Today is Thursday, September 14, 2023

Constitution
Statutes
Executive Issuances
Judicial Issuances
Other Issuances
Jurisprudence
International Legal Resources
AUSL Exclusive

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 241336, June 16, 2021 ]

JOSEPHINE G. BRISENIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

RESOLUTION

INTING, J.:

This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 21 November 20181 filed by Josephine G. Brise
(petitioner) which denied her Petition for Review (under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)2 and affirmed
Decision3 dated May 8, 2018 and the Resolution4 dated July 30, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR N

The Antecedents

Petitioner was charged with Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents committed as follows:

"That sometime in the month of February 2003, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this H
Court, the above-named accused, with intent to prejudice and defraud the complainant CLARITA G. MASON, did the
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, induced the complainant to part her money in favor of a certain Virginia Mendoza
Joseph Mendoza, and as such security to the said loan thereof, the accused surrendered an original owner's copy of
245848 of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City, pretending and making it appear that the said original Transfer Cer
Title No. N-245848 is genuine and authentic, when in truth and in fact, as said accused well knew that the said owner
said title is fake and spurious, and the said accused using a falsified and spurious copy of TCT No. 245848 of the Re
Deeds for the Quezon City secured and obtained from the complainant as in fact, she obtained and received the tota
P1,666,666.70, exclusive of interest and notwithstanding repeated demands to return the said amount of money, whe
fraudulent transaction was discovered by the complainant, the accused failed and continue to fail to return the same u
present time to the damage and prejudice of the complainant CLARITA G. MASON, in the aforementioned amount of
MILLION SIX HUNDRED SIXTY SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY SIX PESOS AND 70/100, (P1,666,666.70)
Currency.

ALL CONTRARY TO LAW."5

On arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Trial on the merits ensued.

The facts of the case, as summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General, are as follows:

Sometime in February 2003, petitioner asked her sister, Clarita G. Mason (private complainant), to enter into a busine
with her and a certain Manuel S. Dino (Dino). They agreed to contribute P1,666,666.70 each to the venture involving
land located in Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-245848.6

Believing that the title showed by petitioner was genuine, private complainant and her husband withdrew P1,440,000
bank and handed it over to petitioner. On March 4, 2003, private complainant also signed a Deed of Assignment stati
and in consideration of P1,666,666.70, she was assigning, transferring, and conveying all her rights and interest over
portion of the land in favor of petitioner and another 1/3 in favor of Dino.7

In December 2003, petitioner asked the private complainant to return all the documents in her possession and promis
return the amount of P1,666,666.70 plus interest. Later on, private complainant found out that the title given to her wa
as the serial number appearing on its face referred to titles issued not to the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Quezo
the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon Province. She also discovered that per the genuine title, the subject lan
to one Benito Chan as early as May 2, 2003.8

Despite demands, petitioner failed to return the money to private complainant Thus, the filing of the Information charg
petitioner with Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents.9

On August 1, 2016, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The RTC sentenc
suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correcciona
minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The RTC further ordered her to indemnify private
in the amount of P1,666,666.70.10

Unperturbed, petitioner sought recourse from the CA.

In the Decision11 dated May 8, 2018, the CA affirmed petitioner's conviction. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, bu
denied the motion in a Resolution12 dated July 30, 2018. Consequently, petitioner elevated the case via a petition fo
on certiorari before the Court.

In the Resolution13 dated November 21, 2018, the Court denied the petition for failure of petitioner to sufficiently sho
CA committed any reversible error in the challenged Decision and Resolution.

Not satisfied with the disposition of the Court, petitioner filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration on March 14, 201

Petitioner maintains that the Court wrongfully concluded that she forged TCT No. N-245848. According to her, there i
evidence to prove that she falsified TCT No. N-245848 and that she received from private complainant the sum of
P1,440,000.00.14 She likewise asks the Court to apply Republic Act No. (RA) 1095115 in her favor and modify the pe
imposed against her. She avers that under RA 10951, the maximum penalty for Estafa thru Falsification of Public Doc
should only be prision correccional in its maximum period which entitles her to apply for probation.16

The Court's Ruling

The Court finds no cogent reason to overturn petitioner's conviction in this case.

Records show that petitioner was in possession of TCT No. N-245848, a spurious and falsified document. It was likew
established that petitioner, through false pretenses or fraudulent representations, had lured private complainant into e
a business venture with her by falsifying TCT No. N-245848, and thereafter obtained from the latter the sum of P1,44
shown by the statement of account presented during trial. In other words, petitioner used the falsified title, took advan
profited from it, and successfully convinced private complainant to invest her money to her own damage and detrimen

"In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of a forged document and who used or
presumed to be the forger."17 Thus, the lower courts correctly convicted petitioner of the complex crime of Estafa thr
Falsification of Public Documents.

However, the Court grants the Motion for Reconsideration insofar as the penalty imposed upon petitioner is concerne
effectivity of RA 10951, the penalty imposed on petitioner must be modified.

