ROSITA SY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (DIGEST)

ROSITA SY vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010

Rosita Sy was charged with one count of illegal recruitment in Criminal Case No.
02-0537 and one count of estafa in Criminal Case No. 02-0536, on the basis of
swindling under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. After willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously defraud Felicidad Mendoza-Navarro y Landicho.
Facts:
That sometime in the month of March 1997, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines, Sy
defraud Felicidad Mendoza-Navarro y Landicho by means of false pretenses and
fraudulent representation, which she made to the said complainant that she could
deploy her for employment in Taiwan, Sy convinced Navaro and she gave Sy the
amount of ₱120,000.00 for processing of her papers, no receipt was issued by the
appellant to acknowledge the total amount paid by Felicidad. The latter was well aware
that all of her appearances and manifestations were false and were only made for the
purpose of obtaining the said amount, but once in her possession, Sy misappropriated,
misapplied, and converted the same to her own personal use and benefit, to the
damage and prejudice of Felicidad Mendoza-Navarro y Landicho in the aforementioned
amount of ₱120,000.00. On May 27, 2007, Sy was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to
the crimes charged. Joint trial ensued thereafter. On January 8, 2007, the RTC
rendered a decision, the court finds the accused not guilty of the crime Illegal
Recquitment and she is hereby acquitted of the said offense. Instead, the court finds the
accused guilty of estafa. Sy was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years
of prision correctional as minimum to 11 years of prision mayor, as maximum. The
accused is ordered to reimburse the amount of sixty-thousand (Php60,000.00) to the
private complainant. Sy filed an appeal at the Court of Appeals for her conviction of
estafa. The Court of Appeals rendered a decision affirming with modification the
conviction of Sy to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal, as
maximum.
Issue:
Whether or not Sy should be held liable for estafa, penalized under Article 315,
paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Ruling:
Yes, Sy should be held liable for estafa. The Supreme Court held the fact that, in the
instant case, all of the foregoing elements are present and was proven beyond
reasonable doubt, as found by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that Sy
misrepresented and falsely pretended that she had the capacity to deploy Felicidad
Navarro (Felicidad) for employment in Taiwan. The misrepresentation was made prior to
Felicidad’s payment to Sy of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱120,000.00). It
was Sy’s misrepresentation and false pretenses that induced Felicidad to part with her
money. As a result of Sy’s false pretenses and misrepresentations, Felicidad suffered
damages as the promised employment abroad never materialized and the money she
paid was never recovered.
The fact that Felicidad actively participated in the processing of the illegal travel
documents will not exculpate Sy from liability. Felicidad was a hapless victim of
circumstances and of fraud committed by Sy. She was forced to take part in the
processing of the falsified travel documents because she had already paid
₱120,000.00. Sy committed deceit by representing that she could secure Felicidad with
employment in Taiwan, the primary consideration that induced the latter to part with her
money. Felicidad was led to believe by Sy that she possessed the power and
qualifications to provide Felicidad with employment abroad, when, in fact, she was not
licensed or authorized to do so. Deceived, Felicidad parted with her money and
delivered the same to petitioner. Plainly, Sy is guilty of estafa.
Ratio:
Swindling or estafa is punishable under Article 315 of the RPC. There are three ways of
committing estafa, viz.: (1) with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; (2) by means of
false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or (3) through fraudulent means. The three ways of
committing estafa may be reduced to two, i.e., (1) by means of abuse of confidence; or
(2) by means of deceit.
The elements of estafa in general are the following: (a) that an accused defrauded
another by abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit; and (b) that damage and
prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused the offended party or third person.

ROSITA SY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (DIGEST)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROSITA SY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (DIGEST)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROSITA SY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (DIGEST)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROSITA SY vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010

You might also like