People vs Benemerito : 120389 : November 21, 1996 : J Davide Jr : Th... 8 of 10 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/120389.htm [37] Code does not bar punishment for offenses punishable by other laws. 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 [38] estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. All these elements are present in the instant case: the accused-appellant deceived the complainants into believing that he had the authority and capability to send them abroad for employment; that there were available jobs for them in Japan for which they would be hired; and that by reason or on the strength of such assurance, the complainants parted with their money in payment of the various processing and placement fees. As all these representations of the accused-appellant proved false, paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code is thus applicable. The penalty for estafa depends on the amount defrauded. The opening paragraph of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides: [T]he penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such a 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. The amount proved to have been defrauded in Criminal Case No. Q-93-51513 and Criminal Case No. Q-93-51514 was P50,000.00 in each case. Hence, the penalty prescribed above should be imposed in its maximum period. The maximum period thereof following the rule [39] prescribed in the last paragraph of Article 77 of the Revised Penal Code ranges from six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty one (21) days to eight (8) years. We add to it two (2) years and nine (9) months for the amount beyond the first P22,000.00 (at the rate of one (1) year for every P10,000.00 and nine (9) months for the remaining P8,000.00 by ratio and proportion). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused-appellant can be sentenced to an Indeterminate penalty whose minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law, viz., prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods (six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months) and whose maximum shall be the abovementioned imposable penalty. The indeterminate penalty can range, therefore, from two (2) years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and nine (9) months of prision mayor, as maximum. In Criminal Case No. Q-93-51515, the amount proved to have been defrauded is only P85,000.00, as the receipt for the P10,000.00 is in the name of Shally Flor Gumarang, not the complainant Carlito Gumarang. The principal penalty imposable is likewise the maximum of the prescribed penalty provided for in article 315 as stated in the immediately preceding paragraph, plus six (6) years and three (3) months for the amounts beyond the first P22,000.00 (at the rate of one (1) year for every additional P10,000.00 and three (3) months for the remaining P3,000.00). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and the foregoing disquisition, the accused-appellant can be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and three (3) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. WHEREFORE, the Joint Decision in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-93-51511, Q-93-51512, Q-93-51513, Q-93-51514 and Q-93-51515 is AFFIRMED, except as to the penalties imposed in the last three cases which are modified, as stated above. As modified, accused-appellant 1/20/2016 4:10 PM