SECOND DIVISION
February 27, 2017
G.R. No. 211917
NORMA C. GAMARO and JOSEPHINE G. UMALI, Petitioners
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which seeks the reversal of the Decision2 dated November 25, 2013, and Resolution3 dated February 21, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 34454. The CA affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, San Pablo City in Criminal Case No. 15407 finding petitioner Norma C. Gamaro guilty of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, while exonerating petitioner Josephine G. Umali from the crime charged. The RTC also adjudged the petitioners jointly and severally liable to pay the monetary awards in favor of private complainant Joan Fructoza E. Fineza.
The factual antecedents are as follows:
On March 1, 2005, the petitioners were charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), of the Revised Penal Code before Branch 3 2 of the RTC of San Pablo City under the following Information:
That on or about January 2, 2002, in the City of San Pablo, Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused above-named, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there, defraud one JOAN FRUCTOZA E. FINEZA, in the following manner, to wit: That Norma C. Gamaro, pretending that she is knowledgeable in the business of buy and sell of jewelry, other merchandise and financing, assuring complainant of a sure market and big profit lure and entice complainant Joan Fructoza E. Fineza to enter into the business and the latter purchased and delivered to her the jewelry amounting to ₱2,292,519.00 with the obligation to manage the business for private complainant and remit the proceeds of the sale to her, but accused, far from complying, with her obligation, managed the business as her own, failing to remit the proceeds of the sale and pledging jewelries to Lluillier Pawnshop where accused Josephine Umali work while the checks issued by respondent Rowena Gamaro to guarantee their payment were all dishonoured for having been drawn against insufficient funds, to the damage and prejudice of the offended party in the aforementioned amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
When arraigned on August 4, 2005, petitioners pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, while accused Rowena C. Gamaro remained at-large.5 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The evidence disclosed the following facts:
Sometime in 2002, private complainant Joan Fructoza E. Fineza (Fineza) engaged in a business venture with petitioner Norma C. Gamaro and her daughters - petitioners Josephine G. Umali (Umali) and accused Rowena Gamaro Fineza would buy any foreclosed pieces of jewelry from M. Lhuillier Pawnshop whenever informed by Umali who was then the manager of the said pawnshop located at Basa St., San Pablo City, Laguna. The pieces of jewelry would then be sold for profit by Norma Gamaro to her co-employees at the Social Security System (SSS) in San Pablo City. The proceeds of the sale would then be divided among them in the following manner: fifty percent (50%) would go to Fineza, while the other fifty percent (50%) would be divided among Umali, Norma Gamaro and Rowena Gamaro. As security for the pieces of jewelry which were placed in the possession of Norma Gamaro and her daughter Rowena Gamaro, the two would issue several checks drawn from their joint bank account in favor of Fineza reflecting the appraised amount of the pieces of jewelry.6
The business venture was initially successful. However, when Fineza discovered that Norma Gamaro, together with her daughters Rowena Gamaro and Umali, also engaged in a similar business with other suppliers of pieces of jewelry, she decided to terminate the business. To wind up the business, it was agreed that Norma Gamaro and Rowena Gamaro would just dispose or sell the remaining pieces of jewelry in their possession. But when Fineza tried to encash the checks which were issued to her by Rowena Gamaro, the same were dishonored because the account of the Gamaros had been closed. Fineza then confronted petitioner Norma Gamaro about the dishonored checks, and the latter confessed that she did not have enough money to cover the amount of the checks. Fineza also learned that the pieces of jewelry were pawned to several pawnshops and private individuals contrary to what they had agreed upon. Petitioner Norma Gamaro furnished Fineza with a list of the pawnshops, such that, the latter was compelled to redeem the pieces of jewelry with her own money. It appeared in the pawnshop tickets that it was the nephew of Norma Gamaro named Frederick San Diego who pledged the pieces of jewelry.7
To settle the matter, Fineza asked Norma Gamaro to return the remaining pieces of jewelry in her possession but the latter failed to do so, and instead, offered her house and lot as payment for the pieces of jewelry. Fineza, however, did not accept the said offer.8
A demand letter was then sent by Fineza to Umali, Norma Gamaro and Rowena Gamaro, dated February 16, 2004, asking for the return of the amount of ₱2,292,519.00 as payment for all the pieces of jewelry which were not returned to her, including the cash given by Fineza for the rediscounting business. The demand letter was left unanswered.9
For her part, Norma Gamaro, averred that she had no involvement in the jewelry business of her daughters. Umali likewise denied having any business dealings with her sister Rowena Gamaro and with Fineza. While admitting that there were pieces of jewelry pledged by her cousin, Frederick San Diego, in the pawnshop where she was the manager, Umali denied that she knew where those pieces of jewelry came from.10
On July 25, 2011, the RTC issued a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
premises considered, this court hereby renders judgment, as follows:WHEREFORE,
a. FINDING accused Norma Gamaro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa as defined and penalized under Section 1 (b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences her to suffer the indeterminate prison term of Four (4) Years and Two (2) Months of Prision Correccional, as Minimum, to Twenty (20) Years of Reclusion Temporal, as Maximum;
b. EXONERATING accused Josephine G. Umali of any criminal liability;
c. DIRECTING both accused Norma Gamaro and Josephine Umali to pay the private complainant jointly and solidarily the following amounts:
1. ₱1,259,841.46, plus legal interest from date of demand on February 16, 2004, until fully paid;
2. ₱50,000.00 for and by way of moral damages;
3. ₱25,000.00, for and by way of exemplary damages;
4. ₱50,000.00, for and by way of attorney's fees; and
5. To pay the costs.
Let a warrant issue for the arrest of Rowena Gamaro. The Bureau of Immigration is likewise directed to issue a HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER against ROWENA GAMARO, her personal circumstances are as follows:
Name: ROWENA C. GAMARO
Former Residence: Lot 20, Block 16, National Housing Authority (NHA), Brgy. San Jose, San Pablo City
SO ORDERED.11