Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 149014-16 February 5, 2004
PEOPE OF T!E P!""PP"NES, appellee
vs.
ROSE #U$U% &a' (ar)e*+ E#"T!% S. S"NG &a' (ar)e*+ GU"ERMO ,-".,
S%MSON &a' (ar)e*+ R%MON S%MSON #U$U%, accused,
R%MON S%MSON #U$U%, appellant.
D E C I S I O N
T"NG%, J.:
Ramon Duua appeals f!om the decision of the Re"ional #!ial Cou!t $R#C of Manila,
%!anch &'(, findin" him "uilt) of Ille"al Rec!uitment in *a!"e Scale and of t+o counts of
estafa.
Ramon, his mothe! Rose Duua, his aunt Editha Sin"h, and his uncle ,uille!mo -.ill)-
Samson +e!e cha!"ed in C!iminal Case No. /01'23/'2, +ith Ille"al Rec!uitment in
*a!"e Scale in an Info!mation alle"in" 4
#hat in o! about and du!in" the pe!iod comp!ised bet+een 5u"ust, '//' and Ma!ch '6,
'//0, inclusive, in the Cit) of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspi!in" and
confede!atin" to"ethe! and helpin" one anothe!, bein" then p!ivate individuals and
!ep!esentin" themselves to have the capacit) to cont!act, enlist, and t!anspo!t 7ilipino
+o!8e!s fo! emplo)ment ab!oad, did then and the!e +illfull) and unla+full), fo! a fee,
!ec!uit and p!omise emplo)ment9ob placement to the follo+in" applicants, namel):
;aime Cabus ) Co, %eldon S. Caluten, 7e!nando P. Cunanan, Paulino %. Co!!ea, Ma!tin
D. Nacion, Romulo Pa!tos ) #uan"co, ;esus %. %!ia"as, 5!tu!o #o!!es, Robe!to 5.
Pe!las, Ronald 5lva!e< and Vivencio *. %ati=uin +ithout fi!st havin" secu!ed the
!e=ui!ed license o! autho!it) f!om the Depa!tment of *abo! as !e=ui!ed b) la+.
CON#R5R> #O *5..
'
#he fou! +e!e also cha!"ed in C!iminal Case Nos. /01'23/'0 and /01'23/02 +ith
sepa!ate counts of estafa committed a"ainst Robe!to Pe!las and ;aime Cabus. E?cept
fo! the date of the commission, the name of the victim, and the amount involved, the t+o
Info!mations in the estafa cases ma8e simila! alle"ations a"ainst the accused. #he
Info!mation in C!iminal Case No. /01'23/'0 states:
#hat on o! about Octobe! 03, '//', in the Cit) of Manila, Philippines, the said accused
conspi!in" and confede!atin" to"ethe! and helpin" one anothe!, did then and the!e
+illfull), unla+full) and feloniousl) def!aud Robe!to 5. Pe!las in the follo+in" manne!, to
+it: the said accused, b) means of false manifestations and f!audulent !ep!esentation
+hich the) made to said Robe!to 5. Pe!las to the effect that the) had the po+e! and
capacit) to !ec!uit and emplo) him ab!oad and could facilitate the p!ocessin" of the
pe!tinent pape!s if "iven the necessa!) amount to meet the !e=ui!ements the!eof, and
b) means of othe! simila! deceits, induced and succeeded in inducin" said Robe!to 5.
Pe!las to "ive and delive!, as in fact "ave and delive!ed to said accused the amount
of P'@,222.22 on the st!en"th of said manifestations and !ep!esentations, said accused
+ell 8no+in" that the same +e!e false and f!audulent and +e!e made solel) to obtain,
as in fact the) did obtain the amount ofP'@,222.22 +hich amount once in possession,
+ith intent to def!aud the), +illfull), unla+full) and feloniousl) misapp!op!iated,
misapplied and conve!ted to thei! o+n pe!sonal use and benefit, to the dama"e and
p!eudice of said Robe!to 5. Pe!las in the afo!esaid amount of P'@,222.22, Philippine
cu!!enc).
CON#R5R> #O *5..
