ROSALINDA SERRANO v. CA

FACTS:

Rosalinda Serrano, along with Nelia Giron and Edna Sibal, were charged with estafa through falsification of commercial documents. The charges stemmed from the falsification of Centerre Bank drafts, which were made to appear as legitimate bank issuances but were actually fraudulent. The accused gave these falsified drafts to Ramon Mojica in exchange for money, which they converted for personal use. The drafts were later found to be fraudulent and dishonored by the drawee bank. Despite demands for payment, the accused failed to repay Mojica, causing damage and prejudice. While Serrano was apprehended and brought to trial, Giron and Sibal remained at large. Serrano was arraigned on February 1986.

The specific incidents involved the exchange of fraudulent dollar checks for Metrobank cashier's checks. Serrano, together with Nelia and Edna, convinced Mojica to purchase US dollars for his business. They presented a Centerre Bank draft for $12,000 and received a Metrobank cashier's check worth P246,000. They later replaced the cashier's check with two Metrobank checks, which Serrano encashed. On another occasion, Serrano sold Mojica a $10,000 check and encashed the Metrobank checks received. They repeated this process with a $5,000 check. Eventually, Mojica discovered the fraudulent nature of the dollar checks and demanded the return of his money, but Serrano and her co-accused refused to comply.

Serrano was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for three counts of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. She received prison terms ranging from six years and one day to seventeen years, four months, and one day, along with orders to indemnify Mojica amounts totaling P508,000. Serrano appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed her conviction but modified the penalties and indemnity amounts. The Court of Appeals ordered Serrano to pay higher indemnity amounts ranging from P102,000 to P246,000 without subsidiary imprisonment. Serrano's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting her to file the present petition. In her petition, Serrano argues that a handwritten memorandum supersedes the promissory note that formed the basis of the estafa charges.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the handwritten memorandum exculpates the petitioner from criminal liability.

  2. Whether the petitioner's participation in the dollar transactions can be considered criminal and part of a conspiracy.

  3. Whether the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals should be disturbed on appeal.

  4. Whether the acts committed by the petitioner constitute the complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents.

  5. Whether the acts of the petitioner constitute fraud under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

  6. Whether the petitioner is liable for estafa through falsification of commercial documents.

  7. Whether the penalty imposed by the appellate court needs modification.

  8. The issues in this case are as follows:

  9. Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 85-8236-P.

  10. Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 85-8237-P.

RULING:

  1. No, the handwritten memorandum does not exculpate the petitioner from criminal liability. Novation is not a ground for the extinction of criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code. Criminal liability for estafa is not affected by compromise or novation of contract, and must be prosecuted and punished by the government even if complete reparation has been made to the offended party.

  2. Yes, the petitioner's participation in the dollar transactions can be considered criminal and part of a conspiracy. Direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary to prove conspiracy. It may be deduced from the acts of the perpetrators before, during, and after the commission of the crime that are indicative of a common design, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments.

  3. No. Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and may only be reviewed on appeal under certain circumstances. These include when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; when there is a grave abuse of discretion; when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; among others. In this case, there is no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals since there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the acts committed by the petitioner constitute the complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents.

  4. Yes. The acts committed by the petitioner constitute the complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. Petitioner and her co-conspirators were found to have falsified dollar checks drawn and issued by Centerre Bank, St. Louis, Missouri, and Citizens National Bank, San Francisco, California. These dollar checks were undeniably spurious as they were not issued by the mentioned banks and had forged signatures. Although there is no direct proof that petitioner and her co-conspirators were the authors of the falsification, the fact that petitioner possessed and uttered the spurious dollar checks and benefited from the proceeds of the cashier's checks obtained through them leads to the conclusion that she falsified the checks. The use or uttering of the forged documents closely connected in time with the forgery indicates that the user or possessor had the capacity to commit the forgery or had close connections with the forgers. Therefore, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, petitioner, found in possession of the forged documents and using them, is presumed to be the forger. The falsification of the dollar checks was the necessary means for the commission of estafa.

  5. The acts of the petitioner in falsifying the dollar checks and misrepresenting them to the offended party constitute the fraud contemplated under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

  6. The petitioner is liable for three counts of estafa through falsification of commercial documents under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 and Article 172 in relation to Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code.

  7. The penalty imposed by the appellate court needs modification. The indeterminate penalty should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty is left to the discretion of the court, to be fixed from within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. The amount involved in each case exceeding P22,000.00 should be considered as an analogous modifying circumstance in the imposition of the maximum term of the full indeterminate sentence.

  8. The petitioner is found guilty of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 85-8236-P and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of Four (4) Years and Two (2) Months of prision correccional, as minimum, to Nineteen (19) Years and One (1) Day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

  9. The petitioner is found guilty of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 85-8237-P and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of Four (4) Years and Two (2) Months of prision correccional, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years and One (1) Day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Novation is not a ground for the extinction of criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code.

  • Criminal liability for estafa is not affected by compromise or novation of contract and must be prosecuted and punished by the government, even if complete reparation has been made to the offended party.

  • Direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary to prove conspiracy. It may be deduced from the acts of the perpetrators before, during, and after the commission of the crime that are indicative of a common design, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments.

  • Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal except under certain circumstances.

  • In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of a forged document and who used or uttered it is presumed to be the forger.

  • The falsification of commercial documents constitutes a complex crime of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • False pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.

  • The offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means.

  • As a result, the offended party suffered damage.

  • In imposing a prison sentence, the maximum term of the penalty shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.

  • Penal laws should be construed in favor of the accused.

  • The amount involved in each case exceeding P22,000.00 is considered analogous to a modifying circumstance in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.

  • Indeterminate sentence - The court may impose an indeterminate sentence in cases where the penalty prescribed by law consists of two periods, in order to give judges the discretion to determine the minimum and maximum terms within the range of the penalty.

  • Prision correccional - Prision correccional is a penalty imposed for offenses punishable by imprisonment of not less than six months and one day, but not more than six years.

  • Reclusion temporal - Reclusion temporal is a penalty imposed for offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six years and one day, but not more than 20 years.

  • Concurring opinions - The concurring opinions of the justices are in agreement with the ruling of the court.