Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
3
2. Appellants and their co-accused simultaneous act of riddling the ● The members of the Home Guard, upon order of their leader, Lawas,
vehicle boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his group with bullets simultaneously and successively fired at several victims. As a result,
discharged from their firearms when the said vehicle passed by San 50 persons died.
Manuel, Lala, Lanao del Norte, resulted in the death of two security ● It was there held that the killing was the result of a single impulse
escorts of Mayor Tawan-tawan, i.e., PO3 Dela Cruz and T/Sgt. as there was no intent on the part of the accused to fire at each
Dacoco. [Attempted murder for Macasuba, Mosanip, PFC Tomanto, and every victim separately and distinctly from each other. If the
PFC Angni, Juanito, Mayor Tawan-tawan and Jun] act or acts complained of resulted from a single criminal
3. Treachery was appreciated. The deadly successive shots of the impulse, it constitutes a single offense.
appellants and their co-accused did not allow the hapless victims, ● However, ―single criminal impulse‖ was not the only consideration
i.e., PO3 Dela Cruz and T/Sgt. Dacoco, any opportunity to put up a in applying Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code in the said case
decent defense. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior because there was no evidence at all showing the identity or number
strength, however, cannot be appreciated as it is deemed absorbed in of persons killed by each accused. There was also no conspiracy to
treachery. Since the prosecution failed to prove the attending perpetuate the killing, thus, collective criminal responsibility could
circumstance of evident premeditation, the circumstance cannot not be imputed upon the accused (kaya they were just forced to apply
likewise be appreciated. art 48)
4. In a complex crime, two or more crimes are actually committed, ● Since it was impossible to ascertain the number of persons killed
however, in the eyes of the law and in the conscience of the offender by each of them, this Court was ―forced‖ to find all the accused
they constitute only one crime, thus, only one penalty is imposed. guilty of only one offense of multiple homicide instead of holding
There are two kinds of complex crime. The first is known as each of them responsible for 50 deaths.
compound crime, or when a single act constitutes two or more ● [In the present case: Nelmida] Conspiracy is very much evident from
grave or less grave felonies while the other is known as complex the afore-enumerated actuations of the appellants and their co-
crime proper, or when an offense is a necessary means for accused. Clearly, their acts were coordinated. With the presence of
committing the other. A different rule governs where separate and conspiracy in the case at bench, appellants and their co-accused had
distinct acts result in a number killed. Deeply rooted is the assumed joint criminal responsibility—the act of one is the act of all.
doctrine that when various victims expire from separate shots, The Lawas doctrine, cannot, to repeat, be applied (because again, in
such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes. Lawas, (1) There was no evidence as to the number of people killed,
5. Evidently, there is in this case no complex crime proper. And the and (2) there was no conspiracy, unlike in this case. Therefore, Art
circumstances present in this case do not fit exactly the description of 48 cannot be applied in Nelmida)
a compound crime. The victims sustained gunshot wounds in
different parts of their bodies. Therefrom, it cannot be gainsaid that In People v. De los Santos, People v. Abella, People v. Garcia, and People v.
more than one bullet had hit the victims. Moreover, more than one Pincalin, this Court also applied Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code even
gunman fired at the vehicle of the victims. though several acts were performed by the accused and conspiracy attended
the commission of the crime.
[IMPORTANT] There are, however, several rulings which applied Article People v. De los Santos
48 of the Revised Penal Code despite the fact that several acts were ● A prison riot occurred for two consecutive days inside the national
performed by several accused in the commission of the crime resulting to the penitentiary between the members of two gangs, i.e., Sigue-Sigue
death and/or injuries to their victims. Sputnik and Oxo. As a result, nine (9) inmates were killed. Fourteen
(14) inmates were then convicted for the crime of multiple murder.
People v. Lawas
4
● The existence of conspiracy in the commission of the crime was duly Lawas, De los Santos, Abella, Garcia and Pincalin, where this Court
proven. There was, however, no discussion why the accused were departed from the general rule that Art 48 only applies to single acts.
convicted of a complex crime instead of separate crimes. ● In Sanidad, suddenly and without a warning, several accused
unleashed a volley of shots at the jeepney boarded by the victims.
People v. Abella Miraculously, all passengers, except Rolando Tugadi (Rolando),
● Involving the massacre of certain prisoners in the Davao Penal survived the ambush and suffered only minor injuries. Conspiracy
Colony and a reprise of a similar riot that occurred in the national attended the commission of the crime.
penitentiary on 16 February 1958 (subject of De los Santos), all the ● Accused were convicted for the complex crime of murder and
accused were also convicted for the complex crime of multiple multiple attempted murder. We there held that the case comes within
murder and multiple frustrated murder. the purview of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Citing Lawas
● Conspiracy likewise attended the commission of the crime. This and Abella, it was pronounced that although several independent acts
Court applied the ruling in De los Santos and elucidated that the were performed by the accused, it was not possible to determine who
ruling in the said case is predicated on the theory that ―when for the among them actually killed Rolando; and that there was no evidence
attainment of a single purpose which constitutes an offense, that the accused intended to fire at each and every one of the victims
various acts are executed, such acts must be considered only as separately and distinctly from each other.
one offense,‖ a complex one. ● On the premise that the evidence clearly shows a single criminal
● The Lawas doctrine was equally applied although conspiracy had impulse to kill Marlon Tugadi’s group as a whole, we repeated that
been duly proven (There was no conspiracy in Lawas but it was still where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose,
applied in this case). This Court then stated that where a conspiracy their individual acts done in pursuance of that purpose are looked
animates several persons with a single purpose ―their individual upon as a single act, the act of execution, giving rise to a single
acts in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single complex offense. The reliance in Sanidad, on Lawas and Abella is
act—the act of execution—giving rise to a complex offense. incorrect. Since in Sanidad, the killings did not involve prisoners
● In applying Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code in Garcia and or it was not a case of prisoners killing fellow prisoners. As such,
Pincalin, this Court, gave the same justification as in Abella (those Abella would not apply.