0
#hat in C!iminal Case No. /01'23/02 !eads:
#hat in o! about and du!in" the comp!ised Ape!iodB bet+een Octobe! '//' and Ma!ch
'6, '//0, inclusive, in the Cit) of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspi!in" and
confede!atin" to"ethe! and helpin" one anothe! did then and the!e +illfull), unla+full)
and feloniousl) def!aud ;aime Cabus ) Co in the follo+in" manne!, to +it: the said
accused, b) means of false manifestations and f!audulent !ep!esentation +hich the)
made to said ;aime Cabus ) Co to the effect that the) had the po+e! and capacit) to
!ec!uit and emplo) him ab!oad and could facilitate the p!ocessin" of the pe!tinent
pape!s if "iven the necessa!) amount to meet the !e=ui!ements the!eof, and b) means
of othe! simila! deceits, induced and succeeded in inducin" said ;aime Cabus ) Co to
"ive and delive!, as in fact he "ave and delive!ed to said accused the amount
of P6@,222.22 on the st!en"th of said manifestations and !ep!esentations, said accused
+ell 8no+in" that the same +e!e false and f!audulent and +e!e made solel) to obtain,
as in fact the) did obtain the amount of P6@,222.22 +hich amount once in possession,
+ith intent to def!aud the), +illfull), unla+full) and feloniousl) misapp!op!iated,
misapplied and conve!ted to thei! o+n pe!sonal use and benefit, to the dama"e and
p!eudice of said ;aime Cabus ) Co in the afo!esaid amount ofP6@,222.22, Philippine
cu!!enc).
1
CON#R5R> #O *5..
C
Of the fou! accused, onl) Ramon Duua +as a!!ested and a!!ai"ned. Dis mothe!, aunt
and uncle !emain at la!"e. Ramon ente!ed a plea of not "uilt) to each of the cha!"es,
+he!eupon t!ial commenced. .hile the Info!mation fo! ille"al !ec!uitment named seve!al
pe!sons as havin" been p!omised obs b) the accused, onl) fou! of them testified.
In 5u"ust '//', p!ivate complainant %eldon Caluten, accompanied b) his cousin, +ent
to the accusedEs office, the .o!ld Pac8 #!avel and #ou!s located in Suite 03, Manila
Midto+n 5!cade, 5d!iatico St!eet, E!mita, Manila.
6
Fpon %eldonEs in=ui!), Ramon Duua
said that he sends applicants ab!oad and "ave %eldon an application fo!m. %eldon filled
up the fo!m and submitted it to Ramon, +ho told him that he must pa) a p!ocessin" fee
and ma8e an advance pa)ment.
&
%eldon +as p!omised +o!8 as a facto!) +o!8e! in ;apan.
G
On 5u"ust '&, '//', he paid
Ramon the p!ocessin" fee of P',222.22 and, the ne?t da), an advance pa)ment
of P'2,222.22.
@
%eldon paid Ramon an additionalP'&,222.22 on 5u"ust 0', '//' as
placement fee.
3
7o! these pa)ments, %eldon +as issued !eceipts
/
si"ned b) RamonEs
mothe! Rose Duua.
'2
On the last +ee8 of 5u"ust '//', %eldon "ave
anothe! P'2,222.22 to %enita Valdes, anothe! applicant in the accusedEs office, but no
!eceipt +as issued fo! the amount.
''
7inall), %eldon "aveP6',222.22 to Rose Duua but
+hen %eldon as8ed fo! a !eceipt fo! the latte! pa)ment, Rose said she al!ead) "ave him
one.
'0
.hen, despite such pa)ments, the p!omise to send %eldon to +o!8 in ;apan !emained
unfulfilled, %eldon as8ed Ramon to "ive him bac8 his mone).
'C
%eldon neve! !ecove!ed
his pa)ments, ho+eve!, p!omptin" him and his fello+ applicants to file a complaint at
the National %u!eau of Investi"ation $N%I(.
'6
P!ivate complainant ;aime Cabus +as int!oduced to Ramon on the fi!st +ee8 of
Octobe! '//' b) ;aimeEs nei"hbo! +ho +o!8ed in f!ont of the accusedEs office.
