RESOLUTION

Second Division
Agenda for 18 June 2012
Item No. 40

[40] G.R. No. 201183 (People of the Philippines v. Mariano

Bersabe). We resolve the Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court filed by accused Mariano Bersabe (accused), from the 29
November 2011 Decision and 24 February 2012 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 33636.1

The RTC Ruling

In its Decision promulgated on 2 July 2010,2 the Regional Trial Court

(RTC) of Legazpi City found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of estafa as defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph
2(a) of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (RPC). The court was
convinced that the accused defrauded Alnie Rico (Rico) by means of deceit
and that, as a consequence thereof, she suffered damages.

The Court found that accused solicited money from Rico under the
pretense that the money would be used as additional capital for his lending
business, which was sanctioned by his employer, the Gaisano Mall; and that
after a given period, the principal amount together with the income-interest
earned, which was 10% to 15% of the principal, would be returned to Rico.
However, when she demanded the return of her investments, including the
interest, the accused failed to return the amount agreed upon.

It was later discovered that, contrary to the assertions of the accused,

he never worked for the Gaisano Mall. Thus, he had no lending business
supported by the mall. Considering that the primary reason why Rico handed
over her money to him was that she believed it would earn interest, and that
the lending business was sanctioned by the mall, the Court found the
accused guilty of estafa. It thus ordered him to pay Rico 290,000.

The CA Ruling

In dismissing the Petition filed by the accused under Rule 42 of the

Rules of Court, the CA upheld the factual findings of the RTC and ruled that
the acts of the accused constituted the crime of estafa as defined in par. 2(a),
Art. 315 of the RPC.

1
Rollo, pp. 36-50; penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor and concurred in by
Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Danton Q. Bueser.
2
Rollo, pp. 20-35; docketed as Criminal Case No. 10810; penned by Judge Jose G. Dy.
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 201183

The CA ruled that the following false pretenses established that the
accused, by committing fraud, was able to convince Rico to part with her
money:

1. That he had a legitimate lending business authorized by Gaisano

Mall.3
2. That his lending business was not only safe, but also yielded high
returns for its investors.4
3. That several of his partners held high positions in the Gaisano
Mall.5
4. That the collection of payments from borrower-employees would
be done through salary deductions twice a month.

The appellate court sustained the trial courts finding that the accused
did not present an iota of evidence to prove that the alleged lending
business actually existed.6

The CA also ruled that the element of damage was established when
accused admitted that he has received various amounts of money from Rico
on different occasions. Furthermore, receipts he signed in the amounts of
55,000 and 285,500 were presented to prove that he had received money
from Rico.

While the minimum penalty imposed by the trial court was affirmed
by the CA, the maximum penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal was increased to twenty (20) years
of reclusion temporal.

The CA also decreased the amount of 290,000 awarded to Rico by

the trial court to 285,500, upon finding that this was the exact amount
invested by the complainant as found by the trial court.7

The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied in

the CAs 24 February 2012 Resolution.8

Our Ruling

We deny the Petition.

The Petition lacks merit. The accused merely raises the same two
issues that have been thoroughly resolved by the CA and are anchored on the
same facts found by the RTC.
3
Rollo, p. 43.
4
Id. at 44-45.
5
Id. at 45.
6
Id. at 44.
7
Id. at 49.
8
Id. at 59-60.
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 201183

We reverse the appellate courts ruling that modifies the liability of

Rico by reducing it to 285,500 not 290,000 as ordered by the trial court.
We also uphold the affirmance on the finding of estafa.

Her total claim, as stated in the Information, is 661,000.9 However,

the evidence shows that she actually invested 340,000 only. The accused
admitted that he had received this amount from her. The evidence further
reveals that the accused returned to Rico 50,000 of the 340,000 invested.
Thus, the trial court correctly held that the accused should be held liable for
the remaining amount of 290,000, not merely 285,500.

The elements of the crime of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2(a)
of the RPC, are as follows: (1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act
or fraudulent means; (2) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means must have been made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party must have relied on the false
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means and was thus induced to part
with his or her money or property; and (4) as a result, the offended party
suffered damage.10

In this case, the accused falsely pretended that he had a lending

business authorized by Gaisano Mall. This false representation constituted
fraud. It is clear from the testimony of Rico that she parted with her money
because she believed that the accuseds lending business was legitimate and
authorized by the mall.

Furthermore, there is no question that the element of damage was

established. The accused does not deny that he received the money of Rico,
and that he failed to return it to her when it became due. He refutes this
finding by alleging that he was willing to pay the correct amount of
288,180, but that Rico refused to accept it because she was unjustly asking
for a bloated amount of 661,000.11 He argues that an unlawful demand
on the part of the private offended party cannot result in the default in the
performance of accused obligation and also does not make such refusal to
comply to an unlawful demand amount to ESTAFA.12

The accused is mistaken. To sustain a conviction for estafa under

paragraph 2(a), deceit or false representation to defraud and the damage
caused thereby must be proved. No demand is necessary to establish the
crime.13

9
Id. at 35.
10
Franco v. People, G.R. No. 171328, 16 February 2011, 643 SCRA 474, 487 citing RCL Feeders
PTE., Ltd. v. Hon. Perez, 487 Phil. 211, 220-221 (2004).
11
Rollo, p. 14.
12
Id. at 15.
Balitaan v. Court of First Instance of Batangas, 201 Phil. 311 (1982) citing
13

People v. Torres, 1 CA Rep. 833.

Resolution 4 G.R. No. 201183

The penalty for estafa by means of deceit is provided in Article 315 of

the Revised Penal Code, which reads:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by
any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

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 under the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed
prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.

We affirm the penalty imposed by the appellate court.

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the

penalty shall be "that which in view of the attending circumstances, could be
properly imposed" under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum shall be
"within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed" for the
offense.

In Uy v. People,14 we explained that the two periods provided in the

first paragraph of Art. 315 should be divided into three equal periods of time
to get the maximum period of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to wit:

The range of the penalty provided for in Article 315 is composed of

only two periods, thus, to get the maximum period of the
indeterminate sentence, the total number of years included in the two
periods should be divided into three. Article 65 of the same code
requires the division of the time included in the prescribed penalty
into three equal periods of time, forming one period for each of the
three portions. The maximum, medium and minimum periods of the
prescribed penalty are therefore:

Minimum period 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 5 years,

5 months and 10 days

Medium period 5 years, 5 months and 11 days to 6

years, 8 months and 20 days

Maximum period 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8

years

Since the amount Rico was defrauded of exceeds 22,000, the penalty
should be the maximum period of six years, eight months, and twenty-one
days to eight years of prision mayor. Art. 315 also provides that an
additional year shall be imposed for each additional P10,000. Thus, 26.8
14
G.R. No. 174899, 11 September 2008, 564 SCRA 542.
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 201183

years should be added to the penalty. Due to the twenty-year limitation,

however, the maximum penalty that should be imposed is twenty years of
reclusion temporal.

Following the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period

should be within the range of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by
Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC. The penalty next lower than prision
correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum is prision correccional
minimum (six months and one day to two years and four months) to prision
correccional medium (two years, four months and one day to four years and
two months).15

There being no reversible error attributable to the CA, its findings are
affirmed, and the present Petition is denied.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED.

The 29 November 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
No. 33636 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused
Mariano Bersabe is ordered to PAY Alnie Rico the amount of 290,000 with
interest at 12% per annum.

15
Id.