11/29/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618

G.R. No. 183879. April 14, 2010.*

ROSITA SY, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Criminal Law; Estafa; Three Ways of Committing Estafa.—

Swindling or estafa is punishable under Article 315 of the RPC.
There are three ways of committing estafa, viz.: (1) with
unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; (2) by means of false
pretenses or fraudulent acts; or (3) through fraudulent means.
The three ways of committing estafa may be reduced to two, i.e.,
(1) by means of abuse of confidence; or (2) by means of deceit.
Same; Same; Elements of Estafa in General.—The elements of
estafa in general are the following: (a) that an accused defrauded
another by abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit; and (b) that
damage and prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused
the offended party or third person.
Same; Same; Estafa by False Pretenses or Fraudulent Acts;
Under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code,
estafa is committed by any person who shall defraud another by
false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.—The act
complained of in the instant case is penalized under Article 315,
paragraph 2(a) of the RPC, wherein estafa is committed by any
person who shall defraud another by false pretenses or fraudulent
acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud. It is committed by using fictitious name, or by
pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of
other similar deceits.
Same; Same; Elements of Estafa by Means of Deceit.—The
elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following, viz.: (a)
that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation
as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or
fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001675f524f314b8c92c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
11/29/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618

* THIRD DIVISION.

265

VOL. 618, APRIL 14, 2010 265

Sy vs. People

the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on
the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was
induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a
result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
Same; Same; Illegal Recruitment; Illegal recruitment and
estafa are entirely different offenses and neither one necessarily
includes or is necessarily included in the other—both offenses may
be filed simultaneously or separately.—Illegal recruitment and
estafa cases may be filed simultaneously or separately. The filing
of charges for illegal recruitment does not bar the filing of estafa,
and vice versa. Sy’s acquittal in the illegal recruitment case does
not prove that she is not guilty of estafa. Illegal recruitment and
estafa are entirely different offenses and neither one necessarily
includes or is necessarily included in the other. A person who is
convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of
estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC. In the same
manner, a person acquitted of illegal recruitment may be held
liable for estafa. Double jeopardy will not set in because illegal
recruitment is malum prohibitum, in which there is no necessity
to prove criminal intent, whereas estafa is malum in se, in the
prosecution of which, proof of criminal intent is necessary.
Same; Same; Penalties; Incremental Penalties; In estafa, the
incremental penalty is added to the maximum period of the
penalty prescribed, at the discretion of the court, in order to arrive
at the penalty to be actually imposed.—In estafa, the incremental
penalty is added to the maximum period of the penalty
prescribed, at the discretion of the court, in order to arrive at the
penalty to be actually imposed, which is the maximum term
within the context of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL).
Under the ISL, attending circumstances in a case are applied in
conjunction with certain rules of the Code in order to determine
the penalty to be actually imposed based on the penalty
prescribed by the Code for the offense. The circumstance is that
the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00, and the incremental
penalty rule is utilized to fix the penalty actually imposed. To
compute the incremental penalty, the amount defrauded shall be
subtracted by P22,000.00, and the difference shall be divided by
P10,000.00, and any fraction of P10,000.00 shall be discarded.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001675f524f314b8c92c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
11/29/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618

266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sy vs. People

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Victor S. Dacanay for petitioner.
  The Solicitor General for respondent.

RESOLUTION

NACHURA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision1
dated July 22, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CR No. 30628.
Rosita Sy (Sy) was charged with one count of illegal
recruitment in Criminal Case No. 02-0537 and one count of
estafa in Criminal Case No. 02-0536. In a joint decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Sy was exonerated of the
illegal recruitment charge. However, she was convicted of
the crime of estafa. Thus, the instant appeal involves only
Criminal Case No. 02-0536 for the crime of estafa.
The Information2 for estafa reads:

“That sometime in the month of March 1997, in the City of Las

Piñas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud Felicidad Mendoza-Navarro y
Landicho in the following manner, to wit: the said accused by
means of false pretenses and fraudulent representation which she
made to the said complainant that she can deploy her for
employment in Taiwan, and complainant convinced by said
representations, gave

_______________

1  Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with Associate

Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurring; Rollo, pp. 21-37.
2 Rollo, p. 48.

