guilty to the crime charged. The other accused, Angelica C.J. Offemaria, Leila Briones
and Flor Nocete, remain at-large.
Denial of any culpability for the crime charged was the main thrust of the defense of
petitioner Marcelo and Diu. Petitioner Marcelo denied having known private complainant
Clarita Mosquera before the filing of this case. Her main defense is that she only met
Mosquera at the Fiscals Office,[20] though she admitted having seen complainant
Mosquera together with her mother and her co-accused at the office of Angelica
Offemaria.[21] Accused Diu, for her part, admitted that while she brought and introduced
the private complainant and her cousin, Milagros Gasmen, to Angelica Offemaria,[22] she
claimed that it was actually private complainant, accompanied by Gasmen, who initially
went to her place seeking assistance regarding complainants plan to go abroad.[23]
Following trial, the lower court found petitioner Marcelo and Diu guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa as charged and sentenced them thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration, the Court finds accused
EMMA OFFEMARIA MARCELO of 38 Sauyo St., Novaliches, Quezon City
and accused NEMIA MAGALIT DIU of 28 6 Ave., Murphy, Quezon City
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa as defined and
penalized by Art. 315, par. 2(a), 1 Instance, Rev. Penal Code and applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, hereby sentences them to suffer an
imprisonment each of FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS, as minimum
to SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS AND TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS as
maximum, with the accessory penalties of the law; to pay private complainant
CLARITA MOSQUERA the amount of P27,925.00 in solidum with legal rate of
interest per annum reckoned from date of Information until fully paid, plus 25%
of the sum of P27,925.00 for and as Attorneys fees, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency; and finally to pay their proportionate
share of the costs of the proceedings.
th
st
IT IS SO ORDERED.
[24]
From the judgment of conviction, only Marcelo appealed [25] to the Court of Appeals,
which affirmed the trial courts decision.[26] Petitioner sought reconsideration of the
appellate courts affirmance of the trial courts decision but the same was denied in a
resolution dated March 4, 1997.[27]
Hence, the instant petition.
Petitioner contends that she should not be held guilty as principal for the crime of
estafa since the established facts fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt the allegation
of conspiracy between her and the other accused. Under the factual backdrop of the
case, the decision states only two occasions when petitioner was allegedly present: (1)
on May 15, 1982, when she, together with Clarita Mosquera, Helen Paminsan and
Nemia Magalit Diu, went to the office of co-accused Angelica C.J. Offemaria; and (2) on