FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229390. October 1, 2018.]
WILLIAM PO AND JOHNSON MARTINEZ, petitioners, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND WINFULL CORPORATION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 1, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229390 — William Po and Johnson Martinez, Petitioners vs. People of the Philippines and Winfull Corporation, Respondents.
Acting on the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioners to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed February 17, 2016 Decision and January 12, 2017 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 36481, which affirmed with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 17, finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Section 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. On the contrary, the CA's Decision and Resolution are in accord with the facts and the applicable laws and jurisprudence.
The CA correctly affirmed petitioners' conviction for Estafa. The elements of the said crime are as follows:
1. that personal property is received in trust, on commission, for administration, or under any other circumstance involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same, even though the obligation is guaranteed by a bond; CAIHTE
2. that there is conversion or diversion of such property by the person who received it or denial on his part that he received it;
3. that such conversion or diversion or denial caused injury to another; and
4. that there is a demand for the return of the property.
In this case, all the elements above had been sufficiently established by the prosecution. Petitioners were entrusted with the operation of the Lai Lai Hotel under a contract of lease entered into between Winfull Corporation and Agusan Corporation. By virtue of such lease contract, petitioners received the personal property consisting of appliances, furnitures, and equipment inside the hotel with a duty to return the same. Petitioners failed to comply with their obligation to return the personal properties and even denied having received the same. As a result, Winfull Corporation suffered damage by reason of the misappropriation of its personal properties in the amount of P7,129,710.00. Winfull Corporation made a demand for the return of the missing properties but petitioners failed to return the same.
Both the RTC and the CA correctly found that Cynthia Mendoza was an employee of Agusan Corporation and that she acted on behalf of the petitioners when she signed the receipt of the inventory that listed all the appliances, furnitures, and equipment inside the hotel. Petitioners cannot now deny the authority of their own accountant in order to evade their obligation. Moreover, it is a settled rule that factual findings of the trial court are accorded great weight and even finality especially when affirmed by the CA, as in this case. Since this Court is not a trier of facts, we find no reason to reverse the findings of the RTC which were affirmed by the CA.
On the issue of the applicability of the Parol Evidence Rule, we agree with the Office of the Solicitor General that the Parol Evidence Rule under Section 9, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court does not apply in the present case since the said rule comes into play only when there is an issue on the validity of the contract or agreement, or when there is a need to modify, explain, or add to the terms of the contract. In this case, the validity of the lease contract was never put in question. The contract of lease showed that Winfull Corporation leased the entire hotel and its operation to Agusan Corporation. This lease necessarily included all the appliances, furniture, and equipment such as beds, refrigerators, and air-conditioning units. Moreover, the contract stated that "the LESSEE shall file for property damage insurance of all machineries, equipment, and fixtures, wherein both LESSEE and LESSOR are fifty (50%) percent beneficiary." This provision indicated that the hotel that was turned over to the Agusan Corporation was a fully functioning and operation hotel, complete with all the furniture and equipment necessary to operate it. DETACa
With regard to the issue of solidary liability of the petitioners, the CA correctly affirmed the RTC that the petitioners, as principal corporate officers of Agusan Corporation, are liable in their personal capacities for acceding to the commission of a crime, which is the misappropriation of the hotel appliances, furniture, and equipment owned by the private complainant. When Agusan Corporation was evicted from the premises because of non-payment of rent, petitioners removed all the furniture and appliances inside the hotel. Since a corporation can act only through its officers and agents, the corporate officers who commit the crime may be held individually liable because they are the ones in direct control, supervision, and management of the corporate affairs.
Finally, pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951, 1 a modification of the penalty imposed is in order. Section 85 of R.A. No. 10951 provides:
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 means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión 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 prisión mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
xxx xxx xxx
In this case, the amount defrauded was P7,129,710.00. Applying the provision above, the imposable penalty should be the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, which is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period adding one (1) year for each additional P2,000,000.00 in excess of the P4,400,000.00. Hence, the maximum period of the imposable penalty ranges from seven (7) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days to nine (9) years of prision mayor. aDSIHc
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law 2 which provides that the minimum penalty shall be "within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed" for the offense, the minimum penalty is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, which has a range of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months.
Thus, as modified, the proper imposable penalty is four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as maximum.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the February 17, 2016 Decision and January 12, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36481 with MODIFICATION that petitioners William Po and Johnson Martinez are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to NINE (9) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum.
Petitioners' Reply to the Office of the Solicitor General's Comment is NOTED.
SO ORDERED."Bersamin, J., on official travel.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision 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. Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.