Vda de Carungcong v. People
Vda de Carungcong v. People
Vda de Carungcong v. People
G.R. No. 181409 : February 11, 2010 mother Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong, filed a complaint-
affidavit2 for estafa against her brother-in-law, William Sato, a
cralaw
INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE Japanese national. Her complaint-affidavit read:
CARUNGCONG, represented by MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG,
as Administratrix, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES I, MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG Y GONZALE[S] , Filipino, of legal age,
and WILLIAM SATO, Respondents. single, and resident of Unit 1111, Prince Gregory Condominium,
105 12th Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City, after being duly sworn,
DECISION depose and state that:
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which 3. After my appointment as Administratrix, I was able to confer
belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have with some of the children of my sister Zenaida Carungcong Sato[,]
passed into the possession of another; and who predeceased our mother Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzales,
having died in Japan in 1991.
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if
living together. 4. In my conference with my nieces Karen Rose Sato and Wendy
Mitsuko Sato, age[d] 27 and 24 respectively, I was able to learn
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to that prior to the death of my mother Manolita Carungcong Y
strangers participating in the commission of the crime. (emphasis Gonzale[s] , [s] pecifically on o[r] about November 24, 1992, their
supplied) father William Sato, through fraudulent misrepresentations, was
able to secure the signature and thumbmark of my mother on a
For purposes of the aforementioned provision, is the relationship by Special Power of Attorney whereby my niece Wendy Mitsuko Sato,
affinity created between the husband and the blood relatives of his who was then only twenty (20) years old, was made her attorney-
wife (as well as between the wife and the blood relatives of her in-fact, to sell and dispose four (4) valuable pieces of land in
husband) dissolved by the death of one spouse, thus ending the Tagaytay City. Said Special Power of Attorney, copy of which is
marriage which created such relationship by affinity? Does the attached as ANNEX "A" of the Affidavit of Wendy Mitsuko Sato, was
beneficial application of Article 332 cover the complex crime of signed and thumbmark[ed] by my mother because William Sato
estafa thru falsification? told her that the documents she was being made to sign involved
her taxes. At that time, my mother was completely blind, having 11. Wendy was only 20 years old at the time and was not in any
gone blind almost ten (10) years prior to November, 1992. position to oppose or to refuse her father's orders.
5. The aforesaid Special Power of Attorney was signed by my 12. After receiving the total considerations for the properties sold
mother in the presence of Wendy, my other niece Belinda Kiku under the power of attorney fraudulently secured from my mother,
Sato, our maid Mana Tingzon, and Governor Josephine Ramirez which total P22,034,000.00, William Sato failed to account for the
who later became the second wife of my sister's widower William same and never delivered the proceeds to Manolita Carungcong Y
Sato. Gonzale[s] until the latter died on June 8, 1994.
6. Wendy Mitsuko Sato attests to the fact that my mother signed 13. Demands have been made for William Sato to make an
the document in the belief that they were in connection with her accounting and to deliver the proceeds of the sales to me as
taxes, not knowing, since she was blind, that the same was in fact Administratrix of my mother's estate, but he refused and failed,
a Special Power of Attorney to sell her Tagaytay properties. and continues to refuse and to fail to do so, to the damage and
prejudice of the estate of the deceased Manolita Carungcong Y
7. On the basis of the aforesaid Special Power of Attorney, William Gonzale[s] and of the heirs which include his six (6) children with
Sato found buyers for the property and made my niece Wendy my sister Zenaida Carungcong Sato. x x x3 cralaw
Mitsuko Sato sign three (3) deeds of absolute sale in favor of (a)
Anita Ng (Doc. 2194, Page No. 41, Book No. V, Series of 1992 of Wendy Mitsuko Sato's supporting affidavit and the special power of
Notary Public Vicente B. Custodio), (b) Anita Ng (Doc. No. 2331, attorney allegedly issued by the deceased Manolita Gonzales vda.
Page No. 68, Book No. V, Series of 1992 of Notary Public Vicente B. de Carungcong in favor of Wendy were attached to the complaint-
Custodio) and (c) Ruby Lee Tsai (Doc. No. II, Page No. 65, Book affidavit of Mediatrix.
