4/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and 4th. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if such amount does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means: xxx xxx xxx 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. xxx xxx xxx The elements of the above mode of committing estafa are: 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, i.e., he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and, d) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. [31] The acts of the appellant of deliberately misrepresenting herself to the private complainants as having the necessary authority or license to recruit applicants for overseas employment so that she could as she did collect money from them allegedly for processing fees and travel documents only to renege on her promise to get them overseas employment and for failure to return the money she collected from the private complainants, despite several demands, clearly amount to estafa punishable under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), of the Revised Penal Code. However, there is a need to modify the indeterminate penalty imposed by the trial court on the appellant in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-96-66231 to Q-96-66233, for three (3) counts of estafa, in accordance with our ruling in the case of People v. Gabres.[32] Our ruling in said case is to the effect that in the determination of the indeterminate penalty for the crime of estafa, the fact that the amount involved exceeds Twenty Two Thousand Pesos (P22,000.00) should not be initially considered; instead the matter should be taken as analogous to a modifying circumstance in the imposition of the maximum term of the full indeterminate sentence. That interpretation of the law is in accord with the rule that penal laws should be construed in favor of the accused. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52399 8/12