Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BETH TEMPORADA

This case has been cited 20 times or more.

	GR No. 198012 2015-04-22	PEOPLE v. ANGEL MATEO Y JACINTO DEL CASTILLO, J.
The offense of illegal recruitment in large scale has the following elements: (1) the person charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042; (2) accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and, (3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group.[13] These elements are obtaining in this case. First, the RTC found appellants to have undertaken a recruitment activity when they promised private complainants employment in Japan for a fee. This factual finding was affirmed by the CA. "The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge."[14] And when his findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.[15] Second, the Certification issued by the POEA unmistakably reveals that appellants neither have a license nor authority to recruit workers for overseas employment. Notably, appellants never assailed this Certification. Third, it was established that there were five complainants. Clearly, the existence of the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale was duly proved by the prosecution.
	GR No. 199113 2015-03-18	RENATO M. DAVID v. EDITHA A. AGBAY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Petitioner's plea to adopt the interpretation most favorable to the accused is likewise misplaced. Courts adopt an interpretation more favorable to the accused following the time-honored principle that penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.[23] R.A. 9225, however, is not a penal law.
	GR No. 151258 2014-12-01	ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, the prescribed penalty for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its medium period. As this provision grants courts the discretion to lay down a penalty without regard to the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the imposable penalty must also be within the aforementioned range.[77] Hence, before applying the ISL, we ultimately imposed on Dizon and Tecson et al. the actual (straight) penalty[78] of four years and two months of prisión correccional.[79] Pursuant to Article 43 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of prisión correccional automatically carries with it[80] the following accessory penalties: ARTICLE 43. Prisión Correccional Its accessory penalties. The penalty of prisión correccional shall carry with it that of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen months. The offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in this article although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
	GR No. 182424 2014-09-22	NENITA CARGANILLO v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
We affirm the correctness of the penalty imposed by the CA, as it is fully in accordance with the law. We explained in People v. Temporada[24] that: "The prescribed penalty for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the RPC, when the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00, is prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum. The minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower or anywhere within prisión correccional minimum and medium (i.e., from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months). xxx
	GR No. 204755 2014-09-17	SOLEDAD TRIA v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
Meanwhile, the maximum term shall be taken from the prescribed penalty of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum in its maximum period, adding 1 year of imprisonment for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00. To compute the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum should be divided into three equal portions of time each of which portion shall be deemed to form one period in accordance with Article 65 of the RPC,[31] viz: Minimum: 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 5 years, 5 months and 10 days
	GR No. 200884 2014-06-04	PEOPLE v. MILDRED SALVATIERRA Y MATUCO PERALTA, J.
The maximum term, on the other hand, shall be that which could be properly imposed under the rules of the RPC, which in this case shall be 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years. The incremental penalty, therefore, shall be added to the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, which is anywhere between 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years.[29] Thus, in Criminal Case No. MC05-9048, the amount defrauded is P83,500.00 which is P61,500.00 more than P22,000.00. Six years shall be added to 6 years, 8 months and 21 days making the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence to 12 years, 8 months and 21 days. Applying the same computation to the other cases, the following shall be the maximum terms of the indeterminate penalties: Case Number Amount Defrauded in excess of P22,000.00 Maximum Term of the
	GR No. 197539 2014-06-02	PEOPLE v. ANGELITA I. DAUD LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The prescribed penalty for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, when the amount of the fraud is over P12,000.00 but not exceeding P22,000.00, is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum (i.e., from 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day to 8 years). Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, or anywhere within prision correccional minimum and medium (i.e., from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months).[31] Consequently, the minimum terms in Criminal Case Nos. 03-0123, 03-127, and 03-0130 were correctly fixed by the RTC, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, at 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional.
	GR No. 180016 2014-04-29	LITO CORPUZ v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
To compute the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum should be divided into three equal portions of time each of which portion shall be deemed to form one period in accordance with Article 65[50] of the RPC.[51] In the present case, the amount involved is P98,000.00, which exceeds P22,000.00, thus, the maximum penalty imposable should be within the maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of prision mayor. Article 315 also 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.
	GR No. 193960 2013-01-07	KARLO ANGELO DABALOS Y SAN DIEGO v. RTC PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Neither can the Court construe the statute in favor of petitioner using the rule of lenity[7] because there is no ambiguity in RA 9262 that would necessitate any construction. While the degree of physical harm under RA 9262 and Article 266[8] of the Revised Penal Code are the same, there is sufficient justification for prescribing a higher penalty for the former. Clearly, the legislative intent is to purposely impose a more severe sanction on the offenders whose violent act/s physically harm women with whom they have or had a sexual or dating relationship, and/or their children with the end in view of promoting the protection of women and children.
	GR No. 198554 2012-07-30	MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PERALTA, J.
