G.R. No. 172820 - DULCE PAMINTUAN, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , finding the accused DULCE PAMINTUAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of estafa, defined and penalized under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code, without modifying circumstances, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Considering that there is already a settlement as to the payment of the civil liability, as embodied in the Real Estate Mortgage executed by the parties, this Court hereby refrains to pronounce the corresponding civil indemnity. SO ORDERED . The petitioner appealed to the CA. The CA Ruling The CA agreed with the RTC that the petitioner was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa and thus dismissed the petitionerÕs appeal. [13] The CA ruled that the prosecution evidence showed that Jeremias entrusted possession of the diamond ring to the petitioner, not to her husband. The CA observed that the prosecution duly proved the petitionerÕs misappropriation by showing that she failed to return the diamond ring upon demand. That misappropriation took place was strengthened when the petitioner failed to refute JeremiasÕ allegation that she pawned the diamond ring Ð an act that ran counter to the terms of her agency under the Katibayan . The petitioner moved to reconsider the CA decision, arguing that the CA disregarded the legal significance of the mortgage deed, and filed the present petition after the CA denied her motion. The Issues The petitioner raises the following issues: whether the CA correctly disregarded the effect of the mortgage deed on her criminal liability; and whether the elements of the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, were duly proven beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner asserts that the terms of the mortgage deed negated the element of misappropriation, and the RTC and the CA did not at all consider these when they convicted her. At the same time, she disputes the terms of the Katibayan , as its stipulations, written in fine print, did not truly disclose the real nature of the transaction between her and Jeremias. She also claims that she became the owner of the diamond ring after it was turned over to her. The petitioner further insists that she signed the Katibayan without taking heed of its terms because she trusted Jeremias. The Court's Ruling We find the petition unmeritorious. The issues raised by the petitioner are essentially encapsulated by the second issue outlined above Ð i.e., whether the crime of estafa has been sufficiently established; the first issue relating to the mortgage deed is a matter of defense that should be considered in resolving the second issue. Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, under which the petitioner was charged and prosecuted, states: Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the