G.R. No. 235724 , March 11, 2020
Maria Lourdes Artates y Gallardo, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Maria Lourdes Artates y Gallardo was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution established that on November 16, 2003, private complainant Patrocinia Pablico and her son Jun Pablico were at Filart Shoe Store in Vigan City when Artates recruited Jun, a criminology graduate, for entry into the Philippine National Police (PNP). Artates represented that her husband, PO3 Edmundo Artates, who was detailed as security for then Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, could facilitate Jun’s entry. She asked for money for uniform, medical examination, neuro-examination, and “blow-out,” and stated it was unnecessary for Jun to undergo medical examination due to her husband’s influence. From November 16, 2003, to February 20, 2004, Artates received from Patrocinia and Jun the total amount of P50,000.00 or more. The promise did not materialize, and Jun was informed that PNP recruitment had ended. Upon inquiry at Artates’ house, they discovered she was separated from her husband, who had no knowledge of Jun’s application. They reported the matter to the Vigan Police Station on February 20, 2004. An entrapment operation was conducted where Patrocinia handed marked money to Artates, after which she was arrested. The Regional Trial Court found Artates guilty, which was affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals. Artates appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove all elements of estafa, her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that her arrest was illegal rendering evidence inadmissible.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner for Estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction with modification on the penalty. The Court held that all elements of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) were proven: (1) Artates made false pretenses by claiming she had influence to facilitate Jun’s PNP entry; (2) such pretenses were made prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) Patrocinia and Jun were induced to deliver the money due to Artates’ false pretenses; and (4) they suffered damage. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses credible and consistent, outweighing Artates’ denial. The legality of her arrest was deemed immaterial as she voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction by posting bail and pleading not guilty without questioning the arrest. The marked money was admissible. Applying Republic Act No. 10951 , the penalty was adjusted. The indeterminate penalty imposed was two months and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one year and one day of prision correccional, as maximum. The amount of P50,000.00 shall earn interest at 12% per annum from the filing of the Information until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013, until finality of the decision, with the total amount earning 6% interest per annum from finality until full payment.