Lawyerly

GR No. 183879

2010-04-14

NACHURA, J.

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. Sy's 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 intent, whereas estafa is malum in se, in the prosecution of which, proof of criminal intent is necessary.[12]

GR No. 179931

2009-10-26

PEOPLE v. NIDA ADESER Y RICO

QUISUMBING, J.

As to the amount to be indemnified to Palo, contrary to the findings of the trial and appellate courts, Palo's testimony and the vouchers she presented establish that the total amount she paid is only P73,500[20] and not the P80,000 quoted as placement fee. Thus, she should only be indemnified the said amount, plus legal interest of 12% per annum from the time of filing of the information.[21]

GR No. 179934

2009-05-21

PEOPLE v. ERLINDA ABORDO

CARPIO, J.

Maximum - 6 years, 8 months, 21 days to 8 years[25]

GR No. 174899

2008-09-11

RAMON L. UY v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Estafa, under Article 315, par. 2, of the Revised Penal Code, is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name; or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud.[48] Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable.[49]

GR No. 172500

2007-09-21

LILIBETH ARICHETA v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name; or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud.[12] Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable.[13]

GR NO. 149753

2006-11-27

MIGUEL COSME v. PEOPLE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The penalty prescribed by Article 315 is composed of only two, not three, periods, in which case, Article 65 of the same Code requires the division of the time included in the penalty into three equal portions of time included in the penalty prescribed, forming one period of each of the three portions.[35] Applying the latter provisions, the maximum, medium and minimum periods of the penalty prescribed are: Maximum - 6 years, 8 months, 21 days to 8 years Medium - 5 years, 5 months, 11 days to 6 years, 8 months, 20 days Minimum - 4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 5 years, 5 months, 10 days[36] In the present case, since the amount involved is P1,600,000.00, exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty to be imposed should be the maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of prision mayor. Article 315 further states that a period of one year shall be added to the penalty for every additional P10,000.00 defrauded in excess of P22,000.00, but in no case shall the total penalty which may be imposed exceed 20 years. The amount swindled from private complainant greatly exceeds the amount of P22,000.00, which when translated to the additional penalty of one year for every P10,000.00 defrauded goes beyond 20 years. Under the law, the maximum penalty to be imposed in the present case should be 20 years of reclusion temporal.

GR NO. 167084

2006-10-31

MONINA PUCAY v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Maximum period - 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years[27] The amount defrauded being in excess of P22,000, the penalty imposable should be the maximum period of six years, eight months, and twenty-one days to eight years of prision mayor. However, Art. 315 also provides that an additional one year shall be imposed for each additional P10,000. The penalty should be termed as prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. Here, the total amount of the fraud is P205,000.00 (P205,000 - P22,000 = P183,000). Hence, an additional penalty of eighteen years should be imposed. However, the total penalty should not in any case exceed twenty years of imprisonment. Thus, the correct imposable maximum penalty is twenty years of reclusion temporal.

GR NO. 157075

2006-07-17

RAMCAR v. HI-POWER MARKETING

TINGA, J.

After trial, finding that Bohol had defaulted in the performance of his obligation, the RTC rendered its decision dismissing the petition for prohibition. The spouses Bohol filed a Motion for Reconsideration and For New Trial[8] which was denied by the RTC on 4 November 1985.[9] They then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), with the appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 11496.

GR NO. 153198

2006-07-11

CRISANTA B. BONIFACIO v. PEOPLE

CORONA, J.