mentioned in bold letters above)
To repeat, in Lawas, this Court was merely forced to apply Article 48 of the
People vs. Pincalin Revised Penal Code (complex crime) because of the impossibility of
● This Court has already clarified that: [n]onetheless, this Court further ascertaining the number of persons killed by each accused. Since conspiracy
held that ―in other cases where several killings on the same occasion was not proven therein, joint criminal responsibility could not be attributed to
were perpetrated, but not involving prisoners, a different rule may be the accused. Each accused could not be held liable for separate crimes
applied, that is to say, the killings would be treated as separate because of lack of clear evidence showing the number of persons actually
offenses, as opined by Mr. Justice Makasiar and as held in some killed by each of them.
decided cases.‖
[Back to ruling] With all the foregoing, this Court holds appellants liable
De los Santos, Abella, Garcia and Pincalin, therefore, were exceptions to the for the separate crimes of two (2) counts of murder and seven (7) counts
general rule stated in Article 48 because of the peculiar circumstance of the of attempted murder.
cases.
As to penalty. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty
People v. Sanidad imposed for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death. There being
● This Court, once again, applied Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed
although the circumstances of the case were not the same as in
5
upon appellants is reclusion perpetua for each count, pursuant to paragraph
2, Article 63 104 of the Revised Penal Code.
Appellants are also guilty of seven (7) counts of attempted murder. The
penalty prescribed by law for murder, i.e., reclusion perpetua to death, should
be reduced by two degrees, conformably to Article 51 106 of the Revised
Penal Code. Under paragraph 2, Article 61, 107 in relation to Article 71 of
the Revised Penal Code, such a penalty is prision mayor. There being
neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the same should be imposed
in its medium period pursuant to paragraph 1, Article 64 108 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Dispositive: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court People v. Jacinto (Evangelista)
of Appeals in CA-G.R. HC No. 00246 dated 18 June 2008 is hereby G.R No. | Date | Judge | RA 9344, Sec 38 & 40; rape
MODIFIED, as follows: (1) appellants are found guilty beyond reasonable RTC: WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court imposing the
doubt of two (2) counts of murder thereby imposing upon them the penalty of death penalty upon the accused is amended in order to consider the
reclusion perpetua for each count; (2) appellants are also found guilty beyond privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. The penalty
reasonable doubt of seven (7) counts of attempted murder thereby imposing impos[a]ble upon the accused, therefore[,] is reduced to reclusion
upon them the indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision perpetua. xxx
correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor, as maximum, for
each count; (3) other than the civil indemnity and moral damages already CA: xxx that Hermie M. Jacinto should suffer the Indeterminate
awarded by the trial court and the appellate court, appellants are further penalty of from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of
ordered to pay, jointly and severally, exemplary and temperate damages in prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) and four (4) months
the amount of P30,000.00 and P25,000.00, respectively, to the heirs of each of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Appellant Hermie M. Jacinto is
deceased victims; and (4) appellants are also directed to pay, jointly and ordered to indemnify the victim in the sum of P75,000.00 as civil
severally, Macasuba, Mosanip, PFC Tomanto, PFC Angni and Juanito the indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as
amount of P40,000.00 each as moral damages, P25,000.00 each as temperate exemplary damages and to pay the costs.
damages and P30,000.00 each as exemplary damages.
SC: WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 29 August 2007 of the
Costs against appellants. SO ORDERED. Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00213 finding appellant
6
Hermie M. Jacinto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall
is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (1) the place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without
death penalty imposed on the appellant is reduced to reclusion need of application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall
perpetua; and (2) appellant is ordered to pay the victim P75,000.00 still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen (18) years of age or
as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
as exemplary damages. The case is hereby REMANDED to the
court of origin for its appropriate action in accordance with Section We find that the benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer apply to
51 of Republic Act No. 9344. appellant. The suspension of sentence lasts only until the child in conflict
with the law reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. Section 40
of the law and Section 48 of the Rule are clear on the matter. Unfortunately,
Issue: WON the accused may enjoy the benefits under RA 9344? - YES appellant is now twenty-five (25) years old.
Facts: Be that as it may, to give meaning to the legislative intent of the Act, the
1. Testimony of AAA (5 years old), her father FFF, and witness Julito promotion of the welfare of a child in conflict with the law should extend
Apiki: FFF and Jacinto(17 years old) were neighbors since they were even to one who has exceeded the age limit of twenty-one (21) years, so
born. FFF’s house is along the road and the house of Jacinto lies at long as he/she committed the crime when he/she was still a child. The
the back around 80 meters from FFF. AAA also knows Jacinto well offender shall be entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation and
and they were friends until this incident. reintegration in accordance with the Act in order that he/she is given the
2. 6pm of Jan 28, 2003 - FFF sent his 8 year old daughter CCC to buy chance to live a normal life and become a productive member of the
cigarettes. AAA went with CCC. CCC returned without AAA. FFF community. The age of the child in conflict with the law at the time of the
thought AAA was watching TV at house of her aunt Rita. promulgation of the judgment of conviction is not material. What matters is
3. Julito saw Jacinto place AAA on his lap at the same store that that the offender committed the offense when he/she was still of tender age.
evening. Jacinto held the hand of AAA and went towards a ―lower Thus, appellant may be confined in an agricultural camp or any other training
area or place‖ facility in accordance with Sec. 51 of Republic Act No. 9344.
4. AAA says they went towards the rice field and Jacinto made her lie
down, removed her panty and boxed her in the chest. He then Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and
mounted her and pushed his penis into her vagina. Jacinto then left to Other Training Facilities. – A child in conflict with the law may, after
go to the house of the neighbor. AAA went home crying conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in
5. FFF found AAA with her face greasy and mud on her head with lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and
blood oozing down the back of her head. FFF found a contusion on other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and
her neck. AAA had no underwear on and had white substance and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.
mud on her vagina
Following the pronouncement in Sarcia, the case shall be remanded to the
Ruling: Republic Act No. 9344 warrants the suspension of sentence of a court of origin to effect appellant’s confinement in an agricultural camp or
child in conflict with the law notwithstanding that he/she has reached the age other training facility.
of majority at the time the judgment of conviction is pronounced. Thus:
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child who is under
eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is
found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain
any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed.
