G.R. No. 181409; February 11, 2010
INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG, represented by MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG, as Administratrix, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and WILLIAM SATO, Respondents.

FACTS

Mediatrix G. Carungcong, as administratrix of the intestate estate of her deceased mother Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong, filed a complaint-affidavit for estafa against her brother-in-law, William Sato. The complaint alleged that Sato, through fraudulent misrepresentations, secured a Special Power of Attorney from the blind and elderly Manolita by making her believe the document pertained to her taxes. The Special Power of Attorney authorized Sato’s minor daughter, Wendy Mitsuko Sato, to sell four parcels of land in Tagaytay City. Using this authority, Sato facilitated the sale of the properties and received the total proceeds of ₱22,034,000. He failed to account for or deliver these proceeds to Manolita before her death. An Information for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 3(a) of the Revised Penal Code was filed against Sato in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Sato moved to quash the Information, invoking Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code as an exempting circumstance, arguing that as the son-in-law of the deceased victim (his mother-in-law), he incurred no criminal liability. The RTC granted Sato’s motion and dismissed the criminal case, ruling that the relationship by affinity between Sato and Manolita persisted despite the death of his wife (Manolita’s daughter), and thus the exemption under Article 332 applied. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s orders. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the relationship by affinity between an accused and the victim, created by marriage, is dissolved by the death of the spouse, thereby terminating the application of Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. Whether the exempting circumstance under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code applies to the complex crime of estafa through falsification.

RULING

1. No. The relationship by affinity between an accused and the victim is not dissolved by the death of the spouse. The exemption under Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code applies to “relatives by affinity in the same line.” The Court held that affinity is the relation between one spouse and the blood relatives of the other. This relationship arises from marriage and is generally considered permanent, not being dissolved by the death of the spouse or by divorce. The law does not provide that the exemption ceases upon the death of the spouse. Therefore, William Sato remained the son-in-law (relative by affinity in the same line) of Manolita even after his wife’s death, and the exemption under Article 332(1) applied to the crime of estafa allegedly committed against her.
2. No. The exempting circumstance under Article 332 does not apply to the complex crime of estafa through falsification. Article 332 explicitly enumerates only three crimes: theft, swindling (estafa), and malicious mischief. The Court ruled that the exemption is personal to the accused and covers only the specific crimes listed. It does not extend to other crimes, even if they are component offenses of a complex crime. In this case, the acts alleged in the Information constituted estafa through falsification. Falsification is a crime distinct from estafa and is not included in the enumeration of Article 332. Consequently, the exemption cannot be invoked for the complex crime. The Court emphasized that the exemption is an exceptional privilege that must be strictly construed.
The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court of Appeals’ decision was reversed and set aside. The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings, with the instruction to deny William Sato’s motion to quash the Information. The Court clarified that while the exemption under Article 332 applied to the estafa component, it did not bar prosecution for the complex crime of estafa through falsification.