'&
Ramon
said the) +e!e deplo)in" +o!8e!s to #ai+an and that if ;aime could affo!d the placement
fee of P6&,222.22, plus the passpo!t and p!ocessin" fee, he could leave fo! #ai+an in a
fe+ +ee8s.
'G
#he follo+in" da), ;aime "ave Ramon P0,222.22 at the latte!Es office, the .o!ld Pac8
#!avel and #ou!s at Suite 03, Manila Midto+n 5!cade, 5d!iatico St., E!mita, Manila, fo!
the p!ocessin" of his passpo!t.
'@
;aime +as not issued a !eceipt fo! his pa)ment but
+as assu!ed that the passpo!tEs p!ocessin" +ould ta8e ust t+o da)s.
'3
Indeed, ;aime
+as able to see his passpo!t.
'/
In the latte! pa!t of Octobe! '//', ;aime paid P'2,222.22 as do+n pa)ment fo! the
placement fee.
02
;aime "ave Ramon the sum inside the accusedEs office.
0'
On Ma!ch
'G, '//6, +hen the) +e!e about to leave fo! the ai!po!t ;aime handed Rose P6@,222.22
!ep!esentin" the balance of the placement fee.
00
5t the ai!po!t, Ramon told ;aime that the tic8ets +e!e still bein" p!ocessed.
0C
7eelin"
that his and the othe! thi!t) applicantsE fli"ht +ould not push th!ou"h, ;aime as8ed fo! a
!efund. Ramon and his mothe! !efused to pa) him bac8
06
because the mone) +as
supposedl) "oin" to be used in the p!ocessin" of thei! tic8ets.
0&
Rose assu!ed him,
thou"h, that the) +ould be able to leave the follo+in" da).
0G
#he fli"ht and the ob neve! mate!iali<ed, ho+eve!, so afte! a +ee8 ;aime decided to file
a complaint +ith the N%I.
0@
5nothe! complainant, Robe!to Pe!las, +as int!oduced to Ramon Duua b) his
compad!e, complainant ;aime Cabus, in the fi!st +ee8 of Octobe! '//'.
03
Robe!to +ent
to the accusedEs office at Midto+n Pla<a in E!mita to appl) fo! a ob ab!oad.
0/
Ramon
told him that the) +e!e deplo)in" facto!) +o!8e!s to #ai+an.
C2
Convinced, Robe!to accomplished the bio1data fo!m "iven b) Ramon.
C'
Robe!to also
paid a total of PC2,222.22 as placement fee.
C0
On sepa!ate occasions, Robe!to "ave
Ramon P@,222.22 and P'2,222.22, fo! +hich he +as issued the co!!espondin" !eceipts
b) Rose Duua.
CC
#he balance of the PC2,222.22 he late! "ave to Rose, +ho did not
issue a !eceipt the!efo! because at the time a lot of people +e!e millin" about.
C6
Not+ithstandin" pa)ment, Robe!to +as not able to leave fo! #ai+an.
C&
Rose and Ramon
8ept on tellin" him that he +ould leave the follo+in" da) but Robe!to +aited in
vain.
CG
#he mone) he "ave +as neve! !efunded.
C@
7inall), he decided to file a complaint
a"ainst the accused.
C3
In 5u"ust '//', p!ivate complainant Romulo Pa!tos +as int!oduced to Ramon Duua at
the latte!Es office at the .o!ld Pac8 #!avel and #ou!s in the Manila Midto+n 5!cade,
5d!iatico St., Manila, b) one %ab) Ramos.
C/
%ab), li8e Romulo, +as an applicant fo!
deplo)ment to #ai+an.
62
Ramon told Romulo about -the +o!8 in #ai+an and in ;apan.-
Ramon said that Romulo +ould "et the ob he +as appl)in" fo! and leave +ithin a +ee8
if he paidP6&,222.22.
Romulo and his +ife Melodea Villanueva then decided that Romulo +ould +ithd!a+ his
application and that Melodea +ould be the one to leave fo! ab!oad.
6'
#he amount
of P6&,222.22 that Romulo +as supposed to pa) +as chan"ed to P0&,222.22, pa)able
upon application.
