Title: People v Temporada Citation: GR No. 173473, Dec. 17, 2008 Topic: ndeterminate !entence "a# Facts: The case is about the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), arming with modication the Ma !", #$$" %ecision# of the &egional Trial Court (&TC) of Manila, accused'appellant eth Temporada conicting her of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment, or iolation of Article *+ of the abor Code, as amended, and e (-) counts of estafa under Article *!-, par. (#)(a) of the &eised /enal Code (&/C). Accused &osemarie 0ab0 &obles, ernadette Miranda, 1enita Catacotan and 2o3o &esco and appellant eth Temporada, all emploees of the Alternatie Trael and Tours Tours Corporation (ATT (ATTC), C), recruited and promised oerseas oerseas emploment, for a fee, to complainants &ogelio egaspi, 2r. as technician in 4ingapore, and 4oledad Atle, u5 Min6a, 7eln 7stacio and %ennis %imaano as factor wor6ers in 8ong6ong. After complaina complainants nts had submitted submitted all the re9uir re9uiremen ements ts the accused accused and appellan appellant, t, on dierent dates, collected and receied from them placement fees. ;nl appellant was apprehended apprehended and brought to trial, the other accused remained at large.
the said accused, as principal of the oenses charged and she is sentenced to suer the penal penalt t of ?F7 ?F7 ?M/&? ?M/&?4;1 4;1M71 M71T T and and a ne of Fie 8undr 8undred ed Thousa Thousand nd /esos esos (/-$$,$$$.$$) for illegal recruitmentB and the indeterminate indeterminate penalt of four (") ears and two (#) months of prision correctional as minimum, to nine () ears and one (!) da of prision maor, as maDimum for the estafa committed against complainant &ogelio A. egaspi, 2r.B the indeterminate penalt of four (") ears and two (#) months of prision correctional as minimum to ten (!$) ears and one da of prision maor as maDimum each for the estafas committed against complainants, %ennis %imaano, 4oledad . Atte and u5 T. Min6aB and the indeterminate penalt of four (") ears and two (#) months of prision correctional as minimum, to eleen (!!) ears and one (!) da da of prisi prision on maor maor as maDim maDimum um for the estafa estafa commit committed ted again against st 7eln 7eln 7stacio. ?n accordance with the CourtEs ruling in /eople . Mateo,- this case was referred to the the CA for for inte interm rmed edia iate te reie eiew w. ;n Febru ebruar ar #", #", #$$ #$$,, the the CA arm armed ed with with modication the %ecision of the &TC: =87&7F;&7, =87&7F;&7, with M;%?F?CAT?;1 M;%?F?CAT?;1 to the eect that in Criminal Cases 1os. $##$+*G*, $# #$+*G*, $##$+*G-, H $# #$+*G, appellant is sentenced to suer the indeterminate penalt of siD () ears of prision correccional maDimum, as minimum, to ten (!$) ears and one (!) da of prision maor maDimum, as maDimumB and in Criminal Case 1o. $#' #$+*G", she is sentenced to suer the indeterminate penalt of eight (+) ears and one (!) da of prision maor medium, as minimum, to twele (!#) ears and one (!) da of reclusion temporal minimum, as maDimum, the appealed decision is AFF?&M7% in all other respects. ?ssue:
=hether or not the &TC and the CA properl meted the penalt. &uling: 4ection G(b) of &.A. 1o. +$"# prescribes the penalt of life imprisonment and a ne of not less than /-$$,$$$.$$ nor more than /!,$$$,$$$.$$ for the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale or b a sndicate. The trial court, therefore, properl meted the penalt of life imprisonment and a ne of /-$$,$$$.$$ on the appellant. Anent the coniction of appellant for e (-) counts of estafa, we, li6ewise, arm the same. =ellsettled is the rule that a person conicted for illegal recruitment under the abor Code ma, for the same acts, be separatel conicted for estafa under Article *!-, par. #(a) of the &/C. The elements of estafa are: (!) the accused defrauded another b abuse of condence or b means of deceitB and (#) the oended part or a third part suered damage or pre3udice capable of pecuniar estimation.!- The same eidence proing appellantEs criminal liabilit for illegal recruitment also established her liabilit for estafa. As preiousl discussed, appellant together with her coaccused defrauded complainants into belieing that the had the authorit and capabilit to send complainants for oerseas emploment. ecause of these assurances, complainants parted with their hardearned mone in eDchange for the promise of future wor6 abroad. 