7
8
People v. Sarcia (Alejaga) [her cousin] did not ask her any further question and just
G.R No. | Date | Judge | RA 9344, Sec 38 & 40; rape accompanied her home.
RTC: Guilty of Rape - Reclusion Perpetua At home, [AAA] did not tell her mother what appellant had done
CA: Affirmed RTC but modified penalty to Death to her because she feared that her mother might slap her. Later,
SC: Penalty of Sarcia is reduced from death to reclusion perpetua. when her mother washed her body, she felt a grating sensation in
The case shall be remanded to the court a quo for appropriate her private part. Thereafter, [AAA] called for [her cousin]. [AAA's
disposition in accordance with Sec. 51 of RA 9344. cousin] came to their house and told [AAA's] mother again that
appellant had earlier made an up-and-down movement on top of
[AAA]. [AAA's mother], however did not say anything. At that
time, [AAA's] father was working in Manila
Issue: Whether or not the CA correctly imposed the penalty of death on
Sarcia - No.
RTC: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed against
Facts: On December 16, 1996, five-year-old [AAA], together with her AAA, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
[cousin and two other playmates], was playing in the yard of Saling
Crisologo near a mango tree. CA: Affirmed RTC but modified the penalty to death
Suddenly, appellant appeared and invited [AAA] to go with him to Ruling: No. The Court finds the need to modify the penalty imposed on
the backyard of Saling Crisologo's house. She agreed. Unknown to Sarcia. The Court finds that Sarcia was 18 years of age, a minor, at the time
appellant, [AAA's cousin] followed them. of the commission of the crime.
Upon reaching the place, appellant removed [AAA's] shorts and
underwear. He also removed his trousers and brief. Thereafter, he Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a minor
ordered [AAA] to lie down on her back. Then, he lay on top of her under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be
and inserted his penis into [AAA's] private organ. Appellant made imposed, but always in the proper period. However, for purposes of
an up-and-down movement ("Nagdapadapa tabi"). [AAA] felt determining the proper penalty because of the privileged mitigating
severe pain inside her private part and said "aray". She also felt an circumstance of minority, the penalty of death is still the penalty to be
intense pain inside her stomach. reckoned with. Thus, the proper imposable penalty for the accused-appellant
is reclusion perpetua.
[AAA's cousin], who positioned herself around five (5) meters
away from them, witnessed appellant's dastardly act. Horrified, Moreover, the CA did not suspend the sentence of conviction because SArcia
[AAA's cousin] instinctively rushed to the house of [AAA's] was about 25 y.o. at the time of promulgation, in accordance with PD 603
mother, her aunt Emily, and told the latter what she had seen. ―The Child and Youth Welfare Code‖ and AM 02-1-1-18-SC ―Rule on
[AAA's] mother answered that they (referring to {AAA and her Juveniles in Conflict with the Law‖
cousin} were still very young to be talking about such matters.
Meanwhile, after satisfying his lust, appellant stood up and ordered However, RA 9344 has been promulgated and this is to be given retroactive
[AAA] to put on her clothes. Appellant then left. application as per Sec 68 of the said Act.
Perplexed, [AAA's cousin] immediately returned to the backyard Sec. 38 of RA 9344 provides for the automatic suspension of sentence of a
of Saling Crisologo where she found [AAA] crying. Appellant, child in conflict with the law, even if he/she is already 18 y.o. or more at the
however, was gone. [AAA's cousin] approached [AAA] and asked time he/she is found guilty of the offense charged. It does not distinguish
her what appellant had done to her. When [AAA] did not answer,
9
whether the crime committed is heinous or not. The primary consideration of
the child’s restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration.
Nonetheless, Sec. 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence
until the said child reaches the maximum age of 21.
10
People v. Gambao, et. al (Garcia) unidentified man forcibly dragged Chan, her son Levy tried to stop
G.R. No. 172707 | October 1, 2013 | Perez, J. | Accomplice in Kidnapping with the man by grabbing his mother’s feet. Seeing this, Dilangalen
Ransom pointed his gun at Levy’s head forcing the latter to release his grip on
DOCTRINE: Under Section 38 of R.A. No. 9344, the suspension Chan’s feet.
of sentence of a child in conflict with the law shall still be applied 4. Chan was forced to board a "Tamaraw FX" van, The group stopped
even if he/she is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the at a certain house. Accused-appellant Edwin Dukilman (Dukilman)
time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. warned Chan not to shout as he had his gun pointed at her mouth.
Chan was ordered to go with two women. Chan was brought inside a
RTC: convicted Gambao, Karim, Dukilman, Abao, Udal, Mandao, house and was made to lie down on a bed, guarded by Ronas, Evad,
Dilangalen, Macalinbol, Ronas, Evad and Perpenian of Kidnapping Dukilman and Jaman Macalinbol (Macalinbol). They threatened
for Ransom. – sentenced to death; Perpenian however was only 17 Chan that she would be killed unless she paid 20 Million.
years old, hence – reclusion perpetua for him 5. Chan was awakened and asked to board the van. Chan was brought
CA: affirmed to a room on the second floor of a house. Inside the room were three
SC: affirmed; modified penalties persons whom Chan identified in court as Macalinbol, Udal (Udal)
and Gambao. Another woman, later identified as Perpenian
(Perpenian), arrived. Chan was instructed to talk to her son through
a cell phone and she gave instructions to her son to get the ₱75,
Issues: 000.00 she kept in her cabinet. The group then talked to Chan’s son
1. Whether or not Perpenian can benefit from Section 38 of RA and negotiated the ransom amount in exchange for his mother’s
9344, which suspends the sentence of a child in conflict with the release. It was agreed upon that Levy was to deliver ₱400,000.00 at
law. – No. the "Chowking" Restaurant at Buendia Avenue.
