Case - Article 3 of the R.P.C.

ROSITA SY, G.R. No. 183879

Petitioner,

Present:

CORONA, J.,

Chairperson,

- versus - VELASCO, JR.,

NACHURA,

PERALTA, and

MENDOZA, JJ.

Promulgated:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent. April 14, 2010

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

NACHURA, J.:
 Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, assailing the Decision1 dated July 22, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR
No. 30628.

Rosita Sy (Sy) was charged with one count of illegal recruitment in Criminal Case No.
02-0537 and one count of estafa in Criminal Case No. 02-0536. In a joint decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Sy was exonerated of the illegal recruitment charge. However, she
was convicted of the crime of estafa. Thus, the instant appeal involves only Criminal Case No.
02-0536 for the crime of estafa.

The Information2 for estafa reads:

That sometime in the month of March 1997, in the City of Las Pias,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud
Felicidad Mendoza-Navarro y Landicho in the following manner, to wit: the said
accused by means of false pretenses and fraudulent representation which she
made to the said complainant that she can deploy her for employment in Taiwan,
and complainant convinced by said representations, gave the amount of
P120,000.00 to the said accused for processing of her papers, the latter well
1

2
 knowing that all her representations and manifestations were false and were only
made for the purpose of obtaining the said amount, but once in her possession[,]
she misappropriated, misapplied and converted the same to her own personal use
and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of Felicidad Mendoza-Navarro y
Landicho in the aforementioned amount of P120,000.00.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

On May 27, 2007, Sy was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. Joint
trial ensued thereafter.

As summarized by the CA, the facts of the case are as follows:

Version of the Prosecution

Sometime in March 1997, appellant, accompanied by Corazon Miranda

(or Corazon), went to the house of Corazons sister, Felicidad Navarro (or
Felicidad), in Talisay, Batangas to convince her (Felicidad) to work abroad.
Appellant assured Felicidad of a good salary and entitlement to a yearly vacation
if she decides to take a job in Taiwan. On top of these perks, she shall receive
compensation in the amount of Php120,000.00. Appellant promised Felicidad that
she will take care of the processing of the necessary documents, including her
passport and visa. Felicidad told appellant that she will think about the job offer.

Two days later, Felicidad succumbed to appellants overseas job

solicitation. With Corazon in tow, the sisters proceeded to appellants residence in
Better Homes, Moonwalk, Las Pias City. Thereat, Felicidad handed to appellant
the amount of Php60,000.00. In the third week of March 1997, Felicidad returned
to appellants abode and paid to the latter another Php60,000.00. The latter told her
to come back the following day. In both instances, no receipt was issued by
appellant to acknowledge receipt of the total amount of Php120,000.00 paid by
Felicidad.

On Felicidads third trip to appellants house, the latter brought her to

Uniwide in Sta. Cruz, Manila, where a male person showed to them the birth
certificate that Felicidad would use in applying for a Taiwanese passport. The

3
 birth certificate was that of a certain Armida Lim, born to Margarita Galvez and
Lim Leng on 02 June 1952. Felicidad was instructed on how to write Armida
Lims Chinese name.

Subsequently, appellant contacted Felicidad and thereafter met her at the

Bureau of Immigration office. Thereat, Felicidad, posing and affixing her
signature as Armida G. Lim, filled out the application forms for the issuance of
Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) and Immigrant Certificate of Registration
(ICR). She attached to the application forms her own photo. Felicidad agreed to
use the name of Armida Lim as her own because she already paid to appellant the
amount of Php120,000.00.

In December 1999, appellant sent to Felicidad the birth certificate of

Armida Lim, the Marriage Contract of Armida Lims parents, ACR No. E128390,
and ICR No. 317614. These documents were submitted to and eventually rejected
by the Taiwanese authorities, triggering the filing of illegal recruitment and estafa
cases against appellant.

Version of the Defense

Appellant denied offering a job to Felicidad or receiving any money from

her. She asserted that when she first spoke to Felicidad at the latters house, she
mentioned that her husband and children freely entered Taiwan because she was a
holder of a Chinese passport. Felicidad commented that many Filipino workers in
Taiwan were holding Chinese passports.

Three weeks later, Felicidad and Corazon came to her house in Las Pias
and asked her if she knew somebody who could help Felicidad get a Chinese
ACR and ICR for a fee.

Appellant introduced a certain Amelia Lim, who, in consideration of the

amount of Php120,000.00, offered to Felicidad the use of the name of her
mentally deficient sister, Armida Lim. Felicidad agreed. On their second meeting
at appellants house, Felicidad paid Php60,000.00 to Amelia Lim and they agreed
to see each other at Uniwide the following day. That was the last time appellant
saw Felicidad and Amelia Lim.4

On January 8, 2007, the RTC rendered a decision,5 the dispositive portion of which reads:

5
 WHEREFORE, premises considered the court finds the accused Rosita Sy
NOT GUILTY of the crime of Illegal Recruitment and she is hereby
ACQUITTED of the said offense. As regards the charge of Estafa, the court finds
the accused GUILTY thereof and hereby sentences her to an indeterminate
penalty of four (4) years of prision correctional as minimum to 11 years of prision
mayor, as maximum. The accused is ordered to reimburse the amount of sixty-
thousand (Php60,000.00) to the private complainant.

