SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 211023. April 7, 2014.]
ALICE VIDAL Y MASCARDO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 April 2014 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 211023 (Alice Vidal y Mascardo, petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, respondent).
Petitioner was charged by the provincial prosecutor of Negros Oriental with the crime of Malversation of Public Funds punishable under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. The information reads:
That on or about February 2, 1996 and for sometime prior thereto, . . . above-named accused, a public officer, being the Treasurer of Barangay Aglahug, Jimalalud, Negros Oriental, and as such was in the possession and custody of public funds, in the amount of ONE HUNDRED TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT PESOS AND 89/100 (P102,328.89), . . . for which she is accountable by reason of the duties of her office, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office, taking advantage of her public position, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously appropriate, misappropriate, take, embezzle and convert to her own personal use and benefit said amount . . . and despite demands made upon her to account for said amount she has failed to do so, to the damage and prejudice of the government in the amount aforestated. 1 IaEASH
When arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused . . . guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation, as provided for under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, and applying in her favor the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, she is hereby meted the prison term of SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal as minimum to reclusion perpetua maximum, with all the accessory penalties, and is hereby ordered to indemnify [B]arangay Aglahug, [M]unicipality of Jimalahud, Province of Negros Oriental, the amount of ONE HUNDRED TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT and 89/100 (P102,328.89) PESOS, and to pay costs. 2
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment of the trial court but modified the penalty by sentencing petitioner to an indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, with the penalty of perpetual special disqualification to hold public office and other accessory penalties provided by law. Petitioner was likewise ordered to pay a fine of P102,328.89, equivalent to the funds malversed. In addition to the payment of the fine, petitioner was ordered, by way of restitution, to pay the Republic of the Philippines, through the municipal treasurer of Jimalalud, Negros Oriental, the total sum of P102,328.89, representing the amount malversed. 3
Petitioner is now before this Court by way of Petition for Review on Certiorari, challenging the Decision of the CA on the ground that it erred in affirming the Decision of the trial court because the latter court failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. aDcHIS
The Ruling of the Court
We deny the petition but modify the penalty imposed.
We reiterate the rule that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. 4 Here, both the trial court and the CA found that the prosecution was able to prove petitioner's guilt of the crime of malversation. Petitioner, on the other hand, has not presented sufficient reason for this Court to overturn the factual findings of the trial and the appellate courts. 5 Her insistence that the issue as to who between her and Joel Waldato, the barangay captain of Aglahug, received the amount malversed has not been fully settled deserves no consideration at all in light of the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses that it was she who presented for encashment the checks subject of this malversation case and it was also she who received the proceeds thereof. 6 More importantly, the dorsal portion of the three checks showed that aside from endorsing the checks as the payee thereof, she likewise acknowledged receipt of the amount covering them. 7
There being nothing on the records which would justify further review of the factual findings of the lower courts, this Court is bound thereby and, therefore, abides by it.
We note, however, that the CA erred in its computation of the prison sentence to be imposed on petitioner under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Under Article 217, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period (17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years) to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the amount malversed exceeds P22,000.00, in addition to perpetual special disqualification and a fine equivalent to the amount of the funds malversed. There being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances present in the commission of the crime, the CA correctly held that the penalty prescribed by law should be imposed in its medium period which is 18 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years. While the CA properly computed the minimum period of petitioner's prison sentence, it, however, erred in its computation of the maximum period of imprisonment.
Pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term of a prison sentence "shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense." The maximum term, on the other hand, "shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of" the Revised Penal Code. Thus, in the case at bar, the minimum term would be from reclusion temporal medium (14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months) to prision mayor maximum (10 years and 1 day to 12 years). The CA, therefore, correctly imposed the minimum term of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor maximum. On the other hand, the maximum term of the sentence should be taken from the scale of 18 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years — the time included in the medium period of reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua. Clearly, the maximum term of 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal medium imposed by the CA is erroneous. We accordingly modify the penalty imposed on petitioner and sentence her to an indeterminate prison term of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor maximum, as minimum, to 18 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum. AcICTS
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 00793 dated 15 March 2013 and its Resolution dated 18 December 2013 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 32.
2. Id. at 17.
3. Id. at 45.
4. People v. Credo, G.R. No. 197360, 3 July 2013 citing People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 196434, 24 October 2012, 684 SCRA 604, 608.
5. Lorenzana v. People, 405 Phil. 900 (2001).
6. Rollo, p. 42.
7. Id.