THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235589. March 7, 2018.]
VIOLETA C. SEVILLA, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 7, 2018, which reads as follows: HSAcaE
"G.R. No. 235589 (Violeta C. Sevilla, petitioner v. People of the Philippines, respondent.) — Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision dated April 25, 2017 and Resolution dated November 9, 2017 of the Court of Appeals, Manila in CA-G.R. CR No. 36949, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed decision.
However, the Court modifies the penalty imposed pursuant to Section 85 of Republic Act No. 10951: 1
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 further amended to read as follows:
Article 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)
xxx xxx xxx
Since the amount involved is P1,000,000.00, the new penalty that should be imposed is arresto mayor, in its maximum period, to prision correccional, in its minimum period, which has a prison term of four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months. There being no aggravating and mitigating circumstances present in this case, the range of the penalty that must be imposed as the maximum term should be one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional in its minimum period, in accordance with Article 65 in relation to Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the range of the minimum term that should be imposed upon petitioner is anywhere within the period of arresto mayor, minimum to arresto mayor, medium with a range of one (1) to four (4) months. Accordingly, Sevilla is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of three (3) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 25, 2017 and Resolution dated November 9, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36949 finding petitioner Violeta C. Sevilla GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa, as defined and penalized under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code, are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for three (3) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum. Further, petitioner is ordered to pay private complainant Virginia C. Malolos the amount of P1,000,000.00 plus stipulated interest and penalty from the date of demand until fully paid.
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.