SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248374. September 28, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.VIRGIE F. DINGAL, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 28, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248374 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. VIRGIE F. DINGAL, accused-appellant. — In compliance with its June 25, 2019 Resolution, 1 the Court of Appeals elevated 2 the records of this case and gave due course to the Notice of Appeal 3 filed by accused-appellant Virgie F. Dingal.
In a September 11, 2019 Resolution, 4 this Court noted the records and allowed the parties to submit supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within 30 days from notice. In an August 25, 2020 Manifestation, 5 accused-appellant indicated that she will no longer file a supplemental brief considering that she had already exhaustively discussed her arguments in her Accused-Appellants' Brief before the Court of Appeals. The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of plaintiff-appellee, filed a similar Manifestation 6 on December 4, 2019.
After evaluating the records of this case, this Court resolves to affirm the conviction of accused-appellant and dismiss the appeal, there being no reversible error in the assailed Decision 7 that would warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
We revise the penalty imposed on accused-appellant. It should have been based on Article 309 in relation to Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951. Enacted in 2017, Republic Act No. 10951 adjusted the value of property and damage on which the penalty for qualified theft is based.
Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, now provides that any person guilty of theft shall be punished by: SDHTEC
The penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000) but does not exceed Two million two hundred thousand pesos (P2,200,000); but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount, the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one (1) year for each additional One million pesos (P1,000,000), but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty (20) 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 prisión mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
The penalty next higher by two degrees is imposed if the theft is done with grave abuse of confidence, as in this case. 8
Here, accused-appellant appropriated P4,750,494.96, which exceeds the threshold amount of P2,200,000.00. Ordinarily, accused-appellant should be punished with prision mayor in its maximum period and two additional years for each P1,000,000.00 in excess of the P2,200,000.00. However, given that accused-appellant was convicted of qualified theft, the penalty next higher by two degrees should be imposed, i.e., reclusion perpetua.
FOR THESE REASONS, the November 24, 2017 Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 02784 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Virgie F. Dingal is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of QUALIFIED THEFT punished under Article 310, in relation to Article 309, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951. She is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole in accordance with Republic Act No. 9346. She is further ordered to PAY the University of Southern Philippines Foundation, Inc. the amount of P4,750,494.96, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. 9
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, M., J., on official business)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, p. 219.
2. Rollo, p. 1.
3. Id. at 33-35.
4. Id. at 41-42.
5. Accused-Appellant's Manifestation.
6. Rollo, pp. 43-44.
7. Id. at 5-32. The November 24, 2017 Decision in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 02784 was penned by Associate Justice Edgardo Delos Santos (now a retired Member of this Court) with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edward B. Contreras and Gabriel T. Robeniol of the Nineteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
8. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 310.
9. Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].