FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 235724, March 11, 2020
MARIA LOURDES ARTATES Y GALLARDO, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, C.J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Amended Decision1 and Resolution,2 dated April 10, 2017 and September 4, 2017, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 37551, which affirmed with modification the Decision3 dated January 13, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, in Criminal Case No. 5559-V, finding petitioner Maria Lourdes Artates y Gallardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa, defined and penalized under Article 315 paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The factual antecedents, as culled from the CA Decision, are as follows:
It was established by the prosecution that on November 16, 2003, private complainant Patrocinia Pablico and her son, Jun Pablico, were in Filart Shoe Store located at Quezon Avenue, Vigan City, when Maria recruited Jun, a criminology graduate, to enter the Philippine National Police (PNP). Maria told Patrocinia that her husband, PO3 Edmundo Artates, was detailed as security of then Governor Luis "Chavit" Singson and could facilitate Jun's entry into the PNP. In return, Maria asked for money for uniform, medical examination, neuro-examination, and "blow-out." She also told Patrocinia that it was no longer necessary for her son to undergo the medical examination because her husband was influential at the PNP. Thus, from November 16, 2003 to February 20, 2004, Maria asked and received from Patrocinia and Jun the total amount of P50,000.00 or more. Despite this, Maria's promise did not happen; Jun was informed that the recruitment at the PNP had already ended. Feeling fooled by Maria, Patrocinia and Jun went to the house of Maria to inquire about Jun's application. There, they discovered that Maria was no longer living with Edmundo, who told them that he had no knowledge of Jun's application and that, in fact, he and Maria were already separated. Consequently, Patrocinia and Jun immediately reported the matter to the Vigan Police Station on February 20, 2004.4
At the station, Patrocinia, Jun, and Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Nestor Caballes agreed on an entrapment operation where Patrocinia and Jun were to meet Maria to give her the money that the latter previously asked for as payment for Jun's firearm. PSI Caballes photocopied the bills that Patrocinia had in her pocket amounting to P400.00 which she would hand to Maria. Thereafter, Patrocinia and Jun, together with PSI Caballes, SPO4 Alexander Tapaya, and PO3 Peter Area, proceeded to meet Maria. Upon meeting her, the police officers positioned themselves near a Jollibee branch which was about 20 to 30 meters away from where Patrocinia and Maria were talking. After Patrocinia handed the money, the police officers immediately went to Maria and informed her that they were arresting her for estafa, informed her of her rights, and brought her to the police station. There, the arresting officers frisked Maria and recovered from her the money handed to her by Patrocinia earlier. They marked said money and proceeded to interview and detain Maria.5 Subsequently, an Information for estafa was filed against her, to wit:
That during the period starting November 16, 2003 up to February 20, 2004, in the [C]ity of Vigan, [P]rovince of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously defraud one PATROCINIA PABLICO, as follows, to wit: That said accused by means of false pretenses and fraudulent misrepresentations which she made to said PATROCINIA PABLICO to the effect that she possesses power, influence, and connections to have (sic) employ JUN P. PABLICO, son of said PATROCINIA PABLICO, as Police Officer, provided the amount of P50,000.00, Philippine Currency, be delivered to her for securing such employment, as in fact said PATROCINIA PABLICO was induced and delivered to said accused the total amount of P50,000.00, more or less, that after having received the same, the said accused instead of complying with her assurances, representations, and obligation of securing employment as Police Officer for said JUN PABLICO, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously convert and misappropriate the said amount of P50,000.00, more or less, to her own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said PATROCINIA PABLICO in the said amount of P50,000.00, more or less.
Contrary to law.6
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused MARIA LOURDES ARTATES GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa defined and penalized under Art. 315 par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, hereby sentencing her to suffer the indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to TWELVE (12) years and ONE (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The accused is hereby ordered to return to Patrocinia Pablico the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS.
COSTS DE [OFICIO].
SO ORDERED.8
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The January 13, 2015 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur in Criminal Case No. 5559-V is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: 1) accused-appellant Maria Lourdes Artates y Gallardo is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years, eight (8) months, and twenty (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum; and 2) the P50,000.00 actual damages awarded to Patrocinia Pablico shall earn 6% interest per annum from the day the Information was filed on February 23, 2004 until full payment.