8oweer, the promised oerseas emploment neer materiali5ed and neither were the complainants able to recoer their mone. =hile we arm the coniction for the e (-) counts of estafa, we nd, howeer, that the CA erroneousl computed the indeterminate penalties therefor. The CA deiated from the doctrine laid down in /eople . >abresB hence its decision should be reersed with respect to the indeterminate penalties it imposed. The reersal of the appellate courtEs %ecision on this point does not, howeer, wholl reinstate the indeterminate penalties imposed b the trial court because the maDimum terms, as determined b the latter, were erroneousl computed and must necessaril be rectied. The prescribed penalt for estafa under Article *!-, par. #(d) of the &/C, when the amount defrauded eDceeds /##,$$$.$$, is prisiIn correccional maDimum to prisiIn maor minimum. The minimum term is ta6en from the penalt neDt lower or anwhere within prisiIn correccional minimum and medium (i.e., from months and ! da to " ears and # months). Conse9uentl, the &TC correctl Ded the minimum term for the e estafa cases at " ears and # months of prisiIn correccional since this is within the range of prisiIn correccional minimum and medium. ;n the other hand, the maDimum term is ta6en from the prescribed penalt of prisiIn correccional maDimum to prisiIn maor minimum in its maDimum period, adding ! ear of imprisonment for eer /!$,$$$.$$ in eDcess of /##,$$$.$$, proided that the total penalt shall not eDceed #$ ears. 8oweer, the maDimum period of the prescribed penalt of prisiIn correccional maDimum to prisiIn maor minimum is not prisiIn maor minimum as apparentl assumed b the &TC. To compute the maDimum period of the prescribed penalt, prisiIn correccional maDimum to prisiIn maor minimum should be diided into three e9ual portions of time each of which portion shall be deemed to form one period in accordance with Article -!G of the &/C. Following this procedure, the maDimum period of prisiIn correccional maDimum to prisiIn maor minimum is from ears, + months and #! das to + ears. The incremental penalt, when proper, shall thus be added to anwhere from ears, + months and #! das to + ears, at the discretion of the court.
?n computing the incremental penalt, the amount defrauded shall be subtracted b /##,$$$.$$, and the dierence shall be diided b /!$,$$$.$$. ?n Criminal Case 1o. $##$+*G#, where the amount defrauded was /-G,$$.$$, the &TC sentenced the accused to an indeterminate penalt of " ears and # months of prisiIn correccional as minimum, to ears and ! da of prisiIn maor as maDimum. 4ince the amount defrauded eDceeds /##,$$$.$$ b /*-,$$.$$, * ears shall be added to the maDimum period of the prescribed penalt (or added to anwhere from ears, + months and #! das to + ears, at the discretion of the court). The lowest maDimum term, therefore, that can be alidl imposed is ears, + months and #! das of prisiIn maor, and not ears and ! da of prisiIn maor. ?n Criminal Case 1os. $##$+*G*, $##$+*G-, and $##$+*G, where the amounts defrauded were /,-#$.$$, /,-#$.$$, and /,-#$.$$, respectiel, the accused was sentenced to an indeterminate penalt of " ears and # months of prisiIn correccional as minimum, to !$ ears and ! da of prisiIn maor as maDimum for each of the aforesaid three estafa cases. 4ince the amounts defrauded eDceed /##,$$$.$$ b /"",-#$.$$, /"G,-#$.$$, and /"G,-#$.$$, respectiel, " ears shall be added to the maDimum period of the prescribed penalt (or added to anwhere from ears, + months and #! das to + ears, at the discretion of the court). The lowest maDimum term, therefore, that can be alidl imposed is !$ ears, + months and #! das of prisiIn maor, and not !$ ears and ! da of prisiIn maor. Finall, in Criminal Case 1o. $##$+*G", where the amount defrauded was /++,-#$.$$, the accused was sentenced to an indeterminate penalt of " ears and # months of prisiIn correccional as minimum, to !! ears and ! da of prisiIn maor as maDimum. 4ince the amount defrauded eDceeds /##,$$$.$$ b /,-#$.$$, ears shall be added to the maDimum period of the prescribed penalt (or added to anwhere from ears, + months and #! das to + ears, at the discretion of the court). The lowest maDimum term, therefore, that can be alidl imposed is !# ears, + months and #! das of reclusiIn temporal, and not !! ears and ! da of prisiIn maor.