60
Romulo also had to pa) P&2,222.22 upon the !elease of the visa and
anothe! P@&,222.22 upon depa!tu!e.
6C
2
Romulo paid Ramon P'3,222.22 fo! his +ifeEs application, and Rose Duua issued the
co!!espondin" !eceipt.
66
Subse=uentl), Romulo "ave anothe! P@,222.22 to complete the
!e=ui!ed P0&,222.22.
6&
No !eceipt +as issued fo! the latte! pa)ment.
6G
RomuloEs +ife !aised anothe! P&2,222.22, +hich +as "iven to Rose, fo! he! ;apanese
visa.
6@
5s nothin" came about of the emplo)ment p!omised, Romulo decided to file a
complaint +ith the N%I.
63
#he p!osecution also p!esented a Ce!tification
6/
dated Ma!ch 0@, '//3, issued b)
De!mo"enes C. Mateo, Di!ecto! II, *icensin" %!anch of the POE5, statin" that Ramon
Duua is not licensed o! autho!i<ed b) the POE5 to !ec!uit +o!8e!s ab!oad. 5nothe!
Ce!tification,
&2
of even date sho+s that neithe! is the .o!ld Pac8 #!avel and #ou!s
autho!i<ed to !ec!uit +o!8e!s ab!oad.
#he accused Ramon Duua admitted havin" met p!ivate complainants
&'
but denied that
he +as a !ec!uite!.
&0
De claimed that he +as a me!e anito!, messen"e! and e!!and bo)
of the .o!ld Pac8 #!avel and #ou!s, +he!e he +o!8ed f!om Octobe! 03, '//' up to ;une
02, '//0.
&C
#he compan) is o+ned b) his aunt, Editha Sin"h, and mana"ed b) his
mothe! Rose Duua.
&6
.hile admittin" that he did not have a license to !ec!uit,
&&
Ramon ac8no+led"ed
!eceivin" the mone) "iven b) complainants but denied 8no+in" +hat it +as fo!.
&G
De
said, ho+eve!, that his mothe! onl) as8ed him to count the mone).
&@
De fu!the!
maintained that he did not si"n an) !eceipt !elative to the pa)ments made b) p!ivate
complainants.
&3
#he accused claimed that he +as bein" cha!"ed onl) because
complainants +e!e an"!) +ith his mothe!.
&/
Henaida Pe!e<, +ho used to +o!8 fo! .o!ld Pac8 #!avel and #ou!s, co!!obo!ated
RamonEs claim that he +as a anito!9messen"e! in said office.
G2
On 7eb!ua!) 03, 022', the R#C !ende!ed its Decision convictin" Ramon Duua of ille"al
!ec!uitment in la!"e scale, committed a"ainst ;aime Cabus, %eldon Caluten and
Robe!to Pe!las, and of t+o counts of estafa, committed a"ainst Cabus and Pe!las. #he
dispositive po!tion of the R#C Decision !eads:
.DERE7ORE, the Cou!t, findin" the accused Ramon Duua "uilt) be)ond !easonable
doubt of the offense in C!iminal Case /01'23/'2 +hich is fo! Ille"al Rec!uitment fo!
Violation of 5!t. C3 $a and b( in !elation to 5!t. C/ of PD 660, as amended b) PD '6'0
and fu!the! amended b) PD '/02 and PD 02'3, he!eb) sentences him to suffe! the
penalt) of life imp!isonment and to pa) fine in the amount of P'22,222.22. De is fu!the!
o!de!ed to pa) the p!ivate complainants a( ;aime Cabus the amount of P6@,222.22I b(
%enton AsicB C. Caluten the amount ofP0G,222.22I and c( Robe!to Pe!las the amount
of P'@,222.22. In so fa! as Romulo Pa!tos is conce!ned, his case is dismissed. .ith
costs.
.ith !espect to C!iminal Case No. /01'23/'0 and C!iminal Case No. /01'23/02
involvin" p!ivate complainants Robe!to Pe!las and ;aime Cabus, !espectivel), the
Cou!t, findin" the accused Ramon Duua "uilt) be)ond !easonable doubt of the c!ime
cha!"ed +hich is fo! Estafa, he!eb) sentences him to suffe! the indete!minate penalt) of
t+o $0( )ea!s, eleven $''( months and eleven $''( da)s of p!ision co!!eccional as
minimum to fou! $6( )ea!s and t+o $0( months of p!ision co!!eccional as ma?imum fo!
each of the cases. Conside!in" that the accused had been o!de!ed to pa) p!ivate
complainant Robe!to Pe!las the amount of P'@,222.22 and p!ivate complainant ;aime
Cabus the amount of P6@,222.22 in C!iminal Case No. /01'23/'2 fo! Ille"al
Rec!uitment the) should not be a+a!ded a"ain the said amounts in these Estafa cases.
.ith costs.
Conside!in" that the accused Ramon Duua is a detention p!isone!, he shall be c!edited
in the se!vice of his sentence +ith the full time du!in" +hich he has unde!"one
p!eventive imp!isonment.
5s a"ainst accused Rose Duua, Editha S. Sin" AsicB and ,uille!mo -.ill)- Samson +ho
!emained at1la!"e, thei! cases +e!e a!chieved AsicB $O!de! dated Novembe! 0C, '//0(.
SO ORDERED.
G'
See8in" the !eve!sal of his conviction, Ramon Duua contends that the p!osecution
failed to p!ove be)ond !easonable doubt that he committed the c!imes of ille"al
!ec!uitment in la!"e scale and estafa.
#he essential elements of the c!ime of ille"al !ec!uitment in la!"e scale a!e: $'( the
accused en"a"es in acts of !ec!uitment and placement of +o!8e!s defined unde! 5!ticle
'C$b( o! in an) p!ohibited activities unde! 5!t. C6 of the *abo! CodeI $0( the accused has
not complied +ith the "uidelines issued b) the Sec!eta!) of *abo! and Emplo)ment,
pa!ticula!l) +ith !espect to the secu!in" of a license o! an autho!it) to !ec!uit and deplo)
+o!8e!s, eithe! locall) o! ove!seasI and $C( the accused commits the unla+ful acts
a"ainst th!ee o! mo!e pe!sons, individuall) o! as a "!oup.
G0
5ll th!ee elements have been established be)ond !easonable doubt.
7i!st, the testimonies of the complainin" +itnesses satisfacto!il) p!ove that appellant
p!omised them emplo)ment and assu!ed them placement ove!seas. Complainants +e!e
fi!m and cate"o!ical. 5ll of them positivel) identified appellant as the pe!son +ho
!ec!uited them fo! emplo)ment ab!oad. #hei! testimonies dovetail each othe! on
3
mate!ial points. #he!e is no ade=uate sho+in" that an) of them +as impelled b) an) ill
motive to testif) a"ainst appellant. #hei! testimonies +e!e st!ai"htfo!+a!d, c!edible and
convincin". 5s a"ainst the positive and cate"o!ical testimonies of the th!ee
complainants, appellantEs me!e denials cannot p!evail.
GC
It is i!!elevant +hethe! o! not complainantsE claims a!e suppo!ted b) !eceipts. #he
absence of !eceipts in a case fo! ille"al !ec!uitment does not +a!!ant the ac=uittal of the
appellant and is not fatal to the p!osecutionEs case. 5s lon" as the p!osecution is able to
establish th!ou"h c!edible testimonial evidence that the appellant has en"a"ed in Ille"al
Rec!uitment, a conviction fo! the offense can ve!) +ell be ustified.
G6
Second, appellant did not have an) license o! autho!it) to !ec!uit pe!sons fo! ove!seas
+o!8, as sho+n b) the Ce!tification issued b) the POE5. Neithe! did his emplo)e!, the
.o!ld Pac8 #!avel and #ou!s, possess such license o! autho!it).
#hi!d, it bea!s cla!if)in" that althou"h Romulo Po!tos +as named as amon" those
!ec!uited b) appellant the evidence !eveals that Romulo +ithd!e+ his application in lieu
of +hich his +ife Melodea Villanueva applied fo! placement +ith appellant. Villanueva,
ho+eve!, is not named as one of appellantEs victims.
