G.R. No. 166873 - GEMMA ILAGAN, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.[G.R. NO. 168069]ALBERT CORDERO SY, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.[G.R. NO. 168543]JAIME TAN, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused JAIME TAN, ALBERT CORDERO SY, and GEMMA ILAGAN GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime charged and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) day of prision correccional to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor and to indemnify jointly and severally the complainant Rosita Tan, the amount of P470,350.00 with legal interest from the finality of the decision until fully satisfied without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. Accordingly, the bond posted for provisional liberty is CANCELLED. [13] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. It discredited the claim of the defense that Rosita was engaged in the business of rediscounting "in the absence of evidence establishing this claim." It quoted with approval the trial court's above-quoted ratio decidendi in affirming the decision of the trial court. It modified the penalty and civil liability imposed by the trial court, however. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision [14] dated September 22, 2004, reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the decision of the trial court in Criminal Case No. 02-199044 WITH MODIFICATION with respect to the penalty imposed. Thus, this Court finds the accused Jaime Tan, Albert Cordero Sy, and Gemma Ilagan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of ESTAFA, defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences each of them to suffer an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor , as minimum, to thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua , as maximum , and to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of P470,350.00 . [15] (Underscoring supplied) Petitioners Sy and Tan's motions for reconsiderations were denied on the merits, [16] while that of petitioner Gemma was denied for having been filed out of time. [17] Hence, the separate petitions for review of petitioners. Petitioner Gemma assigns the following errors to the appellate court: . . . DENYING ACCUSED-PETITIONERS� MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO THE DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 ON A MERE TECHNICAL GROUND. . . . MISAPPREHEND[ING] THE ESTABLISHED FACTS OF THE CASE THAT CLEARLY INDICATE THE ABSENCE OF ANY CRIMINAL INTENT ON THE PART OF ACCUSED-PETITIONER TO COMMIT THE CRIME CHARGED. . . . RULING THAT ACCUSED-PETITIONER CONSPIRED WITH CO-ACCUSED JAIME TAN AND ALBERT CORDERO SY TO DEFRAUD PRIVATE COMPLAINANT ROSITA TAN . [18] (Underscoring supplied) Petitioner Sy ascribes the following errors to the appellate court: . . . HOLDING THAT PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR ESTAFA UNDER ART. 315, PAR. 2[d], REVISED PENAL CODE, ALTHOUGH HE WAS NOT THE DRAWER/ISSUER OF THE CHECKS IN QUESTION AND DID NOT KNOW OR COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN OF THE INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS TO COVER THE CHECKS. . . . HOLDING THAT PETITIONER COMMITTED FRAUD BY INDU