11/29/2016

G.R.No.170964

TodayisTuesday,November29,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.170964March7,2012
ELSAMACANDOGMAGTIRA,Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.
DECISION
BRION,J.:
PetitionerElsaMacandogMagtiraseeksinthispetitionforreviewoncertiorari(filedunderRule45oftheRulesof
Court)toreversethedecision1andtheresolution2oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CRNo.27252.The
CAaffirmedwithmodificationthejointdecision3oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofMakatiCity,Branch148,that
found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of seven (7) counts of estafa penalized under Article 315,
paragraph1(b)oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamended.
The records show that seven criminal informations for estafa were filed against the petitioner. Except for the
amounts misappropriated and the private complainants4 involved, the informations were similarly worded, as
follows:
Thatonoraboutandsometimeduringtheyearof2000,intheCityofMakati,MetroManila,Philippines,aplace
withinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccusedreceivedintrustandforadministration
fromcomplainantxxxascontributiontoaPaluwaganintheamountofxxxunder[the]safekeepingofaccused
[Elsa] Macandog Magtira, with the express and legal obligation on the part of the accused to return and/or
account for the same, but the accused far from complying with her obligation with intent to gain, abuse of
confidence and to defraud complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate,
misapplyandconverttoherownpersonaluseandbenefitthesaidcontribution(Paluwagan)and/ortheproceeds
thereofxxxanddespiterepeateddemands,theaccusedfailedandrefusedandstillfailsandrefusestodoso,to
thedamageandprejudiceofthecomplainantintheaforementionedamount.5
Thepetitionerenteredapleaof"notguilty"toallthecharges.6Thereafter,thesevencasesweretriedjointly.The
followingfactswereestablished:first,thepetitionerwasthecustodianofthefundsofthePaluwaganwherethe
private complainants were members7 second, that demands were made against the petitioner by the private
complainants for the return of their contributions in the Paluwagan and third, the petitioner failed to meet the
privatecomplainantsdemandforthereturnoftheircontributions.
Duringtrial,thepetitionerdeniedmisappropriatingthecontributionsoftheprivatecomplainants.Sheclaimedthat
shewasrobbedofthePaluwaganfundsintheearlyafternoonofFebruary28,2000.Bywayofcorroboration,the
petitioner presented a copy of an entry in the police blotter dated February 28, 2000 and the affidavits of five
individualsattestingtotherobbery.8
Fromtheevidenceadduced,theRTCconvictedthepetitionerofthecrimechargedanddeclared:
[I]t is clear to the Court that the accused is not disputing in all the cases that (a) sizeable amount of money
belonging to different persons were received by her in trust or for administration, involving the duty to make a
deliverythereoftotheowners(2)thatthereisademandtoherthatsamebereturnedbutshecannotdoso.9
The RTC explained that while the robbery of the entrusted money is a valid defense against estafa, the
petitioners evidence of the robbery was wanting. The RTC observed that the petitioners testimony was self
servingandinconsistentonsomeofthematerialdetailsoftherobbery.TheRTCalsonotedthepetitionersfailure
to account for and to deliver the contributions which were collected from the private complainants after the
robbery. Finally, the RTC found that the petitioners credibility affected by her own demeanor of indifference
during trial showed no "semblance of worry or [of] being concerned" 10 about the serious charges filed against
her.
DissatisfiedwiththeRTCsdecision,thepetitionerelevatedherconvictiontotheCAwhichaffirmedthefindingsof
theRTCbutmodifiedthepenaltyofimprisonmentimposed.TheCAheld:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/mar2012/gr_170964_2012.html

