SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 239090, June 17, 2020
RAMONA FAVIS-VELASCO AND ELVIRA L. YULO, PETITIONERS, V. JAYE MARJORIE R. GONZALES, RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
INTING, J.:
This is a Petition for Review1 on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision2 dated November 23, 2017 and the Resolution3 dated May 3, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 144600. The assailed CA Decision annulled the Resolution4 dated July 15, 2015 of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary that reversed and modified the Resolution dated November 13, 2013 issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Gilbert R. Alcala (Prosecutor Alcala) of the Office of City Prosecutor of Makati City (OCP Makati City), dismissing the complaint for Estafa filed by Ramona Favis-Velasco and Elvira L. Yulo (petitioners) against Jaye Marjorie Rojas Gonzales (respondent Jaye).
The antecedents of the case are as follows:
The petition stemmed from a Complaint-Affadavit5 executed by petitioners against respondent Jaye, her husband, Bienvenido Ma. Gonzales III, and Raul Clemente (collectively known as the respondents) for 35 counts of Estafa by unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence as defined under Article 315, paragraph 1(b); and 35 counts of Estafa by false pretenses as defined under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The Complaint-Affidavit was then referred to the OCP of Makati City for preliminary investigation. On November 13, 2013, Prosecutor Alcala issued a Resolution6 finding no probable cause to hold the respondents liable for the offenses charged, and consequently dismissed the petitioners' complaint.
Undaunted, the petitioners filed a Petition for Review7 with the DOJ Secretary, who in turn modified the appealed Resolution of Prosecutor Alcala, to wit: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed resolution is hereby MODIFIED. Accordingly, the City Prosecutor of Makati is directed to file the appropriate Informations for estafa under Article 315 par. 1(b) and 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code against respondent JAYE MARJORIE ROXAS GONZALES and to report the action taken thereon within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. The dismissal of the complaint against the respondents BIENVENIDO MA. GONZALES III and RAUL CLEMENTE stands.The DOJ Secretary found probable cause to indict respondent Jaye of the crime of Estafa under paragraphs 1(b) and 2(a), Article 315 of the RPC. Subsequently, respondent Jaye filed a Motion for Reconsideration seeking to set aside the DOJ Secretary's Resolution. Thereafter, on September 30, 2015, she filed a motion to defer action before the office of the DOJ Secretary.
SO ORDERED.8
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolution dated July 15, 2015 of public respondent, the Secretary of the Department of Justice in NPS No. XV-05-INV-13C-1111 is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Resultantly, the Resolution dated November 13, 2013 issued in the said case by Assistant City Prosecutor Gilbert R. Alcala is hereby REINSTATED, and the criminal complaint filed by private respondents Ramona Favis-Velasco and Elvira Yulo against petitioner Jaye Marjorie R. Gonzales, ordered DISMISSED.The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,16 but the CA denied it in its assailed Resolution17 dated May 3, 2018.
The warrants of arrest issued by Branch 133 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City in Criminal Case Nos. 16-027, 16-028, 16-029 and 16-030 are hereby declared NULL and VOID.
SO ORDERED.15
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315, PARAGRAPH 2(A) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AGAINST RESPONDENT GONZALES. THE PRESENCE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE SAID CRIME IS AMPLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IN THE INSTANT CASE.The main issue in this case hinges on the determination of whether or not there is probable cause to indict the respondent of Estafa under paragraphs 2(a) and 1(b), Article 315 of the RPC.
II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315, PARAGRAPH 1(B) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AGAINST RESPONDENT GONZALES. THE PRESENCE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE SAID CRIME IS AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE IN THE INSTANT CASE.
III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE IN FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE TO INDICT RESPONDENT GONZALES OF ESTAFA.20
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below x x x:The elements of Estafa under paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the RPC are: (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.34x x x x
2. 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 a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
1.4 We are formally charging the Respondents co-conspirators with 35 counts of Estafa by unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence as defined under Article 315 paragraph 1 (b) and 35 counts of Estafa by false pretenses as defined by paragraph [2] (a) of the same Article of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:35It must be noted that the petitioners were the ones who asked Marianne Onate (Onate) to be introduced to respondent Jaye and it was Onate who introduced respondent Jaye as her broker. Clearly, it was through the representation of Onate that petitioners will earn substantial amount of money in the stock market that induced them to invest their money. Verily, no deceit or fraud could be attributed to respondent Jaye as would induce the petitioners to part with their money or property.x x x x
2.2 We first heard about Respondent Jaye through a mutual friend Marianne Onate ("Ms. Onate") when we asked her who her broker was. She identified her broker as Respondent Jaye who is the wife of Respondent Bienvenido, a very close friend of her brother. We asked for an introduction to Respondent Jaye.36
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:The elements of Estafa through misappropriation under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) are: (a) the offender's receipt of money, goods, or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (b) misappropriation or conversion by the offender of the money or property received, or denial of receipt of the money or property; (c) the misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) demand by the offended party that the offender return the money or property received.37
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over Two million four hundred thousand pesos (P2,400,000) but does not exceed Four million four hundred thousand pesos (P4,400,000), 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 (P2,000,000); 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 prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.x x x x
1. With unfaithfullness or abuse of confidence, namely:x x x x
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods or any other personal property received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property.
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2780 dated May 11, 2020.
1Rollo, pp. 9-65.
2Id. at 67-87; penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon with Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Renato C. Francisco, concurring.
3Id. at 89-90.
4Id. at 372-378; penned by Undersecretary Jose Vicente B. Salazar.
5Id. at 350-371.
6Id. at 34.
7Id.
8Id. at 377.
9Id. at 379-411.
10Id. at 35.
11Id. at 412-443.
12Id. at 444-475.
13Id. at 430-435.
14Id. at 435-439.
15Id. at 86-87.
16Id. at 91-121.
17Id. at 89-90.
18Id. at 668-678.
19Id. at 683-699.
20Id. at 36-37.
21 Section 1, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
22Labay v. Sandiganhayan, G.R. Nos. 235937-40, July 23, 2018, citing Go v. Court of Appeals, 283 Phil. 24, 43 (1992).
23Id., citing Sales v. Sandiganbayan, 421 Phil. 176, 186-187 (2001).
24Id.
25Reynes v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 223405, February 20, 2019.
26Id.
27Id.
28Id., citing Aguilar v. Department of Justice, 717 Phil. 789, 799 (2013).
29Lanier, et al. v. People, 730 Phil. 143, (2014).
30Supra note 25, citing Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities, Inc., 582 Phil. 505, 518-519 (2008).
31Id.
32Sen. De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al., 819 Phil. 616, 737 (2017), citing Judge Marcos v. Judge Cabrera-Faller, 804 Phil. 45, 68 (2017).
33Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, G .R. Nos. 212761-62, 213473-74 & 213538-39, July 31, 2018, citing Hasegawa v. Giron, 716 Phil. 364, 374 (2013).
34People v. Sison, 816 Phil. 8, 26 (2017), citing Suliman v. People, 747 Phil. 719, 731 (2014).
35Rollo, p. 350.
36Id. at 354.
37Legaspi v. People, G.R. Nos. 225753 & 225799, October 15, 2018, citing Serona v. Court of Appeal, 440 Phil. 508, 517 (2002).
38Gamaro et al. v. People, 806 Phil. 483, 497-498 (2017).chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary