ANGELITA DELOS REYES FLORES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Flores versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Flores versus People of the Philippines, a petition for review on certiorari brought by Angelita delos Reyes Flores against the People of the Philippines. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court, and the conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, of three counts of estafa under the Revised Penal Code for falsely pretending to private complainants that she could send them to Italy for employment. The case matters to every bar candidate because it is a clean illustration of estafa by false pretenses under Article 315, paragraph 2, letter a of the Revised Penal Code, and because it shows how the Supreme Court computes the penalty for estafa when the amount of the fraud exceeds 22,000 pesos, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Procedural History

Petitioner was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City with four counts of estafa, committed against Felix Cornejo, Jonathan Caibigan, Blesilda Caibigan, and Simon Onda. When arraigned, she pleaded not guilty to all the charges. In an earlier order dated June 27, 2003, the case filed by Simon Onda was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of estafa, sentencing her to indeterminate penalties and ordering her to indemnify the private complainants as actual damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the minimum and maximum terms of the indeterminate penalties. Petitioner then came before the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, raising the sole issue of whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding her guilty despite the prosecution's failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

Sometime in 2000, private complainants Felix Cornejo, Jonathan Caibigan, and Blesilda Caibigan met the petitioner through Simon Onda. The petitioner told them that, as a member of Club Panoly Resorts International, she could sponsor them in going to Italy to work as domestic helpers or drivers. She required each of them to produce 100,000 pesos as processing fee, 50,000 pesos for plane ticket, and 3,000 dollars as show money.

After raising enough money, the private complainants met with the petitioner on three separate occasions. Felix paid 100,000 pesos, while Jonathan and Blesilda paid a total of 168,000 pesos, or 84,000 pesos each. The petitioner, however, failed to make good her promise. When the private complainants inquired at Club Panoly, they were informed that it did not allow or authorize its members to use their membership to recruit workers for possible placement abroad. Upon further inquiry with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, they learned that the petitioner was not a licensed recruiter of workers for overseas employment.

The private complainants demanded the return of their money and documents, but their demand remained unheeded, so they filed criminal cases against the petitioner. In her defense, the petitioner denied having promised them employment abroad and denied having received money from them. She also pointed to a certain Glenda Pesigan as the person who made such misrepresentations and received money from the private complainants.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding the petitioner guilty of estafa despite the prosecution's alleged failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the petitioner's representation that she could send the private complainants to Italy for employment, without authority or license, constitutes false pretense or fraudulent act under Article 315, paragraph 2, letter a of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals should be modified in accordance with Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Applicable Provisions

Article 315, paragraph 2, letter a of the Revised Penal Code provides:

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 fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits.

This is the provision under which the petitioner was charged and convicted, and it defines the false pretense that constitutes estafa.

Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code fixes the penalty for estafa, providing:

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 latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; 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.

This provision governs the computation of the penalty, which the Court found the Court of Appeals had imposed incorrectly.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no reason to reverse the petitioner's conviction. It held that the findings of fact of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are generally accorded great respect by the appellate court, because the trial court is in a position to observe the elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, an opportunity denied the appellate court.

On the second issue, the Court held that the elements of estafa are present: the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. It found that the petitioner represented herself to the private complainants as capable of sending them to Italy for employment, even if she did not have the authority or license for the purpose. Undoubtedly, it was this misrepresentation that induced the private complainants to part with their hard-earned money in exchange for what they thought was a promising future abroad. The petitioner's act clearly constitutes estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, letter a of the Revised Penal Code.

On the third issue, the Court modified the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals, as correctly recommended by the Office of the Solicitor General. In Criminal Case No. 01-2318, the amount involved is 84,000 pesos, which exceeds 22,000 pesos. The penalty should be imposed in its maximum period, which is six years, eight months and twenty-one days to eight years, to which one year should be added for every additional 10,000 pesos, provided the total penalty does not exceed 20 years. Since the amount of the fraud exceeds 22,000 pesos by 62,000 pesos, a total of six years should be added to the maximum period. In Criminal Case No. 01-2319, the amount involved is also 84,000 pesos, so the same penalty should be imposed. In Criminal Case No. 01-2321, since the amount defrauded is 100,000 pesos, which exceeds 22,000 pesos by 78,000 pesos, seven years should be added to the maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term shall be that which could be properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code, while the minimum term should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, ranging from six months and one day to four years and two months.

Doctrine

Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, letter a of the Revised Penal Code is committed by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. The elements are: first, the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and second, the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. A person who represents herself as capable of sending others abroad for employment without the authority or license to do so commits false pretense, and the misrepresentation that induces the victims to part with their money constitutes estafa. For the penalty, when the amount of the fraud exceeds 22,000 pesos, the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period is imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos, but the total penalty shall not exceed twenty years. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term is that which could be properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum term is within the range of the penalty next lower in degree.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the petitioner for three counts of estafa but modified the indeterminate penalties: in the two cases involving 84,000 pesos each, she was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional as minimum to fourteen years of reclusion temporal as maximum for each; and in the case involving 100,000 pesos, she was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional as minimum to fifteen years of reclusion temporal as maximum. In all other respects, the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were affirmed.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that falsely pretending to possess the power or qualification to send persons abroad for employment, without the authority or license to do so, constitutes estafa by false pretense under Article 315, paragraph 2, letter a of the Revised Penal Code. Examiners like to use this case to test the elements of estafa by false pretenses and the correct computation of the penalty when the amount of the fraud exceeds 22,000 pesos, including the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.