267

VOL. 618, APRIL 14, 2010 267

Sy vs. People

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001675f524f314b8c92c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
11/29/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618

the amount of P120,000.00 to the said accused for processing of

her papers, the latter well knowing that all her representations
and manifestations were false and were only made for the purpose
of obtaining the said amount, but once in her possession[,] she
misappropriated, misapplied and converted the same to her own
personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of Felicidad
Mendoza-Navarro y Landicho in the aforementioned amount of
P120,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”3

On May 27, 2007, Sy was arraigned and pleaded not

guilty to the crimes charged. Joint trial ensued thereafter.
As summarized by the CA, the facts of the case are as
follows:

Version of the Prosecution

Sometime in March 1997, appellant, accompanied by Corazon
Miranda (or “Corazon”), went to the house of Corazon’s sister,
Felicidad Navarro (or “Felicidad”), in Talisay, Batangas to
convince her (Felicidad) to work abroad. Appellant assured
Felicidad of a good salary and entitlement to a yearly vacation if
she decides to take a job in Taiwan. On top of these perks, she
shall receive compensation in the amount of Php120,000.00.
Appellant promised Felicidad that she will take care of the
processing of the necessary documents, including her passport
and visa. Felicidad told appellant that she will think about the job
offer.
Two days later, Felicidad succumbed to appellant’s overseas job
solicitation. With Corazon in tow, the sisters proceeded to
appellant’s residence in Better Homes, Moonwalk, Las Piñas City.
Thereat, Felicidad handed to appellant the amount of
Php60,000.00. In the third week of March 1997, Felicidad
returned to appellant’s abode and paid to the latter another
Php60,000.00. The latter told her to come back the following day.
In both instances, no receipt was issued by appellant to
acknowledge receipt of the total amount of Php120,000.00 paid by
Felicidad.
On Felicidad’s third trip to appellant’s house, the latter
brought her to Uniwide in Sta. Cruz, Manila, where a male person

_______________

3 Id.

268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sy vs. People

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001675f524f314b8c92c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
11/29/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618

showed to them the birth certificate that Felicidad would use in

applying for a Taiwanese passport. The birth certificate was that
of a certain Armida Lim, born to Margarita Galvez and Lim Leng
on 02 June 1952. Felicidad was instructed on how to write Armida
Lim’s Chinese name.
Subsequently, appellant contacted Felicidad and thereafter
met her at the Bureau of Immigration office. Thereat, Felicidad,
posing and affixing her signature as Armida G. Lim, filled out the
application forms for the issuance of Alien Certificate of
Registration (ACR) and Immigrant Certificate of Registration
(ICR). She attached to the application forms her own photo.
Felicidad agreed to use the name of Armida Lim as her own
because she already paid to appellant the amount of
Php120,000.00.
In December 1999, appellant sent to Felicidad the birth
certificate of Armida Lim, the Marriage Contract of Armida Lim’s
parents, ACR No. E128390, and ICR No. 317614. These
documents were submitted to and eventually rejected by the
Taiwanese authorities, triggering the filing of illegal recruitment
and estafa cases against appellant.
Version of the Defense
Appellant denied offering a job to Felicidad or receiving any
money from her. She asserted that when she first spoke to
Felicidad at the latter’s house, she mentioned that her husband
and children freely entered Taiwan because she was a holder of a
Chinese passport. Felicidad commented that many Filipino
workers in Taiwan were holding Chinese passports.
Three weeks later, Felicidad and Corazon came to her house in
Las Piñas and asked her if she knew somebody who could help
Felicidad get a Chinese ACR and ICR for a fee.
Appellant introduced a certain Amelia Lim, who, in
consideration of the amount of Php120,000.00, offered to Felicidad
the use of the name of her mentally deficient sister, Armida Lim.
Felicidad agreed. On their second meeting at appellant’s house,
Felicidad paid Php60,000.00 to Amelia Lim and they agreed to see
each other at

269

VOL. 618, APRIL 14, 2010 269

Sy vs. People

Uniwide the following day. That was the last time appellant saw
Felicidad and Amelia Lim.”4

On January 8, 2007, the RTC rendered a decision,5 the

dispositive portion of which reads:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001675f524f314b8c92c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
11/29/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618

“WHEREFORE, premises considered the court finds the

accused Rosita Sy NOT GUILTY of the crime of Illegal
Recruitment and she is hereby ACQUITTED of the said offense.
As regards the charge of Estafa, the court finds the accused
GUILTY thereof and hereby sentences her to an indeterminate
penalty of four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum to 11
years of prision mayor, as maximum. The accused is ordered to
reimburse the amount of sixty-thousand (Php60,000.00) to the
private complainant.
SO ORDERED.”6

Aggrieved, Sy filed an appeal for her conviction of estafa.