1/6

11/29/2016

G.R.No.170964

(1)InCriminalCaseNo.021766wheretheamountofthefraudisP85,000.00,theincrementalpenaltyis
six(6)yearstobeaddedtothemaximumperiodofthepenaltyprovidedforbylaw,oreight(8)yearsof
prisionmayorminimumplussix(6)yearsoftheincrementalpenalty.Hence,theindeterminatesentenceis
four(4)yearsandtwo(2)monthsofprisioncorreccionalmedium,astheminimumpenalty,tofourteen(14)
yearsofreclusiontemporalminimum,asthemaximumpenalty.
(2)InCriminalCaseNo.021767wheretheamountofthefraudisP65,000.00,theincrementalpenaltyis
four(4)yearstobeaddedtothemaximumperiodofthepenaltyprovidedforbylaw,oreight(8)yearsof
prisionmayorminimumplusfour(4)yearsoftheincrementalpenalty.Hence,theindeterminatesentenceis
four(4)yearsandtwo(2)monthsofprisioncorreccionalmedium,astheminimumpenalty,totwelve(12)
yearsofprisionmayormaximum,asthemaximumpenalty.
(3)InCriminalCaseNo.021768wheretheamountofthefraudisP60,000.00,theincrementalpenaltyis
three(3)yearstobeaddedtothemaximumperiodofthepenaltyprovidedforbylaw,oreight(8)yearsof
prisionmayorminimumplusthree(3)yearsoftheincrementalpenalty.Hence,theindeterminatesentence
isfour(4)yearsandtwo(2)monthsofprisioncorreccionalmedium,astheminimumpenalty,toeleven(11)
yearsofprisionmayormaximum,asthemaximumpenalty.
(4)InCriminalCaseNo.021769wheretheamountofthefraudisP34,000.00,theincrementalpenaltyis
one(1)yeartobeaddedtothemaximumperiodofthepenaltyprovidedforbylaw,oreight(8)yearsof
prision mayor minimum plus one (1) year of the incremental penalty. Hence, the indeterminate penalty
should be four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as the minimum penalty, to
nine(9)yearsofprisionmayormedium,asthemaximumpenalty.
(5)InCriminalCaseNo.021770wheretheamountofthefraudisP85,400.00,theincrementalpenaltyis
six(6)yearstobeaddedtothemaximumperiodofthepenaltyprovidedforbylaw,oreight(8)yearsof
prisionmayorminimumplussix(6)yearsoftheincrementalpenalty.Hence,theindeterminatesentenceis
four(4)yearsandtwo(2)monthsofprisioncorreccionalmedium,astheminimumpenalty,tofourteen(14)
yearsofreclusiontemporalminimum,asthemaximumpenalty.
(6)InCriminalCaseNo.021771wheretheamountofthefraudisP100,000.00,theincrementalpenaltyof
seven(7)yearsistobeaddedtothemaximumperiodofthepenaltyprovidedforbylaw,oreight(8)years
of prision mayor minimum plus seven (7) years of the incremental penalty. Hence, the indeterminate
sentenceisfour(4)yearsandtwo(2)monthsofprisioncorreccionalmedium,astheminimumpenalty,to
fifteen(15)yearsofreclusiontemporalmedium,asthemaximumpenalty.
(7)InCriminalCaseNo.021772wheretheamountofthefraudisP153,000.00,theincrementalpenaltyis
thirteen (13) years to be added to the maximum period of the penalty provided by the law. The penalty
cannot go beyond twenty (20) years as the law provides that in no case shall the penalty be higher than
reclusion temporal regardless of the amount of the fraud. Hence, the indeterminate sentence is four (4)
yearsandtwo(2)monthsofprisioncorreccionalmedium,astheminimumpenalty,totwenty(20)yearsof
reclusiontemporalmaximum,asthemaximumpenalty.11(italicssupplied)
TheCAdeniedthepetitionersmotionforreconsideration12hence,thepresentpetition.
TheIssue
Theultimateissueforconsiderationiswhetherthepetitionershouldbeheldliableforthecrimesofestafa.The
petitioner argues that the CA and the RTC erred in rejecting her argument that no misappropriation of the
Paluwaganfundswasclearlyestablishedintherecord.
In its comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) prays for the dismissal of the petition. The OSG
maintainsthattheelementsconstitutingthecrimeofestafawithabuseofconfidencehadbeenfullyestablished
bytheprosecutionsevidence.TheOSGinsiststhatthepetitionerfailedtoclearlyprovebycompetentevidence
her affirmative defense of robbery. The OSG also insists that the petitioners conduct in failing to inform all the
members of the alleged robbery bolsters the circumstance of her misappropriation of the Paluwagan funds.
Lastly, the petitioners misappropriation of the Paluwagan funds was substantiated by her failure to deliver the
Paluwaganfundsoutofthecontributionsmadebytheprivatecomplainantsaftertherobbery.
Thepetitionersubsequentlyfiledareply,reiteratingtheargumentsinherpetition.
TheCourtsRuling
Wedenythepetitionforlackofmerit.
Preliminaryconsideration
Apreliminarymatterwehavetocontendwithinthiscaseistheproprietyofresolvingoneoftheissuesraisedby
thepetitionerwhohasappealedherjudgmentofconvictionbywayofaRule45review.Areadingofthepetition
showsthatthepetitionerraisesbotherrorsoflawandoffactallegedlycommittedbytheCAandtheRTCintheir
decisions.First,wearecalledtodeterminewhetheraproperapplicationoflawandjurisprudencehasbeenmade
in the case. Second, we are also called to examine whether the CA and the RTC correctly appreciated the
evidencetowhichthetwocourtsanchortheirconclusions.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/mar2012/gr_170964_2012.html

