SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245419. June 19, 2019.]
HILARIO P. SORIANO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated19 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245419 — Hilario P. Soriano v. People of the Philippines
This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to set aside the Decision 1 dated July 16, 2018 and Resolution 2 dated February 14, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39081, which affirmed, with modifications, the Decision 3 dated October 13, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 17, in Criminal Case Nos. 237-M-2001 and 238-M-2001, finding herein petitioner Hilario P. Soriano (Soriano) guilty of the crimes of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents, and Violation of Section 83 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 337.
The petition is denied.
Falsification of commercial documents is governed by Article 172, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The elements of falsification under the aforesaid provisions of the RPC are: (1) that the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position; (2) that he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC; and, (3) that the falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial document. 4 HTcADC
These elements have been duly established by the prosecution. First, it is not disputed that Soriano is a private individual. Second, the prosecution was able to show that Soriano, in conspiracy with Rosalinda Ilagan (Ilagan) and other persons, caused it to appear that the loan documents were signed by Enrico Carlos (Carlos) when in fact he had no participation whatsoever in the said loan application. Lastly, the documents which have been falsified are commercial documents as they were necessary for the release of the proceeds of a bank loan, which is a commercial transaction.
On the other hand, for conviction for Estafa by means of deceit, the prosecution must establish 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. 5
As aptly ruled by the trial and appellate courts, all of the elements for Estafa by means of deceit are present in this case. First, Soriano committed fraudulent acts by making it appear that Carlos applied for a loan through falsification of several documents when he did not in fact applied for the subject loan. Second, the falsifications were committed prior to the fraud considering that without the falsified loan documents, the proceeds of the loan would not have been released. Third, Rural Bank of San Miguel (RBSM), the banking institution, relied on the said falsified documents for the release of the said loan. Lastly, it is obvious that with the release of the proceeds of the fraudulent loan application, RBSM suffered damage.
Further, Article 48 of the RPC, provides that a complex crime exists when the commission of an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. Here, the prosecution was able to show that the falsification of the loan documents was necessary for the commission of Estafa. As already stated, without the falsified loan documents, the proceeds of the loan would not be released.
As regards the violation of Section 83 of R.A. No. 337, Soriano's conviction for the same is also proper. As aptly stated by the trial and appellate courts, the prohibition under Section 83 applies even if the director or officer secured the loan indirectly. In this case, Soriano, as the president of RBSM, is among those officers prohibited by the law to secure loans from the said bank. Thus, when he secured the subject loan by fraudulent means, Soriano violated the provisions of Section 83. Soriano's conviction for the said offense is therefore clear. CAIHTE
Nevertheless, although the trial and appellate courts properly convicted Soriano of the charges against him, the appellate court erred in its imposition of the penalty with regard to the complex crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents.
Under Article 48 of the RPC, in a complex crime, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period. Falsification under Article 172, as amended by R.A. No. 10951, has a corresponding penalty of prision correccional, in its medium and maximum periods, and a fine of not more than P1,000,000.00. On the other hand, under Article 315, as amended by R.A. No. 10951, when the amount of fraud is over P2,400,000.00 but does not exceed P4,400,000.00 the penalty is prision correccional, in its maximum period, to prision mayor, in its minimum period. If the amount of fraud exceeds P4,400,000.00, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its maximum period, and further adding 1 year for every additional P2,000,000.00. Thus, the penalty for Estafa, being the more serious crime, shall be applied in its maximum period.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the crime of Estafa is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods which ranges from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months. 6 Meanwhile, the maximum imposable penalty is 8 years of prision mayor. And considering that the amount of fraud exceeded the threshold amount of P4,400,000.00 by P3,600,000.00, an additional 1 year shall be imposed. Thus, the new maximum is 9 years.
Thus, in this case, the proper indeterminate penalty to be imposed for the complex crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents should be 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9 years of prision mayor, as maximum. The imposition by the CA of the penalty of 8 years, 8 months, and 21 days to 9 years, must therefore, be modified for lack of basis. All other aspects are affirmed. aScITE
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 16, 2018 and Resolution dated February 14, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39081 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that in Criminal Case No. 237-M-2001 for Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents, Hilario P. Soriano is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as maximum. He is further ordered to pay the following: (1) damages in the amount of P8,000,000.00; (2) legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the filing of the Informations until June 30, 2013; (3) legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 up to the date of finality of this resolution; and (4) the total monetary award shall thereafter be subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum until full payment. All other aspects of the Decision dated July 16, 2018 and Resolution dated February 14, 2019 of the Court of Appeals with respect to Criminal Case No. 238-M-2001 are AFFIRMED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, with Associate Justices Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla and Renato C. Francisco, concurring; rollo, pp. 33-71.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla, with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring; id. at 73-76.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega; id. at 100-123.
4.Tanenggee v. People of the Philippines, 712 Phil. 310, 332-333 (2013).
5.People v. Baladjay, G.R. No. 220458, July 26, 2017, 833 SCRA 264, 274.
6.Pascual v. People of the Philippines, 791 Phil. 506, 517 (2016).