No. II, Series of 1993 of Notary Public Toribio D. Labid). x x x
In a resolution dated March 25, 1997, the City Prosecutor of
8. Per the statement of Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato, the considerations Quezon City dismissed the complaint. 4 On appeal, however, the
cralaw
appearing on the deeds of absolute sale were not the true and Secretary of Justice reversed and set aside the resolution dated
actual considerations received by her father William Sato from the March 25, 1997 and directed the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to
buyers of her grandmother's properties. She attests that Anita Ng file an Information against Sato for violation of Article 315,
actually paid P7,000,000.00 for the property covered by TCT No. paragraph 3(a) of the Revised Penal Code. 5 Thus, the following
cralaw
3148 and P7,034,000.00 for the property covered by TCT No. Information was filed against Sato in the Regional Trial Court of
3149. All the aforesaid proceeds were turned over to William Sato Quezon City, Branch 87:6 cralaw
9. Again, per the statement of Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato, Ruby Lee The undersigned accuses WILLIAM SATO of the crime of ESTAFA
Tsai paid P8,000,000.00 for the property covered by Tax under Article 315[,] par. 3(a) of the Revised Penal Code,
Declaration No. GR-016-0735, and the proceeds thereof were committed as follows:
likewise turned over to William Sato.
That on or about the 24th day of November, 1992, in Quezon City,
10. The considerations appearing on the deeds of sale were Philippines, the above-named accused, by means of deceit, did,
falsified as Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato has actual knowledge of the then and there, wil[l] fully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud
true amounts paid by the buyers, as stated in her Affidavit, since MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG in the following
she was the signatory thereto as the attorney-in-fact of Manolita manner, to wit: the said accused induced said Manolita Gonzales
Carungcong Y Gonzale[s] . Vda. De Carungcong[,] who was already then blind and 79 years
old[,] to sign and thumbmark a special power of attorney dated person allegedly defrauded, the deceased Manolita who was his
November 24, 1992 in favor of Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato, daughter of mother-in-law, was an exempting circumstance.
said accused, making her believe that said document involved only
her taxes, accused knowing fully well that said document The prosecution disputed Sato's motion in an opposition dated
authorizes Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato, then a minor, to sell, assign, March 29, 2006.
transfer or otherwise dispose of to any person or entity of her
properties all located at Tagaytay City, as follows: In an order dated April 17, 2006, 8 the trial court granted Sato's
cralaw
Sato moved for the quashal of the Information, claiming that under
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, his relationship to the
WHEREFORE, finding the Motion to Quash Original Information private respondent Sato, as son-in-law of Manolita, they being
meritorious, the same is GRANTED and, as prayed for, case is "relatives by affinity in the same line" under Article 332(1) of the
hereby DISMISSED. same Code. We cannot draw the distinction that following the
death of Zenaida in 1991, private respondent Sato is no longer the
SO ORDERED.9 cralaw (underlining supplied in the original) son-in-law of Manolita, so as to exclude the former from the
exempting circumstance provided for in Article 332 (1) of the
The prosecution's motion for reconsideration 10 cralaw was denied in an Revised Penal Code.
order dated June 2, 2006.11 cralaw
Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos . Basic is the
Dissatisfied with the trial court's rulings, the intestate estate of rule in statutory construction that where the law does not
Manolita, represented by Mediatrix, filed a petition for certiorari in distinguish, the courts should not distinguish. There should be no
the Court of Appeals 12 which, however, in a decision 13 dated
cralaw cralaw
distinction in the application of law where none is indicated. The
August 9, 2007, dismissed it. It ruled: courts could only distinguish where there are facts or
circumstances showing that the lawgiver intended a distinction or
qualification. In such a case, the courts would merely give effect to
[W] e sustain the finding of [the trial court] that the death of
the lawgiver's intent. The solemn power and duty of the Court to
Zenaida did not extinguish the relationship by affinity between her
interpret and apply the law does not include the power to correct
husband, private respondent Sato, and her mother Manolita, and
by reading into the law what is not written therein.
does not bar the application of the exempting circumstance under
Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code in favor of private
respondent Sato. Further, it is an established principle of statutory construction that
penal laws are strictly construed against the State and liberally in
favor of the accused. Any reasonable doubt must be resolved in
We further agree with the submission of the [Office of the Solicitor
favor of the accused. In this case, the plain meaning of Article 332
General (OSG)] that nothing in the law and/or existing
(1) of the Revised Penal Code's simple language is most favorable
jurisprudence supports the argument of petitioner that the fact of
to Sato.14
death of Zenaida dissolved the relationship by affinity between
cralaw
the time the crime was allegedly committed. Thus, while the death
of Zenaida extinguished her marriage with Sato, it did not dissolve Affinity is the relation that one spouse has to the blood relatives of
the son-in-law and mother-in-law relationship between Sato and the other spouse. It is a relationship by marriage or
Zenaida's mother, Manolita.
a familial relation resulting from marriage. 24 It is a fictive kinship,
cralaw
For his part, the Solicitor General maintains that Sato is covered by a fiction created by law in connection with the institution of
the exemption from criminal liability provided under Article 332. marriage and family relations.
Nothing in the law and jurisprudence supports petitioner's claim
that Zenaida's death dissolved the relationship by affinity between If marriage gives rise to one's relationship by affinity to the blood
Sato and Manolita. As it is, the criminal case against Sato created relatives of one's spouse, does the extinguishment of marriage by
havoc among the members of the Carungcong and Sato families, a the death of the spouse dissolve the relationship by affinity?
situation sought to be particularly avoided by Article 332's
provision exempting a family member committing theft, estafa or
Philippine jurisprudence has no previous encounter with the issue
malicious mischief from criminal liability and reducing his/her
that confronts us in this case. That is why the trial and appellate
liability to the civil aspect only.
courts acknowledged the "dearth of jurisprudence and/or
commentaries" on the matter. In contrast, in the American legal
The petition has merit. system, there are two views on the subject. As one Filipino author
observed:
The resolution of this case rests on the interpretation of Article 332
of the Revised Penal Code. In particular, it calls for the In case a marriage is terminated by the death of one of the
determination of the following: (1) the effect of death on the spouses, there are conflicting views. There are some who believe
relationship by affinity created between a surviving spouse and the that relationship by affinity is not terminated whether there are
blood relatives of the deceased spouse and (2) the extent of the children or not in the marriage (Carman vs. Newell, N.Y. 1 [Denio]
coverage of Article 332. 25, 26). However, the better view supported by most judicial
authorities in other jurisdictions is that, if the spouses have no
Effect of Death on Relationship By Affinity as Absolutory living issues or children and one of the spouses dies, the
Cause relationship by affinity is dissolved. It follows the rule that
relationship by affinity ceases with the dissolution of the marriage
Article 332 provides for an absolutory cause 16 in the crimes of
cralaw which produces it (Kelly v. Neely, 12 Ark. 657, 659, 56 Am Dec.
theft, estafa (or swindling) and malicious mischief. It limits the 288). On the other hand, the relationship by affinity is continued
responsibility of the offender to civil liability and frees him from despite the death of one of the spouses where there are living
criminal liability by virtue of his relationship to the offended party. issues or children of the marriage "in whose veins the blood of the
parties are commingled, since the relationship of affinity was
In connection with the relatives mentioned in the first paragraph, it continued through the medium of the issue of the marriage"
has been held that included in the exemptions are parents-in-law, (Paddock vs. Wells, 2 Barb. Ch. 331, 333).25 cralaw
liability is incurred by the stepfather who commits malicious The first view (the terminated affinity view) holds that relationship
mischief against his stepson;18 by the stepmother who commits
cralaw by affinity terminates with the dissolution of the marriage either by
theft against her stepson;19 by the stepfather who steals
cralaw death or divorce which gave rise to the relationship of affinity
something from his stepson;20 by the grandson who steals from
cralaw between the parties.26 Under this view, the relationship by affinity
cralaw
to the deceased spouse's blood relatives. affirmed as a State and national policy that courts shall preserve
the solidarity of the family.34 In this connection, the spirit of
cralaw
The first view admits of an exception. The relationship by affinity Article 332 is to preserve family harmony and obviate scandal. 35 cralaw
continues even after the death of one spouse when there is a The view that relationship by affinity is not affected by the death of
surviving issue.27 The rationale is that the relationship is
cralaw
one of the parties to the marriage that created it is more in accord
preserved because of the living issue of the marriage in whose with family solidarity and harmony.
veins the blood of both parties is commingled.28 cralaw
kindred of the deceased spouse continues even after the death of consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the accused
the deceased spouse, regardless of whether the marriage produced shall be presumed innocent unless and until his guilt is established
children or not.29 Under this view, the relationship by affinity
cralaw
beyond reasonable doubt.37 cralaw
benefit step-relatives or in-laws, the "tie of affinity" between these interpretations of a penal statute, one that is prejudicial to the
people and their relatives-by-marriage is not to be regarded as accused and another that is favorable to him. The rule calls for the
terminated upon the death of one of the married parties.30 cralaw adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient to the accused.
After due consideration and evaluation of the relative merits of the Lenity becomes all the more appropriate when this case is viewed
two views, we hold that the second view is more consistent with through the lens of the basic purpose of Article 332 of the Revised
the language and spirit of Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Penal Code to preserve family harmony by providing an absolutory
cause. Since the goal of Article 332(1) is to benefit the accused,
First, the terminated affinity view is generally applied in cases of the Court should adopt an application or interpretation that is more
jury disqualification and incest.31 On the other hand, the
cralaw
favorable to the accused. In this case, that interpretation is the
continuing affinity view has been applied in the interpretation of continuing affinity view.
laws that intend to benefit step-relatives or in-laws. Since the
purpose of the absolutory cause in Article 332(1) is meant to be Thus, for purposes of Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code, we
beneficial to relatives by affinity within the degree covered under hold that the relationship by affinity created between the surviving
the said provision, the continuing affinity view is more appropriate. spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse survives the
death of either party to the marriage which created the affinity.
Second, the language of Article 332(1) which speaks of " relatives (The same principle applies to the justifying circumstance of
by affinity in the same line " is couched in general language. The defense of one's relatives under Article 11[2] of the Revised Penal
legislative intent to make no distinction between the spouse of Code, the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of
one's living child and the surviving spouse of one's deceased child grave offense committed against one's relatives under Article 13[5]
(in case of a son-in-law or daughter-in-law with respect to his or of the same Code and the absolutory cause of relationship in favor
her parents-in-law)32 can be drawn from Article 332(1) of the
cralaw
of accessories under Article 20 also of the same Code.)
Revised Penal Code without doing violence to its language.
Scope of Article 332 of The Revised Penal Code assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of Manolita's properties in
Tagaytay City;
The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code
only applies to the felonies of theft, swindling and malicious (c) relying on Sato's inducement and representation, Manolita
mischief. Under the said provision, the State condones the criminal signed and thumbmarked the SPA in favor of Wendy Mitsuko Sato,
responsibility of the offender in cases of theft, swindling and daughter of Sato;
malicious mischief. As an act of grace, the State waives its right to
prosecute the offender for the said crimes but leaves the private (d) using the document, he sold the properties to third parties but
offended party with the option to hold the offender civilly liable. he neither delivered the proceeds to Manolita nor accounted for the
same and
However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the
felonies mentioned therein. The plain, categorical and unmistakable (d) despite repeated demands, he failed and refused to deliver the
language of the provision shows that it applies exclusively to the proceeds, to the damage and prejudice of the estate of Manolita.
simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It does
not apply where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is The above averments in the Information show that the estafa was
complexed with another crime, such as theft through falsification or committed by attributing to Manolita (who participated in the
estafa through falsification.39
cralaw
execution of the document) statements other than those in fact
made by her. Manolita's acts of signing the SPA and affixing her
The Information against Sato charges him with estafa. However, thumbmark to that document were the very expression of her
the real nature of the offense is determined by the facts alleged in specific intention that something be done about her taxes. Her
the Information, not by the designation of the offense. 40 What cralaw
signature and thumbmark were the affirmation of her statement on
controls is not the title of the Information or the designation of the such intention as she only signed and thumbmarked the SPA (a
offense but the actual facts recited in the Information. 41 In other
cralaw
document which she could not have read) because of Sato's
words, it is the recital of facts of the commission of the offense, not representation that the document pertained to her taxes. In
the nomenclature of the offense, that determines the crime being signing and thumbmarking the document, Manolita showed that
charged in the Information.42 It is the exclusive province of the
cralaw
she believed and adopted the representations of Sato as to what
court to say what the crime is or what it is named. 43 The cralaw
the document was all about, i.e., that it involved her taxes. Her
determination by the prosecutor who signs the Information of the signature and thumbmark, therefore, served as her conformity to
crime committed is merely an opinion which is not binding on the Sato's proposal that she execute a document to settle her taxes.
court.44
cralaw
(b) he made Manolita believe that the said document was in Moreover, the allegations in the Information that
connection with her taxes when it was in fact a special power of
attorney (SPA) authorizing his minor daughter Wendy to sell,
(1) "once in the possession of the said special power of attorney True, the concurrence of all the elements of the two crimes of
and other pertinent documents, [Sato] made Wendy Mitsuko Sato estafa and falsification of public document is required for a proper
sign the three (3) Deeds of Absolute Sale" and conviction for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of
public document. That is the ruling in Gonzaludo v. People. 46 It
cralaw
(2) "once in possession of the proceeds of the sale of the above means that the prosecution must establish that the accused
properties, said accused, misapplied, misappropriated and resorted to the falsification of a public document as a necessary
converted the same to his own personal use and benefit" raise the means to commit the crime of estafa.
presumption that Sato, as the possessor of the falsified document
and the one who benefited therefrom, was the author thereof. However, a proper appreciation of the scope and application of
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code and of the nature of a
Furthermore, it should be noted that the prosecution moved for the complex crime would negate exemption from criminal liability for
amendment of the Information so as to increase the amount of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public
damages from P1,150,000 to P22,034,000. This was granted by documents, simply because the accused may not be held criminally
the trial court and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on liable for simple estafa by virtue of the absolutory cause under
certiorari . This meant that the amended Information would now Article 332.