SO ORDERED.6

Aggrieved, Sy filed an appeal for her conviction of estafa. On July 22, 2008, the CA
rendered a Decision,7 affirming with modification the conviction of Sy, viz.:

WHEREFORE, with the MODIFICATION sentencing accused-appellant

to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects.

SO ORDERED.8

Hence, this petition.

The sole issue for resolution is whether Sy should be held liable for estafa, penalized
under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).9

Swindling or estafa is punishable under Article 315 of the RPC. There are three ways of
committing estafa, viz.: (1) with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; (2) by means of false
6

9
pretenses or fraudulent acts; or (3) through fraudulent means. The three ways of committing
estafa may be reduced to two, i.e., (1) by means of abuse of confidence; or (2) by means of
deceit.

The elements of estafa in general are the following: (a) that an accused defrauded another
by abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit; and (b) that damage and prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation is caused the offended party or third person.

The act complained of in the instant case is penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2(a)
of the RPC, wherein estafa is committed by any person who shall defraud another by false
pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud. It is committed by using fictitious name, or by pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other
similar deceits.

The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following, viz.: (a) that there must be a
false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent
representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means
and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.10

In the instant case, all the foregoing elements are present. It was proven beyond
reasonable doubt, as found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, that Sy misrepresented and

10
falsely pretended that she had the capacity to deploy Felicidad Navarro (Felicidad) for
employment in Taiwan. The misrepresentation was made prior to Felicidads payment to Sy of
One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P120,000.00). It was Sys misrepresentation and false
pretenses that induced Felicidad to part with her money. As a result of Sys false pretenses and
misrepresentations, Felicidad suffered damages as the promised employment abroad never
materialized and the money she paid was never recovered.

The fact that Felicidad actively participated in the processing of the illegal travel
documents will not exculpate Sy from liability. Felicidad was a hapless victim of circumstances
and of fraud committed by Sy. She was forced to take part in the processing of the falsified travel
documents because she had already paid P120,000.00. Sy committed deceit by representing that
she could secure Felicidad with employment in Taiwan, the primary consideration that induced
the latter to part with her money. Felicidad was led to believe by Sy that she possessed the power
and qualifications to provide Felicidad with employment abroad, when, in fact, she was not
licensed or authorized to do so. Deceived, Felicidad parted with her money and delivered the
same to petitioner. Plainly, Sy is guilty of estafa.

Illegal recruitment and estafa cases may be filed simultaneously or separately. The filing
of charges for illegal recruitment does not bar the filing of estafa, and vice versa. Sys acquittal in
the illegal recruitment case does not prove that she is not guilty of estafa. Illegal recruitment and
estafa are entirely different offenses and neither one necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in the other. A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be
convicted of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC. 11 In the same manner, a person
acquitted of illegal recruitment may be held liable for estafa. Double jeopardy will not set in
because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, in which there is no necessity to prove criminal

11
intent, whereas estafa is malum in se, in the prosecution of which, proof of criminal intent is
necessary.12

The penalty prescribed for estafa under Article 315 of the RPC is prision correccional in
its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount defrauded is over
Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) but does not exceed Twenty-two Thousand Pesos
(P22,000.00), and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period, adding one year for each additional Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00); but the
total penalty that may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection
with the accessory penalties that may be imposed under the provisions of this Code, the penalty
shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.

The addition of one year imprisonment for each additional P10,000.00, in excess of
P22,000.00, is the incremental penalty. The incremental penalty rule is a mathematical formula
for computing the penalty to be actually imposed using the prescribed penalty as the starting
point. This special rule is applicable in estafa and in theft.13

In estafa, the incremental penalty is added to the maximum period of the penalty
prescribed, at the discretion of the court, in order to arrive at the penalty to be actually imposed,
which is the maximum term within the context of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL). 14 Under
the ISL, attending circumstances in a case are applied in conjunction with certain rules of the
Code in order to determine the penalty to be actually imposed based on the penalty prescribed by

12

13

14
the Code for the offense. The circumstance is that the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00,
and the incremental penalty rule is utilized to fix the penalty actually imposed.15

To compute the incremental penalty, the amount defrauded shall be subtracted by

P22,000.00, and the difference shall be divided by P10,000.00, and any fraction of P10,000.00
shall be discarded.16

In the instant case, prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period is the imposable penalty. The duration of prision correccional in its maximum
period is from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years; while prision
mayor in its minimum period is from six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years. The
incremental penalty for the amount defrauded would be an additional nine years imprisonment,
to be added to the maximum imposable penalty of eight years. Thus, the CA committed no
reversible error in sentencing Sy to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal, as
maximum.

As to the amount that should be returned or restituted by Sy, the sum that Felicidad gave
to Sy, i.e., P120,000.00, should be returned in full. The fact that Felicidad was not able to
produce receipts is not fatal to the case of the prosecution since she was able to prove by her
positive testimony that Sy was the one who received the money ostensibly in consideration of an
overseas employment in Taiwan.17

15

16

17
 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
July 22, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR No. 30628, sentencing petitioner Rosita Sy to an indeterminate
penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to seventeen
(17) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, is hereby AFFIRMED. We, however, MODIFY
the CA Decision as to the amount of civil indemnity, in that Sy is ordered to reimburse the
amount of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P120,000.00) to private complainant Felicidad
Navarro.

SO ORDERED.