504 Phil. 35
GARCIA, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered:Therefrom, petitioner went on appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 17050.xxx xxx xxx
2. In Criminal Case No. 91-4835, the prosecution having established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt of having committed the crime of Estafa defined and penalized under paragraph 2 letter (a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, she is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of from six (6) months, as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day as maximum, and the (accused) is hereby ordered to pay the private complainant Susan Jocson the amount of P21,163.25 plus legal rate of interest of 24% per annum from August 1990 until the full amount is paid and to pay the costs.
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the appealed decision in Criminal Case No. 91-4835 is hereby AFFIRMED in all respect.In time, petitioner moved for a reconsideration but her motion was denied by the same court in its Resolution of June 15, 1998.[2]
SO ORDERED.
In the ensuing trial, only Susan Jocson testified. Nonetheless, the trial court, finding Susan's testimony credible, convicted petitioner, which conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in the decision herein assailed, saying, inter alia, as follows:In Criminal Case No. 91-4835
That on or about the 15th day of August, 1990 in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, received in trust from Susan Pulido Jocson the amount of P21,163.25, for the purpose of buying Ready to Wear (RTW) dresses, with the agreement to sell the RTW bought and remit the proceeds of the sale thereof, or to return the RTW if unsold, but the accused far from complying with her obligation aforesaid, with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence and to defraud complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misapply, misappropriate and convert to her own personal use and benefit the said RTW dresses and/or the proceeds of the sale in the total of P21,163.25, and the accused despite repeated demands failed and refused and still fails and refuses to pay the value and/or return the same, to the damage and prejudice of the complainant in the aforementioned amount of P21,163.25.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
It is an undisputed facts (sic) that prior to this case private complaint and [petitioner] were friends. They knew each other since 1970 when they became friends. They were townmates. They were also neighbors. [Petitioner] is also the "comadre" of the sister of private complainant. Private respondent and [petitioner] were not complete strangers to each other.The provision of law[3] under which petitioner was indicted for and convicted of Estafa, reads:
These circumstances are sufficient reasons why private complainant reposed trust in [petitioner].xxx xxx xxx
The evidence presented in this case conclusively shows that [petitioner] led private-complainant to believe that [petitioner] will go abroad to buy RTW dresses to be sold here in the Philippines; that to obtain the RTW dresses, it was necessary for the private complainant to give [petitioner] money amounting to P21,163.25; that after receipt of the money, [petitioner] never bothered to show her face again to private complainant until the filing of this criminal case. (Words in brackets ours).
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:Petitioner made much of the fact that the only witness presented by the prosecution in Criminal Case No. 91-4835, is the private offended party, Susan Jocson, whose testimony stands uncorroborated, hence cannot be the basis for her conviction, what with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. If ever, so petitioner contends, Susan's testimony only amounts to a mere allegation or accusation, adding that although she (petitioner) "was not able to rebut in (sic) her testimony", still the presumption of innocence works in her favor since "it is incumbent upon the prosecution to present proof beyond reasonable doubt to obtain a judgment of conviction".[4]xxx xxx xxx
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 a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions: or by means of other similar deceits. (Emphasis ours).
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the correct penalty is arresto mayor in its maximum period, as minimum, to prision mayor in its minimum period, as maximum. The trial court thus correctly imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day, as maximum.
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;