On July 22, 2008, the CA rendered a Decision,7 affirming
with modification the conviction of Sy, viz.:

“WHEREFORE, with the MODIFICATION sentencing

accused-appellant to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4)
years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to
seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, the
appealed decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.”8

Hence, this petition.

The sole issue for resolution is whether Sy should be
held liable for estafa, penalized under Article 315,
paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).9

_______________

4 Id., at pp. 22-25.

5 Penned by Judge Erlinda Nicolas-Alvaro, RTC, Branch 198, Las
Piñas City; id., at pp. 39-44.
6 Id., at p. 44.
7 Supra note 1.
8 Id., at p. 36.
9 Petitioner assigned the following errors in the CA Decision:

270

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sy vs. People

   Swindling or estafa is punishable under Article 315 of

the RPC. There are three ways of committing estafa, viz.:
(1) with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; (2) by means
of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or (3) through
fraudulent means. The three ways of committing estafa

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001675f524f314b8c92c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
11/29/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618

may be reduced to two, i.e., (1) by means of abuse of

confidence; or (2) by means of deceit.
The elements of estafa in general are the following: (a)
that an accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence,
or by means of deceit; and (b) that damage and prejudice
capable of pecuniary estimation is caused the offended
party or third person.
The act complained of in the instant case is penalized
under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC, wherein
estafa is committed by any person who shall defraud
another by false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior
to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. It is
committed by using fictitious name, or by pretending to
possess power, 

_______________

I
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
HOLDING THAT PETITIONER OFFERED OVERSEAS JOB TO
PRIVATE RESPONDENT.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
HOLDING THAT PETITIONER MISREPRESENTED AND FALSELY
PRETENDED TO RESPONDENT THAT SHE HAD THE POWER AND
CAPACITY TO DEPLOY HER FOR A WORK IN TAIWAN.
III
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
HOLDING THAT PETITIONER’S MISREPRESENTATION AND FALSE
PRETENSES WAS WHAT INDUCED RESPONDENT TO PART WITH
HER MONEY. (Rollo, p. 13).

271

VOL. 618, APRIL 14, 2010 271

Sy vs. People

influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business

or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar
deceits.
The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the
following, viz.: (a) that there must be a false pretense or
fraudulent representation as to his power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or
fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that
the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001675f524f314b8c92c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
11/29/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618

act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his

money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the
offended party suffered damage.10
In the instant case, all the foregoing elements are
present. It was proven beyond reasonable doubt, as found
by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, that Sy
misrepresented and falsely pretended that she had the
capacity to deploy Felicidad Navarro (Felicidad) for
employment in Taiwan. The misrepresentation was made
prior to Felicidad’s payment to Sy of One Hundred Twenty
Thousand Pesos (P120,000.00). It was Sy’s
misrepresentation and false pretenses that induced
Felicidad to part with her money. As a result of Sy’s false
pretenses and misrepresentations, Felicidad suffered
damages as the promised employment abroad never
materialized and the money she paid was never recovered.
The fact that Felicidad actively participated in the
processing of the illegal travel documents will not
exculpate Sy from liability. Felicidad was a hapless victim
of circumstances and of fraud committed by Sy. She was
forced to take part in the processing of the falsified travel
documents because she had already paid P120,000.00. Sy
committed deceit by representing that she could secure
Felicidad with employment in Tai-

_______________

10  R.R. Paredes v. Calilung, G.R. No. 156055, March 5, 2007, 517
SCRA 369; Cosme, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 149753, November 27, 2006, 508
SCRA 190; Jan-Dec Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 146818, February 6, 2006, 481 SCRA 556.

272

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sy vs. People

wan, the primary consideration that induced the latter to

part with her money. Felicidad was led to believe by Sy
that she possessed the power and qualifications to provide
Felicidad with employment abroad, when, in fact, she was
not licensed or authorized to do so. Deceived, Felicidad
parted with her money and delivered the same to
petitioner. Plainly, Sy is guilty of estafa.
Illegal recruitment and estafa cases may be filed
simultaneously or separately. The filing of charges for
illegal recruitment does not bar the filing of estafa, and vice
versa. Sy’s acquittal in the illegal recruitment case does not
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001675f524f314b8c92c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
11/29/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618

prove that she is not guilty of estafa. Illegal recruitment

and estafa are entirely different offenses and neither one
necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other.
A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in
addition, be convicted of estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2(a) of the RPC.11 In the same manner, a person
acquitted of illegal recruitment may be held liable for
estafa. Double jeopardy will not set in because illegal
recruitment is malum prohibitum, in which there is no
necessity to prove criminal intent, whereas estafa is malum
in se, in the prosecution of which, proof of criminal intent is
necessary.12
The penalty prescribed for estafa under Article 315 of
the RPC is prision correccional in its maximum period to
prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount
defrauded is over Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) but
does not exceed Twenty-two Thousand Pesos (P22,000.00),
and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty
shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year
for each additional Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00); but
the total penalty that may be imposed shall not exceed
twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the
accessory penalties that may be imposed under the
provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be

