People vs Benemerito : 120389 : November 21, 1996 : J Davide Jr : Th... 5 of 10 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/120389.htm On the other hand, the elements of estafa in general are (1) that the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of deceit, and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party (People vs. Ong, 204 SCRA 942). In the cases at bar, accused Alex Benemerito and his sister Precy gave the complainants the impression that they could give them employment abroad so that the complainants were convinced to give them the money they demanded in their desire to be able to earn one lapad or the equivalent of P2,500.00 a day as represented to them. Benjamin Quitoriano and Fernando Arcal each gave accused Alex Benemerito and his sister the amount of P50,000.00, as evidenced by the receipts issued to them (Exh. A, C to G). With respect to Carlito Gumarang, he presented receipts evidencing his payment of a total amount of P95,000.00 (Exh. I, J and K). The receipts dated August 24, 1992 for the amount of P10,000.00 (Exh. H) is in the name of Shally Flor Gumarang, a sister of Carlito Gumarang and likewise an applicant, and cannot thus be considered as part of the payment of Carlito Gumarang. The fact that the receipts were signed only by Precy Benemerito is of no moment, in view of the insistence of the complainants that the money was given by them to both Alex and Precy Benemerito in consideration of their promise of overseas employment as the money was counted first by Alex Benemerito after which Precy Benemerito issued the receipts to the complainant. Thus, the acts of accused Alex Benemerito and his sister establish a common criminal design towards the accomplishments of the same unlawful purpose, evidencing conspiracy between them. [14] The complainant in Civil Case No. Q-93-51512, however, was unable to testify; hence the [15] trial court declared that the case must perforce fail for lack of evidence. The trial court then rendered judgment as quoted in the opening paragraph of this ponencia. In due time, the accused-appellants filed his appeal and in his Appellants Brief that the trial court committed the following errors: [16] contends I. x x x IN HOLDING THAT A CONSPIRACY EXIST BETWEEN ACCUSED-APPELLANT ALEX BENEMERITO AND HIS CO-ACCUSED SISTER PRECY BENEMERITO; AND IN CONVICTING HIM OF THE CRIME AS PRINCIPAL. II. x x x IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED APPELLANT ON GROUNDS OF [17] REASONABLE DOUBT BY APPLYING THE EQUIPOSE RULE. As to his first assigned error, the accused appellant maintains that his conviction was based mainly on his association with Precy Benemerito, his sister and co-accused, which the trial court appreciated as evidence of conspiracy. He claims such a conclusion to be erroneous for even assuming he helped his sister entertain the complainants, he did so only because, like the complainants, he was also an applicant eager to work abroad, and his sister promised to pay for his placement fee. Further, he had no knowledge of his sisters criminal intent and might even be considered a victim of his sister. The accused-appellant also argues that some of the complainants knew that he was not a part of any conspiracy, hence they did not include his name in the complaint filed with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), and if he were, he would have gone into hiding instead of [18] facing his accusers. In the second assigned error, the accused-appellant assert that he should be acquitted under the equipoise rule in view of the doubts as to his guilt as shown in his arguments under the first assigned error, and that the evidence points in fact to his sister Precy Benemerito as the 1/20/2016 4:10 PM