Osorio vs. People

G.R. No. 20711, July 2, 2018

Third Division

Leonen, J

estafa; other deceits; variance

Gabriel was a proprietor of a stall in Paco Market, Manila. Osorio visited Gabriel's store and introduced herself as an agent of PhilAm Life. As proof, Osorio presented her company ID and calling card. During their meeting, Osorio offered insurance coverage to Gabriel. 

Gabriel availed Philam Life's Tri-Life Plan and Excelife Gold Package. Gabriel consistently paid the quarterly premiums from February 2001 to November 2001.

On November 19, 2001, Osorio offered Gabriel an investment opportunity with Philam Life Fund Management. The proposed investment would be placed under a time deposit scheme and would earn 20% annually. Osorio informed Gabriel that the proceeds of her investment may be channeled to pay for her insurance premiums. Enticed by the offer, Gabriel tendered ₱200,000.00 to Osorio, who in turn issued Philam Life receipts.

A few months later, Gabriel discovered that her insurance policies had lapsed due to non-payment of premiums. When Gabriel confronted Osorio about the matter, Osorio assured Gabriel that she would take responsibility.

Meanwhile, in May 2002, Gabriel received a letter from Philippine Money Investment Asset Management (PMIAM), thanking her for investing in the company. Osorio explained that PMIAM investments would yield a higher rate of return. Displeased with what had happened, Gabriel asked for a refund of her initial investment. 

Gabriel received ₱13,000.00 from PMIAM as evidenced. In spite of this, Gabriel insisted on the refund. Later, PMIAM informed Gabriel that her initial investment and unpaid interest income would be released to her on May 14, 2004. Unfortunately, she was unable to recover it.

The RTC rendered judgment finding Osorio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa. It ruled that Gabriel was induced to part with her money through Osorio's misrepresentation that it would be invested in Philam Life, a company with an established reputation. It rejected Osorio's defense that Gabriel later on consented to the placement. When she was informed of the placement with PMIAM, Gabriel had no other choice but to agree.

In praying for her acquittal, petitioner asserts that not all the elements of estafa under Article 3 15(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code were established by the prosecution. Only damage on the part of the private complainant was proven. Petitioner argues that she did not employ any deceit in soliciting private complainant's investment as nothing in the records shows that she used a fictitious name or that she pretended to possess power, agency, or certain qualifications. Fernandez, one of the prosecution's witnesses, even admitted that she was a Philam Life agent.

Furthermore, petitioner claims that she acted in good faith when she decided to place private complainant's investment in PMIAM. She adds that she did not conceal this from private complainant, who later on agreed to the placement.

Question: Do the petitioner’s acts constitute estafa as defined and punished under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code?

No. 

Petitioner was charged with estafa by means of deceit under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code:

“Article 315. Swindling (Estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

. . . .

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

In sustaining a conviction under this provision, the following elements must concur:

(a) [T]hat there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.”

    There are different modalities of committing the crime of estafa under Article 315(2)(a). The false pretense or fraudulent representation referred to under the first element exists when the accused uses a fictitious name, pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions, or when the accused commits other similar deceits.

There is no evidence to prove that petitioner committed any of these acts when she obtained private complainant's money.

Petitioner neither used a fictitious name nor misrepresented herself as an agent of Philam Life. During her first meeting with private complainant, petitioner presented her company ID and calling card as proof of her identity and employment. Fernandez, head of Philam Life's Business Values and Compliance Department, even admitted during trial that petitioner had been a Philam Life agent.

There is also no proof that petitioner pretended to possess the authority to solicit investments for Philam Life Fund Management. All that F emandez stated was that the issuance of Philam Life receipts to private complainant was improper because the receipts only cover insurance premium payments. 56 Thus, in the absence of contrary evidence, it is presumed that petitioner was authorized to solicit money for investment purposes.

In estafa by means of deceit under Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the element of deceit consisting of the false pretense or representation must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, criminal liability will not attach.

In this case, although there is no proof that petitioner used a fictitious name or pretended to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, or business in soliciting private complainant's money, petitioner should nevertheless be held criminally liable for misrepresenting to private complainant that the latter's money would be invested in Philam Life Fund Management and that its proceeds may be utilized to pay for private complainant's insurance premiums.

Private complainant accepted the investment opportunity offered by petitioner due to the promise that her money would be invested in Philam Life, a company with which she had existing insurance policies. She parted with her funds because of the representation that her investment's earnings would be conveniently channeled to the payment of her insurance premiums. As a result of petitioner's representations, private complainant no longer saw the need to pay for the succeeding insurance premiums as they fell due. Moreover, petitioner's issuance of Philam Life receipts led private complainant to believe that her money was already as good as invested in the company.

The false representations committed by petitioner in this case fall beyond the scope of "other similar deceits" under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The phrase "other similar deceits" in Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code has been interpreted in Guinhawa v. People as limited to acts of the same nature as those specifically enumerated. Under the principle of ejusdem generis, "other similar deceits" cannot be construed in the broadest sense to include all kinds of deceit.

Question: Is the petitioner liable under any provision of the RPC?

         Yes.

         Petitioner may be held criminally liable for other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code.

        Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is broad in application. It is intended as a catch-all provision to cover all other kinds of deceit not falling under Articles 315, 316, and 317 of the Revised Penal Code.

For an accused to be held criminally liable under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must exist:

(a) [The accused makes a] false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense other than those in [Articles 315, 316, and 317]; (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; and (c) as a result, the offended party suffered damage or prejudice.

All the elements of Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code are present in this case.

Petitioner, in soliciting private complainant's money, falsely represented that it would be invested in Philam Life and that its proceeds would be used to pay for private complainant's insurance premiums. This false representation is what induced private complainant to part with her funds and disregard the payment of her insurance premiums. Since petitioner deviated from what was originally agreed upon by placing the investment in another company, private complainant's insurance policies lapsed.

Question: Is the present case the same as money market transactions where dealers are usually given full discretion on where to place their client's investments?

No. In money market transactions, the dealer is given discretion on where investments are to be placed, absent any agreement with or instruction from the investor to place the investments in specific securities.

Question: Petitioner was charged of estafa by means of deceit under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC. Can she be convicted of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code?

As a rule, an accused can only be convicted of the crime with which he or she is charged. This rule proceeds from the Constitutional guarantee that an accused shall always be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her. An exception to this is the rule on variance under Rule 120, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states:

“RULE 120 - Judgment

Section 4. Judgment in Case of Variance Between Allegation and Proof - When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

Rule 120, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure simply means that if there is a variance between the offense charged and the offense proved, an accused may be convicted of the offense proved if it is included in the offense charged. An accused may also be convicted of the offense charged if it is necessarily included in the offense proved.”

In the present case, the crime of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is necessarily included in the crime of estafa by means of deceit under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, petitioner may be convicted of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code.