Janine Fabe

Subject : Criminal Law 1

Topic

: Indeterminate Sentence Law, estafa

Title

: People v Temporada

Citation : G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008

Facts
A case was filed against accused-appellant Beth Temporada of the crime of
Large Scale Illegal Recruitment, or violation of Article 38 of the Labor Code,
as amended and five counts of estafa under Article 315, par. (2) (a) of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC).

They further alleged that the accused recruited and promised overseas
employment, for a fee, to complainants Rogelio Legaspi, Jr. As technician in
Singapore, and Soledad Atle, Luz Minkay, Evelyn Estacio and Dennis
Dimaano as factory workers in Hongkong. After collecting the alleged
placement fees are in excees of or greater than that specified in the
scheduled of allowable fees prescribed of the POEA and without reasons and
without fault of the said complainants, failed to actually deploy them and failed
to reimburse them the expenses they incurred in connection with the
documentation and processing of their papers for purposes of their
deployment. The accused-appellant ascribes the lone error that the trial court

gravely erred in finding her guilty of illegal recruitment and five (5) counts of
estafa despite the insufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution.

The petitioner prays for her acquittal for the prosecutions failure to prove the
element of deceit. She argues that her actions prior to, during and after the
filing of the estafa case against her negated deceit, ill-motive and and or/ bad
faith to abscond with her obligation to the private complainant. She cite the
cases of People v. Singson and People v Ojeda where the Court acquitted the
accused for the failure of the prosecution to prove the element of deceit.

Issue
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in
affirming the judgment of the RTC finding her guilty of estafa beyond
reasonable doubt.

Held
No. We find no reversible error in the CAs decision. In fact, the offense of estafa,
in general, is committed either by (a) abuse of confidence or (b) means of deceit.
The acts constituting estafa committed with abuse of confidence are enumerated in
item (1) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; item (2) of Article
315 enumerates estafa committed by means of deceit. Deceit is not essential
requisite of estafa by abuse of confidence; the breach of confidence takes the place
of fraud or deceit, which is a usual element in the other estafas. In this case, the

charge against the petitioner and her subsequent conviction was for estafa
committed by abuse of confidence.

Therefore, the accused was convicted for the crime of Large Scale Illegal
Recruitment, as principal of the offenses charged and she is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
( P500,000) for illegal recruitment; and the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years
and two (2) months of prision correctional as minimum, to nine (9) years and one
(1) day of prison mayor, as a maximum for the estafa committed against the
complainant Rogelio A. Legaspi, Jr.; the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and
two (2) months of prision correctional as minimum to ten (10) years and one (1) day
of prison mayor as maximum each for the estafas committed against complainants,
Dennis Dimaano, Soledad B. Atte and Luz T. Minkay; and the indeterminate penalty
of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional as minimum, to eleven
(11) years and one (1) day of prison mayor as maximum for the estafa committed
against Evelyn Estacio.