2/6

11/29/2016

G.R.No.170964

Asarule,aRule45reviewisconfinedtotheresolutionoferrorsoflawcommittedbythelowercourts.Further,in
aRule45review,thefactualfindingsoftheRTC,especiallywhenaffirmedbytheCA,aregenerallyheldbinding
andconclusiveontheCourt.13Weemphasizethatwhilejurisprudencehasprovidedexceptions14tothisrule,the
petitionercarriestheburdenofprovingthatoneormoreexceptionalcircumstancesarepresentinthecase.The
petitionermustadditionallyshowthatthecitedexceptionalcircumstanceswillhaveabearingontheresultsofthe
case.
ThepetitionercitesinthisregardtheallegedmisappreciationoftheevidencecommittedbytheCAandtheRTC.
Thepetitionercontendsthatbothcourtsdisregardedherevidence,namely:theaffidavitsoffiveindividualsand
the police blotter. She argues that she should not be faulted for the nonpresentation in court of the five
individualswhoexecutedtheaffidavitswhichattestedtotherobberysinceshewasthenrepresentedbyacounsel
deoficio.Shealsoarguesthatbothcourtsdisregardedtheevidenceofherreputationofbeingakindpersonof
good moral character. She asserts that she delivered to the private complainants their respective shares in the
Paluwaganfundspriortotherobbery.
ShefurtherarguesthattheconclusionsoftheCAandtheRTCwerecontrarytotheCourtsrulinginLimv.Court
ofAppeals15 where it held that estafa cannot be committed through negligence or, as in this case, where the
explanationbytheaccusedraisesreasonabledoubtonwhethertheamountinquestionwasmisappropriated.
After a careful study of the records, we find that the petitioners cited exceptional circumstances are more
imaginedthanreal.WefindnocompellingreasontodeviatefromthefactualfindingsoftheCAandtheRTCin
thisregard.
Misappropriation as an element of the offense of estafa connotes an act of using, or disposing of, anothers
propertyasifitwereonesown,orofdevotingittoapurposeorusedifferentfromthatagreedupon.16Wehave
previously held that the failure to account upon demand for funds or property held in trust without offering any
satisfactoryexplanationfortheinabilitytoaccountiscircumstantialevidenceofmisappropriation.17Wehavealso
heldthatthedemandforthereturnofthethingdeliveredintrustandthefailureoftheaccusedtoaccountare
similarlycircumstantialevidencethatthecourtscanappreciate.18
AstheCAandtheRTCdid,wefindnoclearevidenceestablishingthatthepetitionerwasactuallyrobbedofthe
Paluwaganfunds.Inthefirstplace,thefiveindividualswhoexecutedtheaffidavitswerenotpresentedincourt.
While the petitioner faults the counsel de oficio for their nonpresentation in court, we find no proof that her
counselhadbeennegligentinperforminghislegalduties.Incidentally,wealsorejectthislineofargumentfortwo
other reasons: first, it was raised only for the first time in the present appeal and second, it involves a factual
determinationofnegligencewhichisinappropriateunderaRule45review.
Weadditionallynotefromafacialexaminationoftheaffidavitsthattheaffiantswerenoteveneyewitnessestothe
robberyhence,theirstatementsdonotsufficientlyprovetheactualoccurrenceoftherobbery.Moreimportantly,
the affidavits do not also establish with reasonable certainty that the petitioner was actually robbed of the
Paluwaganfunds.
Moreover, we cannot give much credence to the police blotter whose contents were mainly based on the
statements made by the petitioner to the police. If at all, it is evidence of what was entered, not of the truth or
falsityoftheentrymade.WegiveduerespecttotheevaluationmadebytheRTCinthisregard:
Thus, there seems to be a discrepancy as to the time and number of persons (robbers) who entered the
residence of the accused. Further, the accused claims that there was a policeman who went to her house who
wascalledbyherlessee(orlessor)buttheaccusedcannotrememberhisname.
Butthen,theaccusednevertestifiedastowhetherthepolicemaninvestigatedthesceneofthecrimeandsome
people in the vicinity. Surely at that hour, near such market, where there are people in the vicinity, people will
noticestrangersorotherpersonswhoenterthehouseofanotherorwholeavethesamewhetherinahurryor
not.
The accused even admitted that she was hesitant to report the matter to the police[.] Why was the accused
hesitant?Sheclaimsthattherobberwarnedherthathewillharmherifshereportstheincident.Butimmediately
after the incident, the accused reported the incident, but nothing happened to her up to the present.19
(underscoringsupplied)
Besides, the petitioner failed to explain her failure to account and to deliver the Paluwagan funds arising from
contributionsmadebytheprivatecomplainantsaftertheallegedrobberyincident.Onrecordarethepositiveand
unrefutedtestimoniesoftheprivatecomplainantsthattheyremittedcontributionstothepetitionerevenafterthe
robbery.Inotherwords,ifthepetitionerhadinfactbeenrobbedofPaluwaganfunds,therobberywouldnothave
affected the accounting and the delivery of the Paluwagan funds arising from the contributions made by the
privatecomplainantsaftertheallegedrobbery.Astherecordsshow,despitethecontinuedreceiptofcontributions
fromtheprivatecomplainants,thepetitionerfailedtoaccountfor,andtodeliver,thePaluwaganfunds.
ThePetitionersConviction
We now go to the crux of the present appeal and determine whether the evidence adduced warrants the
petitionersconvictionofthecrimecharged.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/mar2012/gr_170964_2012.html