SO ORDERED.10
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The January 13, 2015 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur in Criminal Case No. 5559-V is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: 1) accused-appellant Maria Lourdes Artates y Gallardo is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years, eight (8) months, and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum; and 2) the P50,000.00 actual damages awarded to Patrocinia Pablico shall earn 6% interest per annum from the day the Information was filed on February 23, 2004 until full payment.
SO ORDERED.11
I.WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONER FOR ESTAFA, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE ALL ITS ELEMENTS.II. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONER, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.III. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONER, DESPITE THE ILLEGALITY OF HER ARREST, AND THE CONSEQUENT INADMISSIBILITY OF THE MARKED MONEY USED IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HER.III. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION OF IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT ON THE PETITIONER, AND THE AWARDING OF DAMAGES TO PRIVATE COMPLAINANT PATROCINIA PABLICO, DESPITE THE LACK OF ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SHOW ACTUAL DAMAGE SUFFERED BY THE LATTER.13
Article 315. Swindling (estafa).— Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below x x x2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
Q: On November 16, 2003, do you know where were you?
A: I was in our Filart Store, sir.
Q: And while in your store, do you remember having seen Maria Lourdes Artates?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And when you saw Maria Lourdes Artates, what happened?
A: She recruited my son to become a member of the police, but it was (sic) not materialized, sir.
Q: And what is the name of your son whom (sic) recruited by the accused?
A: June (sic) Pablico, sir.
Q: And how did she recruit your son?
A: She told me that her husband is a policeman and my son was a graduate of criminology so she told me that her husband is able to assist him in entering the police service, sir.
Q: And did you believe her when she told you that?
A: Yes, I was convinced because my son also wanted to enter into the police service, sir.
Q: And when you believed her, what did you do?
A: So I told her, "Alright, if your husband can help him," sir.
Q: And after that what happened?
A: Then she demanded money for medical, sir.
Q: And how much did she demand from you?
A: She demanded money by installment, sir.
Q: And did you give her those amounts?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And did she tell you for what purpose those money she received from you?
A: For medical for the police, sir.
Q: And do you know if medical of whom?
A: June (sic) Pablico, sir.
Q: And do you know if your son had undergone the medical examination?
A: She told me that it is not necessary that he will (sic) come, sir.
Q: And what did you do when she told you that it is not necessary for your son to go for a medical examination?
A: I trusted her because she told me that her husband has influence, sir.
Q: Aside from those amount[s] she demanded from you[,] what else[,] if any?
A: None, only the money sir.
Q: And how much all in all did you give Maria Lourdes Artates?
A: P50,000.00 or more, sir.
Q: And was she able to have your son entered (sic) the police service?
A: No. sir.
Q: Do you know the reason why she was not able to enter your son into the police service?
A: No, because she only fooled us, sir.
Q: She fooled you on what?
A: That her husband could enter my son into the police service, sir.
Q: And what happened when you discovered that Maria Lourdes Artates was just fooling you?
A: I got mad together with my son, sir.
Q: And when you got mad, what did you do[,] if any?
A: We went to their house and we came to know that they were not living together, sir.
Q: Whom (sic) are you referring to?
A: Maria Lourdes Artates and the husband, sir.17
SEC. 85. Article 315 of the same Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, Presidential Decree No. 1689, and Presidential Decree No. 818, is hereby further amended to read as follows:ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:
x x x x
"3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if such amount is over Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000).
Endnotes:
* Designated Additional Member, in lieu of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, per Raffle dated February 19, 2020.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales, with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court), concurring; rollo, pp. 41-56.
2Id. at 75-76.
3 Penned by Judge Marita Bernales Balloguing; id. at 104-113.
4Id. at 43.
5Id. at 44.
6 Records, pp. 1-2.
7Id.
8Id. at 113.
9Id. at 111.
10Id. at 72-73.
11Id. at 55.
12Id. at 52.
13Id. at 18-19.
14An 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, August 29, 2017.
15Gamaro, et al. v. People, 806 Phil. 483, 496 (2017).
16Rollo, p. 48.
17Rollo, pp. 49-51.
18 632 Phil. 276, 287 (2010).
19People v. Dela Cruz, 811 Phil. 745, 764 (2017).
20People v. Paz, G.R. No. 233466, August 7, 2019.
21People v. Daud, et al., 734 Phil. 698, 716 (2014).
22Rollo, p. 53.
23People v. Dela Cruz, supra note 19.
24Seguritan v. People, G.R. No. 236499 (Notice), April 10, 2019.