Below is a comparison of the penalty for Estafa under the relevant provision of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and R

RPC RA 10951
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall
defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein defraud another by any of the means mentioned he
below shall be punished by: below shall be punished by:

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum xxx xxx xxx
period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the
amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not 2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minim
exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is ov
latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,0
be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for but does not exceed Two million four hundred thous
each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which pesos (P2,400,000). (Underscoring supplied.)
may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such
cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties
which may be imposed under the provisions of this
Code, the penalty shall be termed prision
mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
(Underscoring supplied.)
On the other hand, the comparison of the penalties for falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documen
old provision of the RPC and RA 10951 is as follows:

RPC RA 10951
Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use o
falsified documents. - The penalty of prision falsified documents. - The penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a correccional in its medium and maximum periods an
fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed fine of not more than One million pesos
 upon: (P1,000,000) shall be imposed upon:

1. Any private individual who shall commit any of 1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the
the falsifications enumerated in the next falsifications enumerated in the next preceding artic
preceding article in any public or official any public or official document or letter of exchange
document or letter of exchange or any other kind any other kind of commercial document;
of commercial document; and
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, o
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any
party, or with the intent to cause such damage, private document commit any of the acts of falsifica
shall in any private document commit any of the enumerated in the next preceding article; and
acts of falsification enumerated in the next
preceding article. 3. Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evid
in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of anoth
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall us
any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or any of the false documents embraced in the next
who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use preceding article, or in any of the foregoing subdivis
any of the false documents embraced in the next of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next
preceding article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions lower in degree. (Underscoring supplied.)
of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next
lower in degree. (Underscoring supplied.)
In both the RFC and RA 10951, the penalty to be imposed upon a person guilty of Estafa is based on the amount of d
Here, the amount defrauded is P1,440,000.00 representing the total amount of money actually released and received
petitioner from private complainant as shown in the statement of account.

Under Article 315 of the RPC, before the amendment, the penalty for the crime of Estafa is prision correccional, in its
period, to prision mayor, in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over P12,000.00, but does not exceed P2
such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty is in its maximum period, adding one (1) year for each additional P1
With the passage of RA 10951, the prescribed penalty as provided under paragraph 2, Article 315 of the RPC is now
correccional in its minimum and medium periods if the amount does not exceed P2,400,000.00.

Thus, the penalty for the crime of Estafa under RA 10951 should be given retroactive effect considering that it is more
to petitioner.18

With regard to the crime of falsification, the penalty of imprisonment imposed is the same for both paragraph 1, Article
RPC and RA 10951 which is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. But under the RPC, the penalt
be imposed is not more than P5,000.00 while under RA 10951, the penalty of fine to be imposed shall not exceed
P1,000,000.00.

Evidently, the penalty of imprisonment in the crime of Estafa under RA 10951 is now lighter compared to the penalty
imprisonment for falsification under paragraph 1, Article 172 of the RPC. Applying the provisions of Article 48 of the R
penalty for the graver offense should be imposed in the maximum period. Thus, the penalty for Falsification by private
and Use of Falsified Documents under Article 172 of the RPC should be imposed in the maximum period, being the m
crime than Estafa. However, the penalty of fine of not more than P5,000.00 under the old law should be imposed aga
petitioner because this is more favorable to her than the penalty of fine of not more than P1,000,000.00 under the pre

Based on the considerations, the Court hereby modifies the indeterminate sentence to be imposed on petitioner so th
minimum term should come from the penalty next lower in degree, that is, arresto mayor in its maximum period to pri
correccional in its minimum period with a range of four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) month
Meanwhile, the maximum term should come from prision correccional, medium, to prision correccional, maximum, in
maximum period which is four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days to six (6) years.20 The actual damage
P1,440,000.00 must also be subjected to legal interest at 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution un
payment, in consonance with recent jurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Resolution dated November 21, 2018
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioner Josephine G. Brisenio is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate p
imprisonment for a period of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to five (5) years of prisio
correccional, as maximum and to pay a FINE in the amount of P5,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of ins

The Court likewise ORDERS petitioner Josephine G. Brisenio to pay private complainant Clarita G. Mason of P1,440
legal interest at 6% per annum to be reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until full payment thereof.

SO ORDERED.

Leonen (Chairperson), Caguioa,* Delos Santos, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

* Designated additional member per Raffle dated July 1, 2019.

1 Rollo, pp. 68-80.

2 Id. at 18-44.

3 Id. at 46-54; penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Ramo
Hernando (now a member of the Court) and Pedro B. Corales, concurring.

4 Id. at 57-58.

5 Id. at 47.

6 Id. at 48.

7 Id.

8 Id. at 49

9 Id.

10 Id. at 46.

11 Id. at 46-54.

12 Id. at 57-58.
 13 Id. at 62-63.

14 Id. at 72.

15 Entitled, "An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on which a Penalty is
the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code, Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, Otherwis
"The Revised Penal Code," As Amended," approved on August 29, 2017.

16 Rollo, p. 78.

17 People v. Go, et al., 740 Phil. 583, 609 (2014).

18 Desmoparan v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 233598, March 17, 2019.

19 Id.

20 Id.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation