIEW THEREOF, the Court finds and declares ESTEBAN CAYABYAB guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment large scale as charged in:
1] Criminal Case No. 222-07, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, to pay the fine of Php100,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.
2] Criminal Case No. 262-08, said accused is hereby to pay (sic) the fine of Php100,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.
The court also finds and declares the same accused ESTEBAN CAYABYAB, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa on five counts and hereby sentences him:
1] In Criminal Case No. 289-07, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for Twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to Twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum; to indemnify complaining witness Gabriel Cabesas in the amount of Php20,000.00; and to pay the costs;
2] In Criminal Case No. 291-07, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for Twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to Twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum; to indemnify complaining witness Luzviminda Cabesas in the amount of Php15,000.00, and to pay costs;
The charged (sic) against accused ESTEBAN CAYABYAB in Criminal Case Nos. 290-07, 381-08, and 395-08 are dismissed for lack of interest to prosecution (sic). 2
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's ruling, with modifications as to the penalties imposed. Thus, the CA disposed of the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 74, dated 12 February 2013, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as follows:
"IN VIEW THEREOF, the Court finds and declares ESTEBAN CAYABYAB guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment large scale as charged in:
1] Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale in Criminal Case No. 222-07, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, to pay the fine of Php500,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.
2] Simple Illegal Recruitment in Criminal Case No. 262-08, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Imprisonment from Eight (8) to Ten (10) Years and to pay the fine of Php200,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.
The Court also finds and declares the same accused ESTEBAN CAYABYAB, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa on five (5) counts and hereby sentences him: CAIHTE
1] In Criminal Case No. 289-07, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to Five (5) Years, Five (5) Months and Eleven (11) days of prision correccional as maximum; to indemnify complaining witness Gabriel Cabesas in the amount of Php20,000.00; and to pay the costs;
2] In Criminal Case No. 291-07, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for Two (2) years, Four (4) Months and One (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to Five (5) years, Five (5) Months and Eleven (11) Days of prision correccional as maximum; to indemnify complaining witness Luzviminda Cabesas in the amount of Php15,000.00, and to pay costs;
The charged (sic) against accused ESTEBAN CAYABYAB in Criminal Case Nos. 290-07, 381-08, and 395-08 are dismissed for lack of interest to prosecution (sic)."
SO ORDERED.3
We find no reason to disturb the ruling of the CA ruling on appellant's guilt, as well as the penalty meted upon him for the illegal recruitment case. However, it is necessary to modify the penalties imposed in his conviction for Estafa.
Preliminarily, in Heirs of Spouses Liwagon and Dumalagan v. Heirs of Spouses Liwagon and Liwagon, 4 this Court emphasized that:
The Court defers and accords finality to the factual findings of trial courts especially when such findings are undisturbed by the appellate court, as in the case at bar. This factual determination deserves great weight and shall not be disturbed on appeal, save for the most compelling reasons, such as when that determination is clearly without evidentiary support or when grave abuse of discretion has been committed. It is not the function of this Court to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of the factual holdings of lower courts, or that would defeat the very essence of Rule 45 and would convert the Court into a trier of facts. (Citations omitted)
While there are indeed exceptions to the rule, the instant case does not fall under any of the said grounds.
It is settled that a person, for the same acts, may be convicted separately for illegal recruitment under RA 8042 (or the Labor Code), and estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code. 5
RA 8042, otherwise known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995," established a higher standard of protection and promotion of the welfare of the migrant workers, their families and overseas Filipinos in distress. 6 RA 8042 also broadened the concept of illegal recruitment for overseas employment and increased the penalties, especially for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Illegal Recruitment Committed by a Syndicate, which are considered offenses involving economic sabotage. 7
For Illegal Recruitment, Section 6 of RA 8042 provides for its definition, thus:
SEC. 6. Definition. — For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13 (f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad for two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged.
xxx xxx xxx
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
Section 7 of the same law provides that those who shall be found guilty of illegal recruitment shall be meted the following penalties, to wit: DETACa
SEC. 7. Penalties. —
(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of not less than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.
Here, We agree with the RTC and the CA that in this case, the prosecution sufficiently proved that appellant was, indeed, engaged in large-scale illegal recruitment in Criminal Case No. 222-07. As for Criminal Case No. 262-08, the CA correctly modified the RTC's ruling, finding that Cayabyab only committed simple illegal recruitment since what was proved during trial was its commission against two (2) complainants only. 8
For the charges of Estafa, the prosecution must prove the concurrence of the following elements, to wit: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.
In the instant case, the RTC and the CA correctly found Cayabyab guilty thereof. The prosecution proved that Cayabyab deceived the private complainants into believing that he had the authority and capability to send them abroad for employment when in truth and in fact, he was not licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. His act of requiring them to submit certain documents as requirements for employment and even accompanying some of them in completing their medical examination led them to believe that his operations were legitimate. Because of his actions, they paid him the amounts of P20,000.00 for Gabriel Cabesas and P15,000.00 for Luzviminda Cabesas, 9 to cover the supposed placement fees, among others. Clearly, these acts constitute estafa punishable under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code.
The penalty for estafa depends on the amount defrauded. Article 315 of the RPC provides thusly:
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow 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 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, 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 10,000 pesos; 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.
Thus, under said provision, when the amount of fraud is over P12,000 but not exceeding P22,000, as in this case, the imposable penalty is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, i.e., from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 8 years. Then, following the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC, which is prision correccional in its minimum to medium period. 10The time included in this penalty is from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months.11
As regards the maximum term, the same law dictates that it shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the RPC. The range of penalty under Article 315 is composed of only two periods. 12 To compute the maximum period of the indeterminate sentence, the total number of years included in the two periods should be divided into three equal portions, with each portion forming a period. 13 Following this computation, the minimum, medium, and maximum periods of the prescribed penalty are:
1. Minimum Period — 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 5 years, 5 months and 10 days;
2. Medium Period — 5 years, 5 months and 11 days to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days; aDSIHc
3. Maximum Period — 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years. 14
There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the maximum penalty shall be taken from the medium period stated above.
The CA's modification of the penalties imposed in Criminal Case Nos. 222-07 and 262-08, therefore, is consistent with the above-cited provisions. However, while the CA's modification of the penalty is not erroneous at the time of its promulgation, the subsequent passage of RA 10951 which took effect on September 14, 2017 calls for its further modification applying Section 100 thereof which reads:
SECTION 100. Retroactive Effect. — This Act shall have retroactive effect to the extent that it is favorable to the accused or person serving sentence by final judgment.
Under RA 10951, particularly Section 85 thereof, the penalty to be imposed for the crime of Estafa under Article 315 par. 2 (a) where the amount does not exceed Forty thousand pesos (P40,000), for which appellant was convicted, is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods. Thus:
SECTION 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 hereinbelow shall be punished by:
xxx xxx xxx
"4th. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if such amount does not exceed Forty thousand pesos (P40,000): Provided, That in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means:
xxx xxx xxx
"2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
"(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits."
As between the original penalty imposed under the RPC — prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, i.e., from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 8 years; and the new penalty — arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods or 2 months and 1 day to 6 months, the new period is markedly shorter than the original.
While it is true that the new penalty bars appellant form benefitting from the Indeterminate Sentence Law since said law specifically removes from its operation imprisonment with a maximum term that does not exceed one year, 15 still, the new penalty is more beneficial to the appellant, it being shorter than the original penalty even after application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Clearly beneficial to the appellant, We apply RA 10951 pursuant to Sec. 100 thereof. Consequently, the penalty to be imposed shall be a single or straight penalty in view of the non-applicability of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. 16
WHEREFORE, the assailed August 28, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06482 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. As modified, the fallo of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 74, dated February 12, 2013, shall read:
IN VIEW THEREOF, the Court finds and declares ESTEBAN CAYABYAB guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment large scale as charged in:
1] Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale in Criminal Case No. 222-07, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, to pay the fine of Php500,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.
2] Simple Illegal Recruitment in Criminal Case No. 262-08, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Imprisonment from Eight (8) to Ten (10) Years and to pay the fine of Php200,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.
The Court also finds and declares the same accused ESTEBAN CAYABYAB, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa on five (5) counts and hereby sentences him: ETHIDa
1] In Criminal Case No. 289-07, to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor and to indemnify complaining witness Gabriel Cabesas in the amount of Php20,000.00; and to pay the costs;
2] In Criminal Case No. 291-07, to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of five (5) months of arresto mayor and to indemnify complaining witness Luzviminda Cabesas in the amount of Php15,000.00, and to pay costs;
The charged (sic) against accused ESTEBAN CAYABYAB in Criminal Case Nos. 290-07, 381-08, and 395-08 are dismissed for lack of interest to prosecution (sic).
(Martires, J., on leave)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision 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.
2.Rollo, pp. 7-8.
3.Id. at 14-15.
4. G.R. No. 193117, November 26, 2014.
5.People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 208686, July 1, 2015.
6.Id.
7.People v. Nogra, 585 Phil. 712 (2008), cited in People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 208686, July 1, 2015.
8.Rollo, p. 11.
9.Id. at 13.
10. See People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 208686, July 1, 2015.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.See Sec. 2, Act 4103, as amended.
16. See IN RE JUDGE JOSE G. PAULIN of Branch III of the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte, A.M. No. OCA-112, December 19, 1980.