ESTAFA

As borne by the records, the criminal charge stemmed from the failure of the
petitioner to return or remit the proceeds of jewelries amounting to P1,861,000.00.
The prosecution anchored its case on the testimony of Anna de Dios (private complainant),
and the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed between the private complainant and
the petitioner. The gist of the MOA provides: (1) the petitioner’s acknowledgment and
receipt, on various dates, of jewelries from the private complainant amounting to P1,861,000.00;
(2) the petitioner failed to remit the proceeds of the sale of the subject jewelries; and
(3) the private complainant filed the estafa case against the petitioner for the
non-remittance of the proceeds of the sale of the jewelries.

First, the offense of estafa, in general, is committed either by

(a) abuse of confidence or
(b) means of deceit.

The acts constituting estafa committed with abuse of confidence
are enumerated in item (1) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended; item (2) of Article 315 enumerates estafa committed by
means of deceit. Deceit is not an essential requisite of estafa
by abuse of confidence; the breach of confidence takes the place
of fraud or deceit, which is a usual element in the other estafas.
In this case, the charge against the petitioner and her subsequent
conviction was for estafa committed by abuse of confidence. Thus,
it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove deceit as this
was not an element of the estafa that the petitioner was charged
with.

Nevertheless, we find the modification of the penalty imposed to
be in order to conform to the prevailing jurisprudence. The
second paragraph of Article 315 provides the appropriate
penalty if the value of the thing, or the amount defrauded,
exceeds P22,000.00:

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.

 The minimum term of imprisonment imposed by the CA and the
RTC does not conform with the Court’s ruling in People v. Temporada,
where we held that the minimum indeterminate penalty in the above
provision shall be one degree lower from the prescribed penalty
for estafa which is anywhere within the range of prision
correccional, in its minimum and medium periods, or six (6) months
and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months. In this
case, the minimum term imposed by the CA and the RTC of six
(6) years and six (6) months of prision mayor is modified to
four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
consistent with the prevailing jurisprudence.



CARMINA G. BROKMANN,
Petitioner,
VS
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 199150,February 6, 2012