G.R. No. 105213 - ERLINDA DE LA CRUZ, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered convicting the accused, ERLINDA DE LA CRUZ, of the crime of Estafa, defined and penalized in Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, and in accordance therewith, taking into consideration the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances which attended the commission of the offense, the said accused is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of from FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional in its medium period, as the minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS of prision mayor in its minimum period, as the maximum, plus 69 years considering that the amount defrauded by the accused exceeds the sum of P22,000.00, computed at one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00 out of the P693,000.00 excess thereof, but the penalty to be suffered by the accused shall not exceed twenty (20) years; with all the accessory penalties provided for by law; to indemnify private complainant Victor B. Bellosillo the amount of P715,000.00, and to pay the costs." Petitioner appealed the foregoing judgment of conviction to respondent Court. But finding her allegations superficial, contradicted by the sincere and candid testimony of the complainant and unsupported by the evidence established on record, respondent Court disposed of the appeal as follows: [8] "WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction herein appealed from is AFFIRMED, and the indeterminate penalty imposed by the lower court on appellant is clarified so as to read: From four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The same judgment is AFFIRMED in all other respects, with costs against appellant Erlinda de la Cruz." Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by respondent Court in two Resolutions dated April 23, 1992 and May 15, 1992. [9] The Issues The petitions flails the respondent Court for the following errors: [10] "1. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that accused employed false pretense or influence and connection as a way of defrauding the private complainant. 2. The respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that the business transaction entered into by the accused with the private complainant was fraudulently designed to damage the latter. 3. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that there was no error in the judgment of the trial court." In her petition, which she adopted as her memorandum, [11] petitioner discusses these alleged errors simultaneously. At bottom, she merely challenges the factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the respondent Court of Appeals. In her 3-page "Arguments and Discussions," she claims that the prosecution FAILED to prove its affirmative allegations in the indictment regarding the elements of the crime as well as the attendant circumstances." The Courts Ruling Factual Findings Are Final and Binding It is doctrinal that the findings of facts of the