Neve!theless, it has been alle"ed and p!oven that appellant unde!too8 the !ec!uitment
of not less than th!ee pe!sons, namel), Cabus, Caluten and Pe!las.
#he R#C, the!efo!e, aptl) meted upon appellant the penalt) of life imp!isonment and to
pa) a fine of P'22,222.22, in acco!dance +ith 5!ticle C/$a( of the *abo! Code.
#he follo+in" elements of estafa, as defined b) 5!ticle C'& $0( $a( a!e also p!esent in
this case, to +it: $'( the accused has def!auded the offended pa!t) b) means of abuse
of confidence o! b) deceitI and $0( as a !esult, dama"e o! p!eudice, +hich is capable of
pecunia!) estimation, is caused to the offended pa!t) o! thi!d pe!son. 5ppellant
mis!ep!esented himself to ;aime Cabus and Robe!to Pe!las as one +ho can ma8e
a!!an"ements fo! ob placements in #ai+an and ;apan and, b) !eason of such
mis!ep!esentations, the t+o complainants +e!e induced to pa!t +ith thei! mone),
causin" them dama"e.
#he R#C, ho+eve!, e!!ed in imposin" upon appellant, fo! each count of estafa, the
penalt) of t+o $0( )ea!s, eleven $''( months and eleven $''( da)s of p!ision
co!!eccional, as minimum, to fou! $6( )ea!s and t+o $0( months of p!ision co!!eccional,
as ma?imum. 5!ticle C'& of the Revised Penal Code p!ovides that:
5R#. C'&. Swindling $estafa(. J 5n) pe!son +ho shall def!aud anothe! b) an) of the
means mentioned he!einbelo+ shall be punished b):
1st. #he penalt) of prision correccional in its ma?imum pe!iod to prision mayor in its
minimum pe!iod, if the amount of the f!aud is ove! '0,222 but does not e?ceed 00,222
pesos, and if such amount e?ceeds the latte! sum, the penalt) p!ovided in this
pa!a"!aph shall be imposed in its ma?imum pe!iod, addin" one )ea! fo! each additional
'2,222 pesosI but the total penalt) +hich ma) be imposed shall not e?ceed t+ent)
)ea!s. In such case, and in connection +ith the accesso!) penalties +hich ma) be
imposed and fo! the pu!pose of the othe! p!ovisions of this Code, the penalt) shall be
te!med prision mayor o! reclusion temporal, as the case ma) be.
K.
0. %) means of an) of the follo+in" false p!etenses o! f!audulent acts e?ecuted p!io! to
o! simultaneousl) +ith the commission of the f!aud:
$a( %) usin" fictitious name, o! falsel) p!etendin" to possess po+e!, influence,
=ualifications, p!ope!t), c!edit, a"enc), business o! ima"ina!) t!ansactionsI o! b) means
of othe! simila! deceits.
In C!iminal Case No. /01'23/02, the p!osecution alle"ed and p!oved that appellant
def!auded complainant ;aime Cabus in the amount of P6@,222.22, +hich e?ceeds the
sum of P00,222.22. #hus, the penalt) p!esc!ibed, i.e., p!ision co!!eccional in its
ma?imum pe!iod $6 )ea!s, 0 months and ' da) to G )ea!s( to p!ision ma)o! in its
minimum pe!iod $G )ea!s and ' da) to 3 )ea!s(, shall be imposed in its ma?imum
pe!iod.
#he penalt) p!esc!ibed b) 5!ticle C'&, ho+eve!, is composed of onl) t+o, not th!ee,
pe!iods, in +hich case 5!ticle G& of the Revised Penal Code !e=ui!es the division into
th!ee e=ual po!tions the time included in the penalt), fo!min" one pe!iod of each of the
th!ee po!tions. 5ppl)in" this p!ovision, the minimum, medium and ma?imum pe!iods of
the penalt) p!esc!ibed a!e:
Ma?imum 1 G )ea!s, 3 months, 0' da)s to 3 )ea!s
Medium 1 & )ea!s, & months, '' da)s to G )ea!s, 3 months, 02 da)s
Minimum 1 6 )ea!s, 0 months, ' da) to & )ea!s, & months, '2 da)s
#hus, the ma?imum pe!iod is G )ea!s, 3 months and 0' da)s to 3 )ea!s.