state that, while the total amount of consideration stated in the
deeds of absolute sale was only P1,150,000, Sato actually received The absolutory cause under Article 332 is meant to address specific
the total amount of P22,034,000 as proceeds of the sale of crimes against property, namely, the simple crimes of theft,
Manolita's properties.45 This also meant that the deeds of sale
cralaw swindling and malicious mischief. Thus, all other crimes, whether
(which were public documents) were also falsified by making simple or complex, are not affected by the absolutory cause
untruthful statements as to the amounts of consideration stated in provided by the said provision. To apply the absolutory cause
the deeds. under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code to one of the
component crimes of a complex crime for the purpose of negating
Therefore, the allegations in the Information essentially charged a the existence of that complex crime is to unduly expand the scope
crime that was not simple estafa. Sato resorted to falsification of of Article 332. In other words, to apply Article 332 to the complex
public documents (particularly, the special power of attorney and crime of estafa through falsification of public document would be to
the deeds of sale) as a necessary means to commit the estafa. mistakenly treat the crime of estafa as a separate simple crime,
not as the component crime that it is in that situation. It would
Since the crime with which respondent was charged was not simple wrongly consider the indictment as separate charges of estafa and
estafa but the complex crime of estafa through falsification of falsification of public document, not as a single charge for the
public documents, Sato cannot avail himself of the absolutory single (complex) crime of estafa through falsification of public
cause provided under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code in his document.
favor.
Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the State waives its
Effect of Absolutory Cause Under Article 332 on Criminal right to hold the offender criminally liable for the simple crimes of
Liability For The Complex Crime of Estafa Through theft, swindling and malicious mischief and considers the violation
Falsification of Public Documents of the juridical right to property committed by the offender against
certain family members as a private matter and therefore subject
only to civil liability. The waiver does not apply when the violation
The question may be asked: if the accused may not be held
of the right to property is achieved through (and therefore
criminally liable for simple estafa by virtue of the absolutory cause
inseparably intertwined with) a breach of the public interest in the
under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, should he not be
integrity and presumed authenticity of public documents. For, in
absolved also from criminal liability for the complex crime of estafa
the latter instance, what is involved is no longer simply the
through falsification of public documents? No.
property right of a family relation but a paramount public crimes where different criminal intents result in two or more
interest. crimes, for each of which the accused incurs criminal liability. 52 cralaw
provision simply concerns the private relations of the parties as Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the formal plurality of
family members and is limited to the civil aspect between the crimes (concursus delictuorum or concurso de delitos) gives rise to
offender and the offended party. When estafa is committed through a single criminal liability and requires the imposition of a single
falsification of a public document, however, the matter acquires a penalty:
very serious public dimension and goes beyond the respective
rights and liabilities of family members among themselves. Although [a] complex crime quantitatively consists of two or more
Effectively, when the offender resorts to an act that breaches crimes, it is only one crime in law on which a single penalty is
public interest in the integrity of public documents as a means to imposed and the two or more crimes constituting the same are
violate the property rights of a family member, he is removed from more conveniently termed as component crimes.53 (emphasiscralaw
the protective mantle of the absolutory cause under Article 332. supplied)
In considering whether the accused is liable for the complex crime ∞∞∞
of estafa through falsification of public documents, it would be
wrong to consider the component crimes separately from each In [a] complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually
other. While there may be two component crimes (estafa and committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as
falsification of documents), both felonies are animated by and well as in the conscience of the offender. The offender has only one
result from one and the same criminal intent for which there is only criminal intent. Even in the case where an offense is a necessary
one criminal liability.48 That is the concept of a complex crime. In
cralaw
means for committing the other, the evil intent of the offender is
other words, while there are two crimes, they are treated only as only one.54cralaw
for Committing Estafa Even Under Article 315 (3[a]) was committed prior to the consummation of the crime of
estafa.60
cralawActually utilizing the falsified public, official or
The elements of the offense of estafa punished under Article 315 commercial document to defraud another is estafa. 61 The damage
cralaw
(3[a]) of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: to another is caused by the commission of estafa, not by the
falsification of the document.62 cralaw
facilitate and carry out more effectively his evil design to swindle (such as if Manolita herself had been the one who asked that a
his mother-in-law. In particular, he used the SPA to sell the document pertaining to her taxes be prepared for her signature,
Tagaytay properties of Manolita to unsuspecting third persons. but what was presented to her for her signature was an SPA), the
crime would have only been the simple crime of falsification. 64cralaw
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson