Criminal Law Digest 71-75

G.R. No. 173473

People v. Temporada
December 17, 2008

Apellee: People of the Phillipines

Apellant: Beth Temporada

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

They further alleged that the accused recruited and promised overseas employment, for
a fee, to complainants Rogelio Legaspi, Jr. as a 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 prosecution’s 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
• 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 CA’s 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.

In one case, where the statute was ambiguous and permitted two reasonable interpretations,
the construction which would impose a less severe penalty was adopted.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED with respect to the
indeterminate penalties imposed on appellant for the five (5) counts of estafa, to wit:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 02-208372, the accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty
of 4 years and 2 months of prisin correccional as minimum, to 9 years, 8 months and 21
days of prisin mayor as maximum.

(2) In Criminal Case Nos. 02-208373, 02-208375, and 02-208376, the accused is
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prisin correccional as
minimum, to 10 years, 8 months and 21 days of prisin mayor as maximum for each of the
aforesaid three estafa cases.

(3) In Criminal Case No. 02-208374, the accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty
of 4 years and 2 months of prisin correccional as minimum, to 12 years, 8 months and 21
days of reclusin temporal as maximum.

In all other respects, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

G.R. No. 181409,

Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong
February 11, 2010

Petitioner: INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG,

represented by MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG, as Administratrix
Respondent: People of the Philippines and William Sato

Facts:

Mediatrix Carungcong, in her capacity as the duly appointed administratrix of petitioner

intestate estate of her deceased mother Manolita Gonzales vda. De Carungcong, filed a
complaint-affidavit for estafa against her brother-in-law, William Sato, a Japanese national. It
was alleged that the said accused feloniously induced Manolita Gonzales, the owner of the
estate and herein deceased, to sign and thumb mark a special power of attorney (in the
pretense of presenting a document pertaining to taxes) which authorized the sale,
assignment, transfer and disposition of the latter’s properties. In relation to this, the accused
moved for the dismissal of the case.

As a defense against his arrant prosecution, the accused here applies Art 332 of the
Revised Penal Code. He cites that he falls under the enumeration of those relatives who
shall be exempt from criminal prosecution. Being a relative by affinity, he cannot be held
liable for the crime of estafa as stated in the law. He further counters that the same law
makes no distinction that the relationship may not be invoked in case of death of spouse at
the time the crime was allegedly committed. Thus, the death of his spouse Zenaida
Carungcong Sato though dissolved the marriage with the accused, did not on the other hand
dissolve the mother in-law and son-law relationship between Sato and his wife’s mother,
Manolita. He then cannot be removed from the protective mantle of Art 332.

Issues:

Whether or not William should be exempt from criminal liability for reason of his relationship
to Manolita.

Held:
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.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision dated August 9, 2007 and
the resolution dated January 23, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. S.P. No. 95260
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the trial court which is directed
to try the accused with dispatch for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public
documents.