G.R. No. 141485 - PABLITO MURAO AND NELIO HUERTAZUELA, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused PABLITO MURAO and NELIO HUERTAZUELA guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals, of the crime of estafa defined and penalized in Article 315 par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, and applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, both accused are hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from a minimum of TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional in its medium period, to a maximum of TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion temporal in its maximum period; to pay Chito Federico, jointly and severally: a. Sales Commission equivalent to 50% of P309,000.00 or with legal interest thereon from June 17, 1994 until fully paid; P154,500.00 b. Attorney's fees P 30,000.00. [21] Resolving the appeal filed by the petitioners before it, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision, dated 31 May 1999, affirmed the aforementioned RTC Judgment, finding petitioners guilty of estafa, but modifying the sentence imposed on the petitioners. The dispositive portion of the Decision of the Court of Appeals reads WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellants PABLITO MURAO and NELIO HUERTAZUELA are hereby each sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and One (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to Twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal , as maximum. The award for attorney's fee of P30,000.00 is deleted because the prosecution of criminal action is the task of the State prosecutors. All other aspects of the appealed decision are maintained. [22] When the Court of Appeals, in its Resolution, dated 19 January 2000, [23] denied their Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners filed the present Petition for Review [24] before this Court, raising the following errors allegedly committed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision, dated 31 May 1999 I WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE FOR ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315 1(B) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE UNDER THE FOREGOING SET OF FACTS, WHEN IT IS CLEAR FROM THE SAID UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT THE LIABILITY IS CIVIL IN NATURE. II WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT UPHOLD ( sic ) PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S CLAIM THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO A FIFTY (50%) PERCENT COMMISSION WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH CLAIM. This Court finds the instant Petition impressed with merit. Absent herein are two essential elements of the crime of estafa by misappropriation or conversion under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, namely: (1) That money, goods or other personal property be received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; and (2) That there be a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender. The findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals that petit