FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225078. March 6, 2019.]
ANGELINA SANDOVAL y GUEVARRA, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 6, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225078 (ANGELINA SANDOVAL y GUEVARRA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent) — The Court DENIES this petition for review on certiorari questioning the decision 1 and amended decision 2 promulgated on January 5, 2016 and June 9, 2016, respectively, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed in CA-G.R. CR No. 35841 the decision 3 rendered on May 20, 2013 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 273, Marikina City finding the petitioner guilty of Estafa as punished under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, for failure of herein petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed reversible error in affirming the decision of the RTC.
The CA ruled that the Marikina RTC had jurisdiction over the case and that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court sees no error on the part of the CA.
First, Section 15 (a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court allows a criminal case to be filed in the court where the offense has been committed or "where any of its essential ingredients occurred." As found by the lower courts, the complainant paid the first installment in Marikina. Hence, there is no dispute that the element of damage was committed in Marikina, and therefore, the court a quo had jurisdiction to try this case.
Second, as noted by the CA, the authority of the complainant to institute the complaint was based on his allegation that half of the purchase price would come from his pocket. Such allegation had clothed him of the necessary personality to initiate the instant case considering that he was an aggrieved party. aDSIHc
Lastly, based on our review of the records, We affirm the petitioner's conviction. The crime of Estafa as defined under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code has the following elements: (1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means; (2) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means and was thus induced to part with his money or property; and (4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. 4
Here, all the elements of the crime of Estafa were sufficiently established. The petitioner pretended that she owned the property subject of the sale and even presented a falsified title; because of the petitioner's misrepresentations, the complainant paid her a total of P1,010,000.00.
The Court notes, however, that a modification of the penalty imposed by the lower courts is necessary. Applying Republic Act No. 10951, 5 the penalty prescribed for Estafa where the amount of the fraud is over P40,000.00 but does not exceed P1,200,000.00 is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. 6 There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, 7 the proper imposable penalty should be one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, therefore, the penalty should be a prison term of two (2) months and four (4) days of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and seven (7) days of prision correccional, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition; AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the decision and amended decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on January 5, 2016 and June 9, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR No. 35841; and IMPOSES the penalty of indeterminate sentence of two (2) months and four (4) days of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and seven (7) days of prision correccional, as maximum. ETHIDa
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 43-54; penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta (retired) with the concurrence of Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam (a retired member of this Court), and Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
2.Id. at 56-61.
3.Id. at 124-138; penned by Presiding Judge Romeo Dizon Tagra.
4.Sy Franco v. People, G.R. No. 171328, February 16, 2011, 643 SCRA 474, 487.
5. Entitled "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."
6. Section 85, R.A. No. 10951.
7. Article 64, paragraph 1 of the RPC, states that: "When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period."