3/6

11/29/2016

G.R.No.170964

The offense of estafa committed with abuse of confidence has the following elements under Article 315,
paragraph1(b)oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamended:
(a)thatmoney,goodsorotherpersonalpropertyisreceivedbytheoffenderintrustoroncommission,or
for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the
same[]
(b)thattherebemisappropriationorconversionofsuchmoneyorpropertybytheoffender,ordenialonhis
partofsuchreceipt[]
(c)thatsuchmisappropriationorconversionordenialistotheprejudiceofanotherand
(d)thereisdemandbytheoffendedpartytotheoffender.20
Wefindthatalltheaboveelementsarepresentinthepresentcase,havingbeenestablishedbytheprosecutions
evidenceandbythepetitionersownadmissions.Thefirstelementwasestablishedbytheevidenceshowingthat
thepetitionerreceivedvarioussumsofmoneyfromtheprivatecomplainantstobeheldintrustforthemunderthe
Paluwaganoperation.Thepetitioneradmittedthatshewasunderobligation,atafixeddate,toaccountforandto
deliverthePaluwaganfundstotheprivatecomplainantsinthesequentialorderagreeduponamongthem.The
second element was established by the evidence that the petitioner failed to account for and to deliver the
Paluwaganfundstotheprivatecomplainantsontheagreedtimeofdelivery.Thethirdandfourthelementsofthe
offense were proven by evidence showing that the petitioner failed to account for and to deliver the Paluwagan
fundstotheprivatecomplainantsdespiteseveraldemandsmadeuponherbytheprivatecomplainants.Eachof
the private complainants testified as to how they were prejudiced when they failed to receive their allotted
Paluwaganfunds.
Giventhetotalityofevidence,weupholdtheconvictionofthepetitionerofthecrimecharged.
ThePenalty
Thedecisivefactorindeterminingthecriminalandcivilliabilityforthecrimeofestafadependsonthevalueofthe
thingortheamountdefrauded.21Withrespecttothecivilaspectofthecase,thepetitionerfiledamanifestation22
whichshowedthesatisfactionofhercivilmonetaryliabilitywithsix(6)outoftheseven(7)privatecomplainants.
1 w p h i1

