G.R. No.

181409

February 11, 2010

INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA.

DE CARUNGCONG, represented
by MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG, Present:
as Administratrix,
Petitioner,
-versusPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
and WILLIAM SATO,
Respondents.
FACTS:

The above-named accused (respondent), by means of deceit, did, then and

there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud the deceased mother in the
following manner, to wit: the said accused induced said deceased, who was
already then blind and 79 years old, to sign and thumbmark a special power of
attorney the daughter of said accused, making her believe that said document
involved only her taxes, accused knowing fully well that said document authorizes
his minor daughter to sell, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of to any person or
entity of her properties all located at Tagaytay City. The duly appointed
administratrix of petitioner intestate estate of her deceased mother, filed a
complaint-affidavit for estafa against the accused (her brother-in-law, a Japanese
national). The accused moved for the quashal of the Information, claiming that
under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, his relationship to the person allegedly
defrauded, the deceased who was his mother-in-law, was an exempting
circumstance. The trial court granted Satos motion and ordered the dismissal of the
criminal case. The petition for certiorari with CA was likewise dismissed. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE:
1. W/N the death of accuseds wife and deceased mothers daughter,
Zenaida, extinguished the relationship by affinity between the accused
and deceased.

2.

Whether or not accused should be exempt from criminal liability for

reason of his relationship.

HELD:
1. No. Relationship by affinity between the surviving spouse and the kindred
of the deceased spouse continues even after the death of the deceased spouse,
regardless of whether the marriage produced children or not. Thus, the relationship
by affinity between the accused and deceased is not extinguished by the death of
Zenaida.

2. No. The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code only
applies to the felonies of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Under the said
provision, the State condones the criminal responsibility of the offender in cases of
theft, swindling and malicious mischief. As an act of grace, the State waives its right
to prosecute the offender for the said crimes but leaves the private offended party
with the option to hold the offender civilly liable.

However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the felonies mentioned
therein. The plain, categorical and unmistakable language of the provision shows
that it applies exclusively to the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious
mischief. It does not apply where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is
complexed with another crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa through
falsification.

Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the State waives its right to hold the
offender criminally liable for the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious
mischief and considers the violation of the juridical right to property committed by
the offender against certain family members as a private matter and therefore
subject only to civil liability. The waiver does not apply when the violation of the
right to property is achieved through (and therefore inseparably intertwined with) a
breach of the public interest in the integrity and presumed authenticity of public

documents. For, in the latter instance, what is involved is no longer simply the
property right of a family relation but a paramount public interest.