2. Whether or not Perpenian should be liable as a principal. – No, as an 6. During their surveillance the following day, Inspectors observed a
accomplice only. Red Transport taxicab entering the route which led to the victim’s
residence. The inspectors observed that the occupants of the taxicab
Facts: kept on looking at the second floor of the house. The inspectors and
their team tailed the taxicab until Pansol, Calamba, Laguna, where it
1. Lucia Chan (Chan) was a fish dealer based in Manila. One afternoon, entered the Elizabeth Resort. Convinced that the woman the team
two persons, one of whom was Theng Dilangalen (Dilangalen), went saw in the cottage was the victim, they sought clearance from
to Chan’s residence to inquire about a certain passport alleged to Philippine Anti Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) to conduct
have been mistakenly placed inside a box of fish to be delivered to a rescue operation.
her. Unable to locate said passport, the two left. 7. The surveillance team successfully intercepted the van during a
2. The next morning, Dilangalen, together with another person, Tony rescue operation and arrested the 4 men, later identified in court as
Abao (Abao), returned looking for Chan but were told that she was Karim, Abao, Gambao and Dukilman. The team was also able to
out. When the two returned in the afternoon, Chan informed them recover the ₱400,000.00 ransom.
that the fish delivery had yet to arrive. Chan offered instead to
accompany them to the airport to retrieve the box of fish allegedly
containing the passport. Dilangalen and Abao declined.
3. Dilangalen, accompanied by an unidentified person who remains at Ruling:
large, returned to Chan’s residence that evening. Chan’s houseboy
ushered them in. The unidentified companion of Dilangalen pointed 1. Modification should also be made as to the criminal liability of
his gun at Chan’s son, Levy and the house companions. As the Perpenian. Pursuant to the passing of R.A. No. 9344, a determination of
11
whether she acted with or without discernment is necessary. Considering Perpenian’s actual served term has already exceeded the imposable penalty for
that Perpenian acted with discernment when she was 17 years old at the her offense. For such reason, she may be immediately released from detention.
time of the commission of the offense, her minority should be
appreciated not as an exempting circumstance, but as a privileged 2. Assuming arguendo that she just came to the resort thinking it was a
mitigating circumstance pursuant to Article 68 of the RPC swimming party, it was inevitable that she acquired knowledge of the
criminal design of the principals when she saw Chan being guarded in
Under Section 38 of R.A. No. 9344, the suspension of sentence of a child in the room. A rational person would have suspected something was wrong
conflict with the law shall still be applied even if he/she is already eighteen and would have reported such incident to the police. Perpenian, however,
(18) years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. chose to keep quiet; and to add to that, she even spent the night at the
cottage. It has been held before that being present and giving moral
Unfortunately, at the present age of 31, Perpenian can no longer benefit support when a crime is being committed will make a person responsible
from the aforesaid provision, because under Article 40 of R.A. No. as an accomplice in the crime committed. It should be noted that the
9344,67 the suspension of sentence can be availed of only until the child accused-appellant’s presence and company were not indispensable and
in conflict with the law reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) essential to the perpetration of the kidnapping for ransom; hence, she is
years. This leaves the Court with no choice but to pronounce judgement. only liable as an accomplice. Moreover, this Court is guided by the
Perpenian is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as an accomplice in ruling in People v. Clemente, et al., where it was stressed that in case of
the crime of kidnapping for ransom. Since this Court has ruled that death doubt, the participation of the offender will be considered as that of an
as utilized in Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code shall no longer form part accomplice rather than that of a principal.
of the equation in the graduation of penalties pursuant to R.A. No. 9346, the
penalty imposed by law on accomplices in the commission of consummated
kidnapping for ransom is Reclusion Temporal, the penalty one degree lower
than what the principals would bear (Reclusion Perpetua). Applying Article
68 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty should then be adjusted
to the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law for accomplices. This
Court, therefore, holds that as to Perpenian, the penalty of Prision Mayor, the
penalty lower than that prescribed by law (Reclusion Temporal), should be
imposed. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty,
which is one degree lower than the maximum imposable penalty, shall be
within the range of Prision Correccional; and the maximum penalty shall be
within the minimum period of Prision Mayor, absent any aggravating
circumstance and there being one mitigating circumstance. Hence, the Court
imposes the indeterminate sentence of six (6) months and one (1) day of
Prision Correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of People v. Reyes (Tagle)
Prision Mayor, as maximum. G.R No. 101127-31| August 7, 1992 | Judge | The Three Fold Rule, 30 years
durating of Perpetual Penalties
As regards Perpenian’s possible confinement in an agricultural camp or other
training facility in accordance with Section 51 of R.A. 9344, this Court held in
People v. Jacinto that the age of the child in conflict with the law at the time of
the promulgation of the judgment is not material. What matters is that the
offender committed the offense when he/she was still of tender age. This Court,
however, finds such arrangement no longer necessary in view of the fact that
12
1st. The penalty of reclusion temporal if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: People of the Philippines not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in
ACCUSED-APPELLANT: Cresenia C. Reyes this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional
Doctrine: — The other applicable reference to reclusion perpetua is found in 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall in no case exceed thirty years.
