G.R. No. 105213 December 4, 1996
ERLINDA DE LA CRUZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Erlinda de la Cruz was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that from August 28 to September 4, 1989, in Quezon City, she defrauded Victor V. Bellosillo by falsely representing that she had the power and influence to secure the release of five container vans of used engines from the Bureau of Customs. Relying on these representations, Bellosillo delivered to her the total sum of P715,000.00 to cover demurrage and storage fees. De la Cruz failed to deliver the goods or account for the money despite repeated demands.
The prosecution established that the parties initially entered into an Agreement of Undertaking for a different transaction, which was not consummated. De la Cruz then proposed the release of the five container vans, presenting herself as a customs broker with connections. Bellosillo made several payments based on her continued assurances and receipts she signed. The defense claimed the money was a loan, but the trial court found the prosecution’s evidence credible, demonstrating that the amounts were given for a specific purpose which de la Cruz failed to fulfill.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s conviction of the petitioner for estafa. A subsidiary issue involves the correct computation of the indeterminate penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. On the factual findings, the Court reiterated the doctrine that factual assessments of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive unless there is a clear showing of arbitrariness. The Court found no reason to deviate from this rule, as the findings on the element of deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation were supported by the evidence, including receipts and testimony detailing the false pretenses.
Regarding the penalty, the Court clarified the computation for estafa where the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00. The basic penalty is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum (4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 8 years). Since the amount of P715,000.00 exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty is imposed in its maximum period (6 years, 8 months, 21 days to 8 years). One year is added for each additional P10,000.00. The total incremental penalty was 69 years, but the law sets a ceiling of 20 years. Thus, the maximum term was fixed at 20 years of reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term was set within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision correccional. The penalty imposed by the lower courts was therefore correct.