G.R. No. 262084 , April 03, 2024
MAYCEL BALUCERO NANZAN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Maycel Balucero Nanzan, along with four other individuals, was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. The Information alleged that on or about June 27, 2013, the accused, conspiring together, defrauded Oaña Credit Solutions, Inc. (Oaña Credit) by means of false pretenses. They represented that they would cause the release to Oaña Credit of the proceeds of a pre-approved loan with PS Bank Zapote Branch to secure a bridge financing loan of PHP 2,565,325.00. These representations were false as the accused never intended to release the PS Bank loan proceeds to Oaña Credit, causing damage and prejudice to the latter.
The prosecution evidence established that Nanzan and co-accused Rodella Alterado applied for the bridge loan from Oaña Credit, misrepresenting that Rodella and her husband had a pre-approved loan with PS Bank. A PS Bank supervisor confirmed the existence of this pre-approved loan. A Loan Agreement was executed with Nanzan as borrower, stipulating that the debt would be paid from the PS Bank loan proceeds. Oaña Credit released the loan amount to Nanzan. The PS Bank loan proceeds were later released to the spouses Alterado and conveyed to Nanzan, who executed a Deed of Assignment of Loan Proceeds in favor of Oaña Credit. However, Oaña Credit never received the proceeds. Nanzan issued a check to Oaña Credit, but it was dishonored for insufficient funds.
After the prosecution rested, Nanzan filed a demurrer to evidence, which was denied. She then waived her right to present evidence. The RTC found her guilty of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) and sentenced her to an indeterminate prison term and ordered her to pay civil indemnity. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed her conviction but modified the crime to Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing her to a lower penalty and a fine. The CA denied her motion for reconsideration, prompting this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly convicted petitioner Maycel Balucero Nanzan of the crime of Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly convicted the petitioner of Other Deceits under Article 318. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s Decision and Resolution with modification regarding the penalty.
The Supreme Court held that the elements of Other Deceits under Article 318 are: (1) the offender defrauded another; (2) the fraud was committed by means of any of the following: (a) using a fictitious name, or (b) falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions, or (c) by means of other similar deceits; (3) the act of defraudation is made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud; and (4) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party.
All these elements were present. Nanzan, through false pretenses regarding the payment source of the bridge loan (the PS Bank proceeds), induced Oaña Credit to release the loan amount. This deceit was employed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud. Oaña Credit suffered damage in the amount of PHP 2,565,325.00 when the promised proceeds were never delivered.
The Court agreed with the CA that the deceit employed did not fall under the specific deceits enumerated in Article 315(2)(a) (such as using a fictitious name or pretending to possess power, influence, etc.), as Nanzan did not use a fictitious name or pretend to possess any of the attributes listed. Therefore, her liability was properly classified under Article 318, which is a catch-all provision for deceits not covered by Articles 315 to 317.
The variance doctrine under Section 4, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure allows conviction for a crime proved that is included in the crime charged. Other Deceits under Article 318 is included in Estafa under Article 315(2)(a), as both involve deceit and damage. Thus, conviction under Article 318 was proper even though the Information alleged Estafa under Article 315.
The Court modified the penalty. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the amount of the fine imposed (PHP 2,565,325.00) as the basis for the penalty under Article 318, the proper penalty is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods (1 month and 1 day to 4 months). The indeterminate sentence imposed is two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor minimum as minimum, to four (4) months of arresto mayor medium as maximum. The fine of PHP 2,565,325.00 is affirmed. The civil liability for the same amount is deleted, as the fine imposed operates as civil liability under Article 112 of the Revised Penal Code.