People vs Reyes : 104739-44 : November 18, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Th... 10 of 11 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/104739_44.htm a. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. b. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. c. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense fraudulent act, or fraudulent means. d. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. - Reyes, Comments on the Revised Penal Code, II, 1981 ed., page 747. In these cases, the evidence of the Prosecution shows that the Accused, with his co-Accused Rose Reyes and Zenaida Caures, acted in concert and conspired by misrepresenting to the Private Complainants that they could facilitate the processing of the papers of the Private Complainants for the issuance of visas in favor of the Private Complainants and that the Private Complainants would be employed in Taipei, as factory workers in a pure foods factory at a monthly salary of US$400.00 and that they will leave for their employment in Taipei during the first week of September, 1989 only to induce the Private Complainants into paying them the total amount of P64,000.00 but after the Accused received the money of the Private Complainants, they banished into thin air, so to speak. Patently then, the Accused is criminally liable for the crime of Estafa. People vs. Bautista[30] illustrates the appropriate imposable penalty for estafa: The penalty for estafa depends on the amount defrauded. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides: the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period (or imprisonment ranging from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 8 years), if the amount of the fraud is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period (6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years), adding one year for each additional P10,000.00 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such case, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. In the present case, the amount defrauded in each count of estafa was P13,000. Pursuant to Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the maximum penalty is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period and, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree is prision correccional in its minimum to medium period. Therefore, we sustain the penalties imposed by the trial court. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED. Romero, Melo, and Francisco, JJ., concur. Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), on leave. [1] Rollo, pp. 25-47. [2] Presided by Judge Romeo J. Callejo, now a Justice of the Court of Appeals. [3] Rollo, p. 4. 1/25/2016 12:35 AM