5!ticle C'& fu!the! states that one )ea! shall be added fo! each additional P'2,222.22
def!auded in e?cess ofP00,222.22. #he amount def!auded, P6@,2222.22,
4
less P00,222.22 is P0&,222.22, o! t+o additional amounts ofP'2,222.22. #hese t+o
)ea!s shall be added to the ma?imum pe!iod of G )ea!s, 3 months and 0' da)s to 3
)ea!s of p!ision ma)o! fo! a total of 3 )ea!s, 3 months and 0' da)s to '2 )ea!s of p!ision
ma)o!.
In imposin" a p!ison sentence fo! an offense punished b) the Revised Penal Code, the
Indete!minate Sentence *a+ !e=ui!es cou!ts to impose upon the accused an
indete!minate sentence.
G&
#he ma?imum te!m the!eof shall be that +hich, in vie+ of the
attendin" ci!cumstances, could be p!ope!l) imposed unde! the !ules of the said
Code.
GG
In this case, such ma?imum te!m is +ithin the pe!iod of 3 )ea!s, 3 months and
0' da)s to '2 )ea!s of p!ision ma)o!.
On the othe! hand, the minimum te!m shall be +ithin the !an"e of the penalt) ne?t lo+e!
to that p!esc!ibed b) the Code fo! the offense.
G@
#he penalt) ne?t lo+e! to that
p!esc!ibed b) 5!ticle C'& is p!ision co!!eccional in its minimum pe!iod $G months, ' da)
to 0 )ea!s and 6 months( to p!ision co!!eccional in its medium pe!iod $0 )ea!s, 6 months
and ' da) to 6 )ea!s and 0 months(.
#hus, the Cou!t sentences appellant, fo! the c!ime of estafa committed a"ainst p!ivate
complainant Cabus, to a minimum pe!iod of fou! $6( )ea!s of p!ision co!!eccional to a
ma?imum pe!iod of nine $/( )ea!s of p!ision ma)o!.
In C!iminal Case No. /01'23/'0, appellant +as cha!"ed and p!oven to have def!auded
p!ivate complainant Pe!las in the amount of P'@,222.22. #hus, the penalt) p!esc!ibed
shall be imposed in its medium pe!iod, o! & )ea!s, & months, '' da)s to G )ea!s, 3
months, 02 da)s, as the amount def!auded does not e?ceed P00,222.22 and as no
a""!avatin" o! miti"atin" ci!cumstances a!e p!esent. 7!om this pe!iod shall be ta8en the
ma?imum te!m fo! pu!poses of the Indete!minate Sentence *a+.
5s in the case of the estafa committed a"ainst Cabus, the minimum shall be +ithin the
!an"e of p!ision co!!eccional in its minimum pe!iod to p!ision co!!eccional in its medium
pe!iod.
5cco!din"l), the Cou!t sentences appellant, fo! the estafa committed a"ainst p!ivate
complainant Pe!las, to a minimum pe!iod of fou! $6( )ea!s of p!ision co!!eccional to a
ma?imum pe!iod of seven $@( )ea!s of p!ision ma)o!.
.DERE7ORE, the decision of the cou!t a quo findin" appellant Ramon Samson Duua
"uilt) be)ond !easonable doubt of Ille"al Rec!uitment in *a!"e Scale and Estafa is
577IRMED +ith the follo+in" modifications:
In C!iminal Case No. /01'23/'0 fo! estafa involvin" p!ivate complainant Robe!to
Pe!las, the Cou!t sentences appellant Ramon Samson Duua to suffe! a minimum
pe!iod of fou! $6( )ea!s of p!ision co!!eccional to a ma?imum pe!iod of seven $@( )ea!s
of p!ision ma)o!.
In C!iminal Case No. /01'23/02, fo! estafa, involvin" p!ivate complainant ;aime Cabus,
the Cou!t sentences appellant Ramon Samson Duua to suffe! a minimum pe!iod of fou!
$6( )ea!s of p!ision co!!eccional to a ma?imum pe!iod of nine $/( )ea!s of p!ision ma)o!.
SO ORDERED.
5