Anenthercriminalliability,theevidenceshowsthattheamountofmoneyremittedbytheprivatecomplainantsto
the petitioner all exceeded the amount of P22,000.00. In this regard, the first paragraph of Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides the appropriate penalty if the value of the thing or the amount
defraudedexceedsP22,000.00:
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 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos and if such amount exceeds the
lattersum,thepenaltyprovidedinthisparagraphshallbeimposedinitsmaximumperiod,addingoneyearfor
eachadditional10,000pesosbutthetotalpenaltywhichmaybeimposedshallnotexceedtwentyyears.[italics
ours]
As provided by law, the maximum indeterminate penalty when the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00 is
peggedatprisionmayorinitsminimumperiodoranywherewithintherangeofsix(6)yearsandone(1)dayto
eight(8)years,plusoneyearforeveryP10,000.00inexcessofP22,000.00oftheamountdefraudedbutnotto
exceedtwentyyears.Inturn,theminimumindeterminatepenaltyshallbeonedegreelowerfromtheprescribed
penalty for estafa, which in this case is anywhere within the range of prision correccional in its minimum and
mediumperiodsorsix(6)monthsandone(1)daytofour(4)yearsandtwo(2)months.23Applyingthisformula,
weaffirmthepenaltyimposedbytheCAasitisfullyinaccordancewiththelaw.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition for lack of merit. We AFFIRM the decision dated
November10,2005andtheresolutiondatedJanuary10,2006oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CRNo.27252,
finding petitioner Elsa Macandog Magtira GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of seven (7) counts of estafa
penalizedunderArticle315,paragraph1(b)oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamended.
SOORDERED.
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice
BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/mar2012/gr_170964_2012.html

4/6

11/29/2016

G.R.No.170964

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1DatedNovember10,2005.PennedbyAssociateJusticeFernandaLampasPeralta,andconcurredinby

AssociateJusticesDelilahVidallonMagtolisandJosefinaGuevaraSalongarollo,pp.3955.
2DatedJanuary10,2006id.at57.
3 Dated February 7, 2003 in Criminal Case Nos. 021766 021772. The Joint Decision was penned by

JudgeOscarB.Pimentelid.at67103.
4 They are: (1) Alfredo Martinez, (2) Cherry Bondocoy, (3) Rebecca Zoleta, (4) Maria Ester Binaday, (5)

SaturninaZaraspePerez,(6)EmeritaVelasco,and(7)DomingoVenturina.
5Rollo,pp.5864.
6Id.at71.
7Id.at6566.
8 First, the affidavits of Felipe Macandog and Segundo Macariola stated that they found the petitioner

boundandgaggedinsideherhouseonFebruary28,2000.Second,thejointaffidavitofspousesReynaldo
andMarinaAinzaattestedthattogetherwiththepetitionerslessor,NiloLopez,theywenttothehouseof
thepetitionerandsawherlyingontheflooranduntiedwhiletheroomwasindisarray.Uponthelessors
instruction, the spouses sought police assistance. Lastly, Nilo Lopez averred in his affidavit that he
immediately went to the house of the petitioner after being informed of the robbery. That upon his
instruction,thepolicewascalled.
9Rollo,p.89.
10Id.at93.
11Id.at5254.
12Supranote2.
13IronBulkShippingPhil.,Co.,Ltd.v.RemingtonIndustrialSalesCorp.,462Phil.694,703704(2003).
14Theyare:(1)whentheinferencemadeismanifestlymistaken,absurdorimpossible(2)whenthereis

grave abuse of discretion (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or
conjectures(4)whenthejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisbasedonmisapprehensionoffacts(5)when
theCourtofAppeals,inmakingitsfindings,wentbeyondtheissuesofthecaseandthesameiscontraryto
theadmissionsofbothappellantandappellee(6)whenthefindingsoffactareconclusionswithoutcitation
ofspecificevidenceonwhichtheyarebased(7)whentheCourtofAppealsmanifestlyoverlookedcertain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion and (8) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of
evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. (Dueas v. GuceAfrica, G.R. No. 165679,
October5,2009,603SCRA11,2021.)
15G.R.No.102784,April7,1997,271SCRA12,22.
16Awv.People,G.R.No.182276,March29,2010,617SCRA64,77.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/mar2012/gr_170964_2012.html

5/6

11/29/2016

G.R.No.170964

17Id.at7778.
18Id.at78,citingFiladamsPharma,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.132422,March30,2004,426SCRA

460,468.
19Supranote3,at92.
20Awv.People,supranote15,at75.
21Pamintuanv.People,G.R.No.172820,June23,2010,621SCRA538,552.
22 Rollo, pp. 194198 and 225. The Acknowledgment Receipts were issued by (1) Alfredo Martinez, (2)

CherryBondocoy(receivedbyCieloAnduque),(3)RebeccaZoleta,(4)MariaEsterBinaday,(5)Saturnina
Zaraspe Perez (wife of Aniceto Perez) and (6) Emerita Velasco. The petitioner is still paying Maria
Venturinaoninstallmentbasis.
23Peoplev.Temporada,G.R.No.173473,December17,2008,574SCRA258,302.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/mar2012/gr_170964_2012.html

6/6