_______________

11 People v. Billaber, 465 Phil. 726; 421 SCRA 27 (2004).

12 Id.

273

VOL. 618, APRIL 14, 2010 273

Sy vs. People

termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case

may be.
The addition of one year imprisonment for each
additional P10,000.00, in excess of P22,000.00, is the
incremental penalty. The incremental penalty rule is a
mathematical formula for computing the penalty to be
actually imposed using the prescribed penalty as the
starting point. This special rule is applicable in estafa and
in theft.13
In estafa, the incremental penalty is added to the
maximum period of the penalty prescribed, at the
discretion of the court, in order to arrive at the penalty to
be actually imposed, which is the maximum term within
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001675f524f314b8c92c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
11/29/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618

the context of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL).14

Under the ISL, attending circumstances in a case are
applied in conjunction with certain rules of the Code in
order to determine the penalty to be actually imposed
based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense.
The circumstance is that the amount defrauded exceeds
P22,000.00, and the incremental penalty rule is utilized to
fix the penalty actually imposed.15
To compute the incremental penalty, the amount
defrauded shall be subtracted by P22,000.00, and the
difference shall be

_______________

13 People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008, 574

SCRA 258.
14  Under the ISL, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense
punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall
sentence an accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of
which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could
be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum
which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by
any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum
fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum
term prescribed by the same.
15 People v. Temporada, supra note 13, at pp. 263-264.

274

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sy vs. People

divided by P10,000.00, and any fraction of P10,000.00 shall

be discarded.16
In the instant case, prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its minimum period is the
imposable penalty. The duration of prision correccional in
its maximum period is from four (4) years, two (2) months
and one (1) day to six (6) years; while prision mayor in its
minimum period is from six (6) years and one (1) day to
eight (8) years. The incremental penalty for the amount
defrauded would be an additional nine years
imprisonment, to be added to the maximum imposable
penalty of eight years. Thus, the CA committed no
reversible error in sentencing Sy to an indeterminate
penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001675f524f314b8c92c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
11/29/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618

correccional, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of

reclusion temporal, as maximum.
As to the amount that should be returned or restituted
by Sy, the sum that Felicidad gave to Sy, i.e., P120,000.00,
should be returned in full. The fact that Felicidad was not
able to produce receipts is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution since she was able to prove by her positive
testimony that Sy was the one who received the money
ostensibly in consideration of an overseas employment in
Taiwan.17
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of
the Court of Appeals dated July 22, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR
No. 30628, sentencing petitioner Rosita Sy to an
indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional, as minimum, to seventeen (17)
years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, is hereby
AFFIRMED. We, however, MODIFY the CA Decision as to
the amount of civil indemnity, in that Sy is ordered to
reimburse the amount of One Hundred Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P120,000.00) to private complainant Felicidad
Navarro.

_______________

16 Id., at p. 260.
17 People v. Gonzales-Flores, 408 Phil. 855; 356 SCRA 722 (2001);
People v. Mercado, 364 Phil. 148; 304 SCRA 504 (1999).

275

VOL. 618, APRIL 14, 2010 275

Sy vs. People

SO ORDERED.

Corona (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Peralta and

Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes.—The incremental penalty rule is a special rule

applicable to estafa and theft; The unique characteristic of
the incremental penalty rule does not pose any obstacle to
interpreting it as analogous to a modifying circumstance,
and, hence, falling within the letter and spirit of “attending
circumstances” for purposes of the application of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL). (People vs. Temporada,
574 SCRA 258 [2008]).

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001675f524f314b8c92c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
11/29/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618

A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may

also be convicted of estafa under Article 315(2) (a) of the
Revised Penal Code provided the elements of estafa are
present. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the
Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who
defrauds another by using a fictitious name, or falsely
pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior
to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.
(People vs. Adeser, 604 SCRA 452 [2009]).
——o0o—— 

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001675f524f314b8c92c7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12