SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 258465. April 27, 2022.]
PAUL YAP, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated27 April 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 258465 (Paul Yap vs. People of the Philippines). — Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking the reversal of the Decision 2 and Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 03237 dated 29 September 2020 and 30 July 2021, respectively.
On 02 November 2016, Branch (Br.) 7, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu City, found petitioner guilty of Estafa under paragraph 2 (a), Article 315, of the Revised Penal Code, thus:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused, PAUL YAP or PAULINE YAP, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of ESTAFA under Article 315, par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of four(4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum and to indemnify the private complainant, JONAHLEY T. UNDAG, the sum of P480,000.00 with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 4
On 29 September 2020, the Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner's conviction, but modified the penalty pursuant to Republic Act No. 10951: 5
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision dated November 2, 2016, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Cebu City, in Criminal Case No. CBU-84452, convicting accused-appellant PAUL YAP of the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), of the Revised Penal Code, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the penalty.
Accused-Appellant PAUL YAP, also known as PAULINE YAP, is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) months of arresto mayor, as maximum. He is further ordered to pay Jonahley T. Undag the amount of Four Hundred Eight (sic) Thousand Pesos, with interest at 12% per annum until fully paid. CAIHTE
xxx xxx xxx. 6
On 30 July 2021, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 7 was denied. 8
After evaluating the arguments in the petition, as well as the Decision of Br. 7, RTC, Cebu City, and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, this Court resolves to deny the petition for failure of petitioner to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals which would warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction. However, in accordance with existing jurisprudence on legal interest, 9 particularly legal interest in estafa cases which subjects the monetary award to an interest rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the filing of the Information until 30 June 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from 01 July 2013 until the finality of the resolution/decision, and the total thereof to six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the resolution/decision until fully paid, 10 the rate of interest to be imposed is modified.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The 29 September 2020 Decision and 30 July 2021 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 03237 finding petitioner PAUL YAP or PAULINE YAP guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under paragraph 2 (a), Article 315, of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) months of arresto mayor, as maximum, are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION in that petitioner PAUL YAP or PAULINE YAP is ORDERED to PAY JONAHLEY T. UNDAG the sum of Four Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos (P480,000.00), with legal interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the filing of the Information on 03 October 2008 until 30 June 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from 01 July 2013 until the finality of this Resolution, with the total amount thereof earning interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (Perlas-Bernabe, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-38.
2.Id. at 45-62, penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, with Associate Justices Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga and Lorenza Redulla Bordios, concurring.
3.Id. at 64-70, penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, with Associate Justices Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga and Lorenza Redulla Bordios, concurring.
4Id. at 285.
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, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 'THE REVISED PENAL CODE,' AS AMENDED" (2017), Sec. 85.
6.Rollo, pp. 60-61.
7.Id. at 342-359.
8.Id. at 64-70.
9.Nacar v. GalleryFrames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013).
10.Abalos v. People, G.R. No. 221836, 14 August 2019.