Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Second Division
Agenda for 18 June 2012
Item No. 40
The Court found that accused solicited money from Rico under the
pretense that the money would be used as additional capital for his lending
business, which was sanctioned by his employer, the Gaisano Mall; and that
after a given period, the principal amount together with the income-interest
earned, which was 10% to 15% of the principal, would be returned to Rico.
However, when she demanded the return of her investments, including the
interest, the accused failed to return the amount agreed upon.
The CA Ruling
1
Rollo, pp. 36-50; penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor and concurred in by
Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Danton Q. Bueser.
2
Rollo, pp. 20-35; docketed as Criminal Case No. 10810; penned by Judge Jose G. Dy.
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 201183
The CA ruled that the following false pretenses established that the
accused, by committing fraud, was able to convince Rico to part with her
money:
The appellate court sustained the trial courts finding that the accused
did not present an iota of evidence to prove that the alleged lending
business actually existed.6
The CA also ruled that the element of damage was established when
accused admitted that he has received various amounts of money from Rico
on different occasions. Furthermore, receipts he signed in the amounts of
55,000 and 285,500 were presented to prove that he had received money
from Rico.
While the minimum penalty imposed by the trial court was affirmed
by the CA, the maximum penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal was increased to twenty (20) years
of reclusion temporal.
Our Ruling
The Petition lacks merit. The accused merely raises the same two
issues that have been thoroughly resolved by the CA and are anchored on the
same facts found by the RTC.
3
Rollo, p. 43.
4
Id. at 44-45.
5
Id. at 45.
6
Id. at 44.
7
Id. at 49.
8
Id. at 59-60.
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 201183
The elements of the crime of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2(a)
of the RPC, are as follows: (1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act
or fraudulent means; (2) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means must have been 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 or her money or property; and (4) as a result, the offended party
suffered damage.10
9
Id. at 35.
10
Franco v. People, G.R. No. 171328, 16 February 2011, 643 SCRA 474, 487 citing RCL Feeders
PTE., Ltd. v. Hon. Perez, 487 Phil. 211, 220-221 (2004).
11
Rollo, p. 14.
12
Id. at 15.
Balitaan v. Court of First Instance of Batangas, 201 Phil. 311 (1982) citing
13
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by
any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
Since the amount Rico was defrauded of exceeds 22,000, the penalty
should be the maximum period of six years, eight months, and twenty-one
days to eight years of prision mayor. Art. 315 also provides that an
additional year shall be imposed for each additional P10,000. Thus, 26.8
14
G.R. No. 174899, 11 September 2008, 564 SCRA 542.
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 201183
There being no reversible error attributable to the CA, its findings are
affirmed, and the present Petition is denied.
15
Id.