Article 70 of the Code which provides that "the maximum duration of the In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed
convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be termed reclusion perpetua;
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him," and "(i)n
applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties hall be Ruling: There is legal basis for PD No. 818 to declare that any penalty
computed at thirty years." The imputed duration of thirty (30) years for exceeding twenty (20) years, or the maximum duration of reclusion temporal, is
reclusion perpetua, therefore, is only to serve as the basis for determining within the range of reclusion perpetua.
the convict's eligibility for pardon or for the application of the three-fold
rule in the service of multiple penalties. Article 27 of the Code 7 provides for the minimum and maximum ranges of all
the penalties in the Code (except bond to keep the peace which shall be for such
TC: Guilty period of time as the court may determine) from arresto menor to reclusion
CA: Bailable temporal, the latter being specifically from twelve years and one day to twenty
SC: Non-Bailable *See dsipositive years. For reclusion perpetua, however, there is no specification as to its
minimum and maximum range, as the aforesaid article merely provides that
"(a)ny person sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall be pardoned after
Issue: Whether a penalty higher than reclusion temporal but less than thirty years undergoing the penalty for thirty years, unless such person by reason of his
may properly be categorized and considered as embraced within the penalty of conduct or some other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief Executive
reclusion perpetua (as has been provided in said amendatory decree, the common
as unworthy of pardon."
praxis being to attribute to reclusion perpetua and the other perpetual penalties a
duration of thirty years)
Article 70 of the Code which, in laying down the rule on successive service of
Facts: Appellant Cresencia Reyes was charged in the RTC of Manila, in three
sentences where the culprit has to serve more than three penalties, provides that
cases for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and two cases of estafa. On the "the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-
three cases for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, appellant was convicted fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed
and sentenced to a total penalty of two years of imprisonment and to pay a total upon him," and "(i)n applying the provisions of this rule the duration of
fine of P96,290.00. On the two indictments for estafa, in Criminal Case No. 86- perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years."
51210, she was convicted and imposed an indeterminate sentence of 6 yrs. and 1
day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 yrs, 8 mos and 1 day of reclusion The imputed duration of 30yrs for reclusion perpetua, therefore, is only to
temporal, as maximum, together with the accessory penalties, as well as to serve as the basis for determining the convict's eligibility for pardon or for
indemnify the offended party in the sum of P15,750.00 and to pay the costs. In the application of the three-fold rule in the service of multiple penalties.
Criminal Case No. 86-51209 she was found guilty and sentenced to twenty-
Since, however, in all the graduated scales of penalties in the Code, as set out in
two years of reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties, to indemnify the
Articles 25, 70 and 71, reclusion perpetua is the penalty immediately next higher
complaining witness in the sum of P80,540.00 and to pay the cost, and other
to reclusion temporal, it follows by necessary implication that the minimum of
penalties.
reclusion perpetua is twenty (20) years and one (1) day with a maximum
duration thereafter to last for the rest of the convict's natural life although,
On October 22, 1975, PD No. 818 introduced the ff. amendment to Art 315 of
pursuant to Article 70, it appears that the maximum period for the service of
the RPC:
penalties shall not exceed forty (40) years.
"SECTION 1. Any person who shall defraud another by means of false pretenses or fraudulent
acts as defined in paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by It would be legally absurd and violative of the scales of penalties in the Code
Republic Act No. 4885, shall be punished by: to reckon the minimum of reclusion perpetua at thirty (30) years since there
would thereby be a resultant lacuna whenever the penalty exceeds the
13
maximum twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal but is less than thirty (30) expressly or impliedly excluded from the aforestated provisions on non-
years. bailability, we see no reason why an accused charged with estafa punishable
by reclusion perpetua should now be given the exceptional and favored
Other Issue: On Bail - Whether Reyes, who was convicted of estafa under Article treatment of being admitted to bail
315 of the RPC and sentenced to serve 22 years of reclusion perpetua, may be
allowed to remain on bail during the pendency of her appeal from said conviction. It is suggested that since estafa is a crime against property and supposedly not as
"heinous" as crimes against persons or chastity, such as murder or rape, it should not
People vs. Ricardo C . Cortez laid down policies concerning the effectivity of be equated with the latter felonies in justifying the denial of bail to the accused. The
the bail of the accused: obvious riposte is that this is a matter which should properly be addressed to the
3) When an accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense which under the legislature. It is not for this Court, by judicial legislation, to amend the pertinent
law at the time of its commission and at the time of the application for bail is provisions of the Revised Penal Code, much less the Constitution.
punishable by reclusion perpetua and is out on bail, and after trial is convicted by the
trial court of the offense charged, his bond shall be cancelled and the accused shall It is evident that the legislative criteria for the imposition of reclusion perpetua in
be placed in confinement pending resolution of his appeal.
said offenses took into account not only the outrageous nature of the crime, but also
the moral depravity or criminal perversity shown by the acts of the accused, or the
Before the ratification of the present Constitution, the rule on non bailability of a necessity for protection of property in the governmental, financial or economic
criminal offense was singularly in the case of a capital offense where the interests of the country. The objectives of Presidential Decree No. 818 are
evidence of guilt is strong. Thus, before, offenses punishable with reclusion indubitably within the ambit of the same legislative intendment and the foregoing
perpetua, were bailable justifications for the imposition of higher penalties and the consequent denial of bail
to the malefactor.
With the prohibition in the 1987 Constitution against the imposition of the death
penalty, a correlative provision therein categorically declared the unavailability Dispositive: ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby RESOLVES (1) to ORDER the bondsman,
of bail to persons charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when Oriental Assurance Corporation, to surrender accused-appellant Cresencia C. Reyes within ten
the evidence of guilt is strong. (10) days from notice to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37, and to immediately
inform this Court of such fact of surrender; and (2) to REQUIRE said Regional Trial Court,
immediately after such surrender, to order the transmittal of the accused-appellant to the
Section 3 of Rule 114 was amended to provide that no bail shall be granted Bureau of Corrections through the Philippine National Police and to forthwith report to this
to those charged with "an offense which, under the law at the time of its Court its compliance therewith. SO ORDERED.
commission and at the time of the application for bail, is punishable by
reclusion perpetua, when evidence of guilt is strong." There can be no
pretense that such unequivocal and explicit provisions in the Constitution and the
Rules of Court would admit of any exception, qualification or distinction.
