G.R. No. 177720 - ELISEO R. FRANCISCO, JR., VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, considering that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that accused ELISEO FRANCISCO is GUILTY of the crime charged, the Court hereby sentences said accused of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Accordingly, accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 2 years 4 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 6 years 2 months and 11 days of prision mayor as maximum and ordered to reimburse private complainant Bankard, Inc., of the amount of PhP18,430.21. [3] Petitioner Francisco filed a Motion for Reconsideration/New Trial, praying for the re-opening of the case in order that he may present the credit card statements and demand letters. Petitioner Francisco contended that Bankard's line of business affected by the instant case was that of acquiring credit card receivables. According to petitioner Francisco, this meant that he, like any other credit card holder, remained indebted to the issuers of the credit card, which were Solidbank Mastercard and AIG Visa. He should, therefore, be acquitted since private complainant Bankard was not the entity that incurred damage, but Solidbank Mastercard and AIG Visa. In an Order dated 12 July 2005, the RTC denied petitioner Francisco's Motion for Reconsideration/New Trial. Petitioner Francisco proceeded to the Court of Appeals. On 28 February 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision affirming the conviction of petitioner Francisco, but with modification of his prison sentence: WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated January 10, 2005 is affirmed, subject to the modification of the imprisonment sentence which should be an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional , as the minimum period, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal , as the maximum period. [4] According to the Court of Appeals, the total amount defrauded, P681,574.77, gave rise to a minimum penalty under prision correccional and a maximum penalty of twenty years, pursuant to Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides: 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 case, 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. Petitioner Francisco now comes before this Court, bringing forth the is