Nevertheless, the application of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code in the Articles of War is in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the 1987 Constitution. According to a long line of decisions, equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.[37] It requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner.[38] The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within a state's jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through the state's duly-constituted authorities.[39] In other words, the concept of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.[40] It, however, does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Indeed, the equal protection clause permits classification. Such classification, however, to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness. The test has four requisites: (1) the classification rests on substantial distinctions; (2) it is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it applies equally to all members of the same class.[41] "Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification."[42] In the present case, petitioner belongs to the class of those who have been convicted by any court, thus, he is entitled to the rights accorded to them. Clearly, there is no substantial distinction between those who are convicted of offenses which are criminal in nature under military courts and the civil courts. Furthermore, following the same reasoning, petitioner is also entitled to the basic and time-honored principle that penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.[43] It must be remembered that the provisions of the Articles of War which the petitioner violated are penal in nature.
	GR No. 170964 2012-03-07	ELSA MACANDOG MAGTIRA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
As provided by law, the maximum indeterminate penalty when the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00 is pegged at prision mayor in its minimum period or anywhere within the range of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years, plus one year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00 of the amount defrauded but not to exceed twenty years. In turn, the minimum indeterminate penalty shall be one degree lower from the prescribed penalty for estafa, which in this case is anywhere within the range of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months.[23] Applying this formula, we affirm the penalty imposed by the CA as it is fully in accordance with the law.
	GR No. 199150 2012-02-06	CARMINA G. BROKMANN v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
The minimum term of imprisonment imposed by the CA and the RTC does not conform with the Court's ruling in People v. Temporada,[10] where we held that the minimum indeterminate penalty in the above provision shall be one degree lower from the prescribed penalty for estafa which is anywhere within the range of prision correccional, in its minimum and medium periods, or six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months. In this case, the minimum term imposed by the CA and the RTC of six (6) years and six (6) months of prision mayor is modified to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, consistent with the prevailing jurisprudence.
	GR No. 173792 2011-08-31	PEOPLE v. ROSARIO 'ROSE' OCHOA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, or anywhere within prision correccional minimum and medium (i.e., from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months).[57] Consequently, the minimum terms in Criminal Case Nos. 98-77301 and 98-77302 were correctly fixed by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals at 2 years, 11 months, and 11 days of prision correccional. While the minimum term in Criminal Case No. 98-77303 was increased by the Court of Appeals to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, it is still within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by Section 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
	GR No. 173198 2011-06-01	PEOPLE v. DOLORES OCDEN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, we take the minimum term from the penalty next lower than the minimum prescribed by law, or anywhere within prision correccional minimum and medium (i.e., from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months).[33] Consequently, both the RTC and the Court of Appeals correctly fixed the minimum term in Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R and 16318-R at 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days of prision correccional; and in Criminal Case No. 16964-R at 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, since these are within the range of prision correccional minimum and medium.
	GR No. 171328 2011-02-16	LYZAH SY FRANCO v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Having committed the crime of estafa, the petitioners must suffer the proper penalties provided by law. The law imposes the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period if the amount is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00. If the amount swindled exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional P10,000.00, but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed 20 years.[15] To determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty, prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period shall be reduced by one degree, that is, to prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. The minimum period of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the full range of the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, which is six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months. With the amount of the fraud at P80,000.00, there is P58,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00. Five years must therefore be added to the maximum period of the prescribed penalty ranging from six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days to eight (8) years. Thus, the maximum term of the penalty would range from eleven (11) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days to thirteen (13) years. This is in accord with our ruling in People v. Temparada,[16] viz: The prescribed penalty for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the RPC, when the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00, is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum. The minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower or anywhere within prision correccional minimum and medium (i.e. from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months). Consequently, the RTC correctly fixed the minimum term for the five estafa cases at 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional since this is within the range of prision correccional minimum and medium.
	GR No. 183879 2010-04-14	ROSITA SY v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
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]
	GR No. 189279 2010-03-09	PEOPLE v. NELSON PALMA Y HANGAD NACHURA, J.
On the question of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, it is well-settled that findings of fact of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are generally accorded great respect by the appellate court. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court, because it is in the best position to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied the appellate court.[19]
	GR No. 185614 2010-02-05	ANGELITA DELOS REYES FLORES v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Findings of fact of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are generally accorded great respect by the appellate court. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because it is in a position to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied the appellate court.[15]
	GR No. 183099 2010-02-03	PEOPLE v. RACHELLE BALAGAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
After a review of the records of the cases, the Court affirms the Decision of the appellate court but modifies the penalty it imposed in the case for Estafa, following People v. Temporada[9] which instructs: The prescribed penalty for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the RPC, when the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00, is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum. The minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower or anywhere within prision correccional minimum and medium (i.e., from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months). Consequently, the RTC correctly fixed the minimum term for the five estafa cases at 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional since this is within the range of prision correccional minimum and medium.
	GR No. 178337 2009-06-25	CARMEN RITUALO Y RAMOS v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Both elements of the crime were established in this case, namely, (a) petitioner Ritualo defrauded complainant by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (b) complainant Biacora suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation as a result.[54] Biacora parted with his money upon the prodding and enticement of petitioner Ritualo on the false pretense that she had the capacity to deploy him for employment in Australia. In the end, Biacora was neither able to leave for work overseas nor did he get his money back, thus causing him damage and prejudice. Hence, the conviction of petitioner Ritualo of the crime of estafa should be upheld.