As such, it may not be said that the framers of the 1987 Constitution were
unaware of the felonies under the RPC which were already punishable with the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and which, with the amendments introduced by the
present Constitution, would become non-bailable offenses. pecifically with
respect to the offense of estafa involved in the present case, the members of the
Constitutional Commission could not have been oblivious of Presidential Decree
No. 818, which took effect as early as 1975, providing for the penalty of
reclusion perpetua where bouncing checks of the requisite amount are involved.
There are other crimes involving government and private funds or property
which theretofore were also already punished with reclusion perpetua. Hence,
under the rule of contemporanea expositio and since the felony of estafa was not
14
Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan (Cerrero) Php 1,000 each, saying that there are many who would share in said
G.R No.L-51065-72 | Date:June 30, 1987 | Judge:Cortes | Not about amounts.
imposition of penalty 4. The claimants weren’t able to complain because they were afraid of
DOCTRINE: the accused and his armed companion.
5. The Sandiganbayan sentenced Mejorada 56 years and 8 years of
Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or imprisonment which is equivalent to the eight (8) penalties for the
omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the eight (8) informations filed against him.
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and
are hereby declared to be unlawful. Contention of the State: Section 3 of RA 3019 states that Mejorada should
be punished with ―imprisonment for not less than 1 year nor more than 10
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the years‖ as stated in Sec 9 of the same Act. In this case, there are 8 charges
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, against him and each charge should be served with the penalty prescribed by
advantage or preference in the discharge of his official the law.
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision Contention of the Accused: Mejorada states that the penalty imposed upon
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government him is contrary to the three-fold rule and states that the duration should not
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other exceed 40 years. This is in accordance to Article 70 of the RPC.
concessions.
RULING:The Sandiganbayan established the fact that the petitioner took
SC: WHEREFORE, the petition is denied for lack of merit. advantage of his position as a right-of-way-agent by making the claimants
sign the aforementioned agreements to demolish and sworn statements which
contained falsified declarations of the value of the improvements and lots.
There was evident bad faith on the part of the petitioner when he inflated the
ISSUE: Is the penalty imposed upon him by the Sandiganbayan violates the
values of the true claims and when he divested the claimants of a large share
three-fold rule under Article 70 of the RPC? No
of the amounts due them.
FACTS:
In view of the above holding. We also dispose of the fourth issue which
1. Arturo Mejorada was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of relates to the allegation that petitioner cannot be convicted for a violation of
violating Section 3(E) of RA. 3019, aka Anti-Graft and Corrupt the Anti-Graft Law because the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not
Practices Act. Mejorada was a right-away agent whose duty was to the violation of Section 3 (e) but the crime of robbery. Contrary to the
process the claims for compensation of damages of property owners petitioner averment. We find no variance between the offense charged in the
affected by highway construction and improvements. information and the offense proved. The prosecution was able to establish
2. He required the claimants to sign blank copies of Sworn Statements through the corroborating testimonies of the witnesses presented how
and Agreements to Demolish, where it appeared that the properties through evident bad faith, petitioner caused damage to the claimants and the
of the claimants have higher values than the actual value being Government. The manner by which the petitioner divested the private parties
claimed by them. of the compensation they received was part of' the scheme which commenced
3. However, the claimants did not bother reading through the paper when the petitioner approached the claimants and informed them that he
because they very much interested in the compensation of damages. could work out their claims for payment of the values of their lots and/or
After processing the claims, instead of giving to the claimants the improvements affected by the widening of the Pasig-Sta. Cruz-Calamba
proper amount, Mejorada gave one of them Php 5,000 and the rest, Road. The evidence presented by the prosecution clearly establish a violation
of Section 3(e).
15
The petitioner also assails the competency of the Sandiganbayan to hear and Even without the authority provided by Article 70, courts can still
decide this case. He argues that before the Sandiganbayan could legally impose as many penalties as there are separate and distinct offenses
function as a judicial body, at least two (2) divisions, or majority of the committed, since for every individual crime committed, a corresponding
justices shall have been duly constituted and appointed. penalty is prescribed by law. Each single crime is an outrage against the
State for which the latter, thru the courts of justice, has the power to
We previously ruled on this matter in the case of De Guzman v. People impose the appropriate penal sanctions.
(G.R. No. 54288, December 15, 1982, 119 SCRA 337). In that case, the
petitioner De Guzman questioned the authority of the Sandiganbayan to hear
and decide his case on the same ground that herein petitioner assails its
jurisdiction. The Court upheld the authority of the Sandiganbayan saying
that: Although the Sandiganbayan is composed of a Presiding Justice, and
eight Associate Justices, it does not mean that it cannot validly function
without all of the Divisions constituted. Section 3 of P.D. 1606 provides that
the "Sandiganbayan shall sit in three divisions of three justices each" while
Section 5 thereof provides that the unanimous vote of three justices of a
division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment.Thus the
Sandiganbayan functions in Divisions of three Justices each and each
Division functions independently of the other. As long as a division has been
duly constituted it is a judicial body whose pronouncements are binding as
judgments of the Sandiganbayan.The judgment convicting petitioner was a
unanimous Decision of the First Division duly constituted. It thus met the
requirement for the pronouncement of a judgment as required by Section 5 of
P.D. 1606 supra.
The third issue raised by the petitioner concerns the penalty imposed by the
Sandiganbayan which totals fifty-six (56) years and eight (8) days of
imprisonment. Petitioner impugns this as contrary to the three-fold rule and
insists that the duration of the aggregate penalties should not exceed forty
(40) years.Petitioner is mistaken in his application of the three-fold rule as set
forth in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code. This article is to be taken into
account not in the imposition of the penalty but in connection with the
service of the sentence imposed (People v. Escares, 102 Phil. 677 [1957]).
Article 70 speaks of "service" of sentence, "duration" of penalty and penalty
"to be inflicted". Nowhere in the article is anything mentioned about the
"imposition of penalty". It merely provides that the prisoner cannot be made
to serve more than three times the most severe of these penalties the
maximum of which is forty years.