Maximum period - 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years[20]

GR NO. 162371

2005-08-25

MARY HELEN ESTRADA v. PEOPLE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Thus, in this case, since the amount of fraud, which is P68,700.00, exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty should be imposed in the maximum period. The range of the penalty provided for by law is composed of only two periods, thus, to get the maximum period of the imposable penalty, the total number of years included in the two periods should be divided into three. A computation produces the following results: the minimum period is 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 5 years, 5 months and 10 days; the medium period is 5 years, 5 months and 11 days to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days; and the maximum period is 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years.[15]

	GR No. 183879 2010-04-14	ROSITA SY v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
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. Sy's 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 intent, whereas estafa is malum in se, in the prosecution of which, proof of criminal intent is necessary.[12]
	GR No. 179931 2009-10-26	PEOPLE v. NIDA ADESER Y RICO QUISUMBING, J.
As to the amount to be indemnified to Palo, contrary to the findings of the trial and appellate courts, Palo's testimony and the vouchers she presented establish that the total amount she paid is only P73,500[20] and not the P80,000 quoted as placement fee. Thus, she should only be indemnified the said amount, plus legal interest of 12% per annum from the time of filing of the information.[21]
	GR No. 179934 2009-05-21	PEOPLE v. ERLINDA ABORDO CARPIO, J.
Maximum - 6 years, 8 months, 21 days to 8 years[25]
	GR No. 174899 2008-09-11	RAMON L. UY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Estafa, under Article 315, par. 2, of the Revised Penal Code, is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name; or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud.[48] Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable.[49]
	GR No. 172500 2007-09-21	LILIBETH ARICHETA v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name; or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud.[12] Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable.[13]
	GR NO. 149753 2006-11-27	MIGUEL COSME v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The penalty prescribed by Article 315 is composed of only two, not three, periods, in which case, Article 65 of the same Code requires the division of the time included in the penalty into three equal portions of time included in the penalty prescribed, forming one period of each of the three portions.[35] Applying the latter provisions, the maximum, medium and minimum periods of the penalty prescribed are: Maximum - 6 years, 8 months, 21 days to 8 years Medium - 5 years, 5 months, 11 days to 6 years, 8 months, 20 days Minimum - 4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 5 years, 5 months, 10 days[36] In the present case, since the amount involved is P1,600,000.00, exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty to be imposed should be the maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of prision mayor. Article 315 further states that a period of one year shall be added to the penalty for every additional P10,000.00 defrauded in excess of P22,000.00, but in no case shall the total penalty which may be imposed exceed 20 years. The amount swindled from private complainant greatly exceeds the amount of P22,000.00, which when translated to the additional penalty of one year for every P10,000.00 defrauded goes beyond 20 years. Under the law, the maximum penalty to be imposed in the present case should be 20 years of reclusion temporal.
	GR NO. 167084 2006-10-31	MONINA PUCAY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Maximum period - 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years[27] The amount defrauded being in excess of P22,000, the penalty imposable should be the maximum period of six years, eight months, and twenty-one days to eight years of prision mayor. However, Art. 315 also provides that an additional one year shall be imposed for each additional P10,000. The penalty should be termed as prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. Here, the total amount of the fraud is P205,000.00 (P205,000 - P22,000 = P183,000). Hence, an additional penalty of eighteen years should be imposed. However, the total penalty should not in any case exceed twenty years of imprisonment. Thus, the correct imposable maximum penalty is twenty years of reclusion temporal.
	GR NO. 157075 2006-07-17	RAMCAR v. HI-POWER MARKETING TINGA, J.
After trial, finding that Bohol had defaulted in the performance of his obligation, the RTC rendered its decision dismissing the petition for prohibition. The spouses Bohol filed a Motion for Reconsideration and For New Trial[8] which was denied by the RTC on 4 November 1985.[9] They then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), with the appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 11496.
	GR NO. 153198 2006-07-11	CRISANTA B. BONIFACIO v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
Maximum period - 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years[20]
	GR NO. 162371 2005-08-25	MARY HELEN ESTRADA v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Thus, in this case, since the amount of fraud, which is P68,700.00, exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty should be imposed in the maximum period. The range of the penalty provided for by law is composed of only two periods, thus, to get the maximum period of the imposable penalty, the total number of years included in the two periods should be divided into three. A computation produces the following results: the minimum period is 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 5 years, 5 months and 10 days; the medium period is 5 years, 5 months and 11 days to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days; and the maximum period is 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years.[15]

PEOPLE v. CRISPIN BILLABER Y MATBANUA