THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235721. April 2, 2018.]
CRISELDA ROSERO y BELLEZA, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 2, 2018, which reads as follows: cSEDTC
"G.R. No. 235721 (Criselda Rosero y Belleza v. People of the Philippines) — Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the Decision 1 dated 20 July 2017, and Resolution 2 dated 24 October 2017, of the Court of Appeals (CA) that affirmed the Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, San Jose, Camarines Sur (RTC) convicting petitioner Criselda Rosero y Belleza (petitioner) of the crime of Estafa under Art. 315, par. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
ANTECEDENTS
The facts as summarized by the CA are as follows:
Version of the Prosecution
Private complainant Josefina P. Arriola is engaged in the business of selling pieces of jewelry. She avers that sometime in July 2007, [petitioner] requested private complainant to entrust to her some of the pieces of jewelry she is selling.
On 17 August 2007 up to 28 August 2008, private complainant entrusted to [petitioner] pieces of jewelry in the amount of Php307,740.00 for the latter to sell. [Petitioner] only remitted the amount of Php33,720.00 and was unable to remit her outstanding balance in the amount of Php274,020.00 to private complainant. Despite several demands made by private complainant to [petitioner], the latter failed to remit the proceeds of the sale of the jewelry items entrusted to her and/or return the unsold items of jewelry. Private complainant later learned that [petitioner] pawned the pieces of jewelry that private complainant entrusted to her.
Private complainant made a list of the pieces of jewelry which she entrusted to [petitioner]. Private complainant sent a letter to [petitioner] demanding from her the return the unsold jewelry but the latter failed to heed her demand. 4
Counter-statement of the Facts
[Petitioner] denied the charge against her. She claimed that her transaction with private complainant is not one of consignment but of sale. She allegedly bought pieces of jewelry from the private complainant on instalment basis and sold them to prospective buyers. She insisted that her liability to private complainant is purely civil in nature.
[Petitioner] also presented her own list of payments she had made to private complainant indicating that she was able to pay private complainant in the amount of Php93,200.00 leaving a balance in the amount of Php167,000.00. She also claimed that out of anger, private complainant forced her to sign a transaction ledger showing the pieces of jewelry she allegedly took from private complainant. 5
The RTC Ruling
On 4 April 2016, the RTC rendered its judgment, the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the prosecution having proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered finding [petitioner] GUILTY of the crime of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. She is therefore sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Two (2) Years, Eleven (11) Months and Eleven (11) days of Prision Correccional, as Minimum, to Twenty (20) years of Reclusion Temporal, as Maximum. Accused is likewise [ordered] to civilly indemnify the private complainant the amount of P274,020.00, with six percent (6%) interest per annum reckoned from the finality of the judgment until it is fully paid. And to pay the costs. 6
The CA Ruling
On 20 July 2017, the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the trial court's guilty verdict. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The 4 April 2016 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, San Jose, Camarines Sur, in Criminal Case No. T-3360, finding [petitioner GUILTY] of the crime of estafa, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. 7
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in the assailed Resolution 8 dated 24 October 2017. Hence, this present appeal.
In her petition, 9 petitioner insists that the transaction entered into by her and the private complainant was not purely a consignment contract but, rather, a contract of sale by instalment. She likewise imputes that the CA erred in disregarding that her liability is merely civil and not criminal in nature.
THE COURT'S RULING
After a thorough review of the CA's assailed decision and resolution, including the record of this case, this Court finds no reversible error in the findings and conclusion of the appellate court.