18
19
People v. Temporada (Delocario) Corporation (ATTC), recruited and promised overseas employment, for a
G.R No. 173473 | 17-Dec-’08 | Ynares-Santiago, J. | ISL; Penalty next lower fee, to complainants Rogelio Legaspi, Jr. as technician in Singapore, and
DOCTRINE: The prescribed penalty for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) Soledad Atle, Luz Minkay, Evelyn Estacio and Dennis Dimaano as factory
of the RPC, when the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00, is prisión workers in Hongkong. The accused and appellant were then holding office at
correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum. The minimum term is Dela Rosa Street, Makati City but eventually transferred business to
taken from the penalty next lower or anywhere within prisión correccional Discovery Plaza, Ermita, Manila. After complainants had submitted all the
minimum and medium (i.e., from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 requirements consisting of their respective application forms, passports, NBI
months). Consequently, the RTC correctly fixed the minimum term for the clearances and medical certificates, the accused and appellant, on different
five estafa cases at 4 years and 2 months of prisión correccional since this dates, collected and received from them placement fees in various amounts,
is within the range of prisión correccional minimum and medium. viz: a) from Rogelio Legaspi, Jr. – 57,600.00; b) from Dennis Dimaano –
P66,520.00; c) from Evelyn Estacio – P88,520.00; d) from Soledad Atle –
RTC: Convicted Beth Temporada of the crime of large scale illegal P69,520.00 and e) from Luz Minkay – P69,520.00. As none of them was able
recruitment, or violation of Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended, and to leave nor recover the amounts they had paid, complainant lodged separate
five counts of estafa under Article 315, par. (2) (a) of the RPC. criminal complaints against accused and appellant before the City Prosecutor
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the GUILT of accused of Manila. On November 29, 2002, Assistant City Prosecutor Restituto
Beth Temporada BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, judgment is hereby Mangalindan, Jr. filed six (6) Informations against the accused and appellant,
rendered CONVICTING the said accused, as principal of the offenses one for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under Article 38 (a) of the Labor
charged and she is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE Code as amended, and the rest for five (5) counts of estafa under Article 315
IMPRISONMENT and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code.
(P500,000.00) for illegal recruitment; and the indeterminate penalty of four
(4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional as minimum, to nine The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of
(9) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum for the estafa confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party
committed against complainant Rogelio A. Legaspi, Jr.; the indeterminate suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.
penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional as
minimum to ten (10) years and one day of prision mayor as maximum each Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement thusly:
for the estafas committed against complainants, Dennis Dimaano, Soledad ART. 13. Definitions. – x x x
B. Atte and Luz T. Minkay; and the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years (b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting,
and two (2) months of prision correctional as minimum, to eleven (11) contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes
years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum for the estafa referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally
committed against Evelyn Estacio. or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity
which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or
CA: Affirmed the ruling of the RTC of Manila more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
SC: Modified the decision of the CA (see dispositive) To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three (3) elements must
concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to
enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b)
Issue: Whether or not the indeterminate penalties imposed for the five counts the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of
of estafa committed by Beth Temporada were correct. Yes, because she’s "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any
guilty of the five counts of estafa as principal. of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the said Code
Facts: From September 2001 to January 2002, accused Rosemarie "Baby" (now Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042); and, (c) the offender committed the same
Robles, Bernadette Miranda, Nenita Catacotan and Jojo Resco and appellant against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. In the case at
Beth Temporada, all employees of the Alternative Travel and Tours bar, the foregoing elements are present. Appellant, in conspiracy with her co-
20
accused, misrepresented to have the power, influence, authority and business
to obtain overseas employment upon payment of a placement fee which was On penalties:
duly collected from complainants Rogelio Legaspi, Dennis Dimaano, Evelyn The prescribed penalty for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the RPC,
Estacio, Soledad Atle and Luz Minkay. Further, the certification issued by when the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00, is prisión correccional
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and the maximum to prisión mayor minimum. The minimum term is taken from the
testimony of Ann Abastra Abas, a representative of said government agency, penalty next lower or anywhere within prisión correccional minimum and
established that appellant and her co-accused did not possess any authority or medium (i.e., from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months).
license to recruit workers for overseas employment. And, since there were Consequently, the RTC correctly fixed the minimum term for the five estafa
five (5) victims, the trial court correctly found appellant liable for illegal cases at 4 years and 2 months of prisión correccional since this is within the
recruitment in large scale. range of prisión correccional minimum and medium.
Although Beth Temporada argues that she was merely an employee of On the other hand, the maximum term is taken from the prescribed penalty of
ATTC. An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum in its maximum
recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it period, adding 1 year of imprisonment for every P10,000.00 in excess of
is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment.9 P22,000.00, provided that the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years.
Appellant actively took part in the illegal recruitment of private However, the maximum period of the prescribed penalty of prisión
complainants. Rogelio Legaspi testified that after introducing herself as the correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum is not prisión mayor
General Manager of ATTC, appellant persuaded him to apply as a technician minimum as apparently assumed by the RTC. To compute the maximum
in Singapore and assured him that there was a job market therefor. In period of the prescribed penalty, prisión correccional maximum to prisión
addition to the placement fee of P35,000.00 which he paid to accused mayor minimum should be divided into three equal portions of time each of
Bernadette Miranda, he also handed the amount of P10,000.00 to appellant which portion shall be deemed to form one period in accordance with Article
who, in turn, issued him a receipt for the total amount of P45,000.00. The 6517 of the RPC. Following this procedure, the maximum period of prisión
totality of the evidence, thus, established that appellant acted as an correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum is from 6 years, 8 months
indispensable participant and effective collaborator of her co-accused in the and 21 days to 8 years.18 The incremental penalty, when proper, shall thus
illegal recruitment of complainants. be added to anywhere from 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years, at the
discretion of the court.
Ruling: The totality of the evidence established that the accused is an
indispensable participant and effective collaborator of her co-accused in the In computing the incremental penalty, the amount defrauded shall be
illegal recruitment of their complainants. subtracted by P22,000.00, and the difference shall be divided by P10,000.00.
Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Any fraction of a year shall be discarded as was done starting with the case
Filipinos Act of 1995 prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of People v. Pabalan20 in consonance with the settled rule that penal laws
of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00 for the crime of shall be construed liberally in favor of the accused. The doctrine enunciated
illegal recruitment in large scale or by a syndicate. The trial court, therefore, in People v. Benemerito21 insofar as the fraction of a year was utilized in
properly meted the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 on computing the total incremental penalty should, thus, be modified. In
the appellant. accordance with the above procedure, the maximum term of the
Well-settled is the rule that a person convicted for illegal recruitment under indeterminate sentences imposed by the RTC should be as follows:
the Labor Code may, for the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa
under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the RPC.
The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of
confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party
suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.
21
Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is
MODIFIED with respect to the indeterminate penalties imposed on appellant
for the five (5) counts of estafa, to wit:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 02-208372, the accused is sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prisión correccional as
minimum, to 9 years, 8 months and 21 days of prisión mayor as maximum.
(2) In Criminal Case Nos. 02-208373, 02-208375, and 02-208376, the
accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of
prisión correccional as minimum, to 10 years, 8 months and 21 days of
prisión mayor as maximum for each of the aforesaid three estafa cases.
(3) In Criminal Case No. 02-208374, the accused is sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prisión correccional as
minimum, to 12 years, 8 months and 21 days of reclusión temporal as
maximum.
In all other respects, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
22
Dela Cruz v. CA 265 SCRA 299 (1996) (Tan) the five (5) container vans of used engines were not delivered, on the excuse
G.R. No. 105213, December 4, 1996 PANGANIBAN, J.: | that there was still lacking P175,000.00 for demurrage and storage fees. The
ISL; Maximum penalty to exceed 20 years private complainant also gave this amount.
DOCTRINE: In determining penalties in estafa, for each P10,000
that exceeds the P22,000 benchmark, one year of imprisonment is But neither the five (5) container vans of used engines or the Mercedes Benz
added. But the law categorically declares that the maximum penalty car was delivered, notwithstanding her promises to do so, and inspite of the
should be not more than 20 years. repeated demands from the private complainant. Hence, a case for estafa was
filed against the accused. Math: 300+100+140+175 = 715K.
Issue: Was the CA correct in clarifying the penalty applicable to an RTC Ruling: ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered convicting the
indeterminate penalty of 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum? accused, ERLINDA DE LA CRUZ, of the crime of Estafa, under Article
315, paragraph 2 (a) of the RPC, taking into consideration the Indeterminate
Facts: In August 1989, the private complainant Bellosillo was introduced to Sentence Law, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances which
the accused at the Maxim's Restaurant in Manila. This meeting resulted into attended the commission of the offense, the said accused is sentenced to
an Agreement of Undertaking, whereby the accused, as seller, undertook to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of from FOUR (4)
cause the release from the Bureau of Customs of 832 pieces of used gasoline YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional in its medium
engines and spare parts which the private complainant, as buyer, agreed to period, as the minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS of prision mayor in its
pay for P700,000.00. minimum period, as the maximum, plus 69 years considering that the
amount defrauded by the accused exceeds the sum of P22,000.00,
(1st transaction) As agreed, the private complainant paid to the accused the computed at one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00 out of the
amount of P300,000.00, and the balance of P400,000.00, payable within P693,000.00 excess thereof, but the penalty to be suffered by the accused
three (3) day(s) after delivery of the merchandise. The merchandise however shall not exceed twenty (20) years; with all the accessory penalties; to
could not be released for lack of certain signatures, so the Agreement of indemnify Bellosillo P715,000.00, and to pay the costs.
Undertaking was not consummated.
CA Ruling: Petitioner appealed to the CA. But finding her allegations
The accused, instead presented the bill of lading to the private complainant, superficial and unsupported by the evidence, it disposed of the appeal:
propositioned, instead, to work for the release of used engines contained in WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction herein appealed from is
five (5) container vans. Bellosillo agreed considering that she has influence AFFIRMED, and the indeterminate penalty imposed by the lower court on
and connections in the Bureau of Customs as a representative of a broker, appellant is clarified so as to read:
promising that his money would be doubled. From four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correcional as minimum to
20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
(2nd transaction) Because of these representations by the accused, Bellosillo
agreed to fund the release of the five (5) container vans containing used SC Ruling: YES. The penalty for estafa depends on the amount defrauded.
engines. He gave an additional amount of P100,000.00. The accused failed Article 315 of the RPC provides that the penalty of prision correccional in its
however to fulfill her end of the bargain. maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period (or imprisonment
ranging from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 8 years), if the amount of the
(3rd transaction) Meanwhile, the accused also proposed for the release of a fraud is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00 pesos, and if such
Mercedes Benz car which she said can be done together with the five (5) amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall
container vans of used engines, if the additional amount of P140,000.00 is be imposed in its maximum period (6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8
given by the private complainant. The private complainant agreed and raised years), adding one year for each additional P10,000.00 pesos; but the total
this amount by pawning his valuables. But, still the Mercedes Benz car and penalty shall not exceed twenty years. In such case, and in connection with
23
the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the "4th. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if such amount does not exceed
other provisions of the RPC, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000): x x x x x x
reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
"Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
"1st. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor in its
minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over Two million four hundred thousand pesos
(₱2,400,000) but does not exceed Four million four hundred thousand pesos (₱4,400,000), and
if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed
in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional Two million pesos (₱2,000,000);
but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and
in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the
other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prisión mayor or reclusion temporal,
as the case may be.
"2nd. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount
of the fraud is over One million two hundred thousand pesos (₱1,200,000) but does not exceed
Two million four hundred thousand pesos (₱2,400,000).
"3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its
minimum period, if such amount is over Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000) but does not exceed
One million two hundred thousand pesos (₱1,200,000).
24
25