The elements of Estafa under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the RPC are as follows:
1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are 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;
2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or a denial of the receipt thereof; SDAaTC
3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and,
4) that there is demand made by the offended party on the offender. 10
The CA correctly found the existence of all the elements of the crime in this case, to wit:
x x x All the elements concur in this case. First, [petitioner] received the items of jewelry in trust with the obligation to turn over the proceeds of the sale to private complainant or to return unsold items; second, she failed to substantiate her claim that she did not misappropriate the jewelry items or the proceeds of their sale; third, private complainant suffered damage and was prejudiced by such misappropriation and fourth, she failed to return the items of jewelry, the proceeds of their sale, or [to] return the unsold items to the private complainant despite repeated demands to do so. 11
While this Court affirms the conviction, a modification of the penalty imposed is in order pursuant to the recent enactment 12 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951. 13 The law took effect 14 in 2017 and introduced amendments with respect to the penalties and fines of certain crimes, in conformity with modern times and in order to adjust the outdated monetary values to the present.
The new amendments to the RPC call for the application of the time-honored principle that penal laws favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect. This is likewise embodied under Article 22 of the RPC, and Section 100 15 of R.A. No. 10951 which expressly provides for its retroactivity.
As regards this case, the relevant provision of R.A. No. 10951 is found in Section 85, which amended Article 315 of the RPC, viz.:
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below 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). (emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
In this case, the amount of fraud involved is P274,020.00. Applying the foregoing provision and considering that the amount of P274,020.00 is over P40,000.00 but not exceeding P1,200,000.00, the imposable penalty should now be arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period.
The penalty prescribed by Article 315, as amended by R.A. No. 10951, is composed of only two, not three, periods; in which case, Article 65 of the RPC requires division of the time included in the penalty into three equal portions of time included in the penalty prescribed, forming one period of each of the three portions. 16
An arresto mayor has a duration of 1 month and 1 day to 6 months, 17 while prision correccional has a period of 6 months and 1 day to 6 years. 18 Thus, arresto mayor in its maximum is 4 months and 1 day to 6 months, and prision correccional in its minimum is 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months. Applying the latter provisions, the maximum, medium and minimum periods of the penalty prescribed are:
Maximum — 1 year, 8 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months
Medium — 1 year and 1 day to 1 year and 8 months
Minimum — 4 months and 1 day to 1 year
Further, the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which prescribes that the minimum penalty shall be "within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed" for the offense, 19 shall likewise be applied in this case. Since the penalty prescribed by law for the crime of estafa against petitioner is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, the penalty next lower would then be arresto mayor in its minimum to medium periods. Thus, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be taken anywhere from 1 month and 1 day to 4 months.
After considering the amendments in R.A. No. 10951 and the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty that may be imposed for the crime of estafa in this case is anywhere from 1 month and 1 day to 4 months, for the minimum period, and ranging from 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months for the maximum period. This penalty is clearly favorable to petitioner as the penalty of imprisonment has significantly decreased from that imposed by the RTC of 2 years, 11 months, and 11 days of prision correccional, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the assailed 20 July 2017 Decision and 24 October 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the penalty of imprisonment imposed. In view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 10951, Criselda B. Rosero is to suffer an amended sentence of indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of arresto mayor, as minimum, to ONE (1) YEAR and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as maximum.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 39-49; penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, and concurred in by Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting.
2.Id. at 50-51.
3.Id. at 75-83; penned by Presiding Judge Noel D. Paulite.
4.Id. at 41-42.
5.Id. at 42.
6.Id. at 82-83.
7.Id. at 48.
8.Id. at 50-51.
9.Id. at 11-37.
10.D'Aigle v. People, 689 Phil. 480, 488-489 (2012); Asejo v. People, 555 Phil. 106, 112-113 (2007).
11.Rollo, pp. 46-47.
12. Signed into law on 29 August 2017.
13. 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.
14. Published in the Official Gazette, Vol. 113, No. 37 on 11 September 2017, and in the Manila Bulletin on 1 September 2017.
15.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.
16.Corpus v. People, 734 Phil. 353, 423-424 (2014); Cosme, Jr. v. People, 538 Phil. 52, 72 (2006) citing People v. Billaber, 465 Phil. 726, 744 (2004).
17. RPC, Article 27, Paragraph 5.
18. RPC, Article 27, Paragraph 4.
19. People v. Gabres, 335 Phil. 242, 256-257 (1997); See Section 1 of Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.