Arias v. People

 

Arias v. People

G.R. No. 237106-07

June 10, 2019

FACTS:

                That during the period from March to December, 2001, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named high-ranking public officials and employees of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Port Area, Manila, namely:

JULIO T. MARTINEZ, then the Clerk/Supply Officer, BURT FAVORITO y BARBA, Director III, Administrative and Manpower Management Services (SG 27), FLORENDO ARIAS y BUNAG, Assistant Director, Bureau of Equipment (SG 27) and other persons/employees, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to defraud the government, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously forge and falsify or cause to be forged and falsified documents, purportedly for emergency repairs of various DPWH vehicles and/or purchase of spare parts, with a total amount of P6,368,364 and thereafter, cause the payment of said fictitious repairs and/or purchase of spare parts in the said total amount from funds held in trust and for administration by the said public officers, and which payments were made by the government on the basis of and relying on said forged and falsified documents, when in truth and in fact, the accused knew fully well that there were no emergency repairs of DPWH vehicles and/or purchases of spare parts, which said amount, accused, thereafter, willfully, unlawfully and criminally take, convert and misappropriate, to the personal use and benefit of person(s) not entitled to receive said funds, to the damage and prejudice of the government and the public interest in the aforesaid sum.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the Sandaganbayan erred in convicting Arias for the crime of violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019.

HELD:

                No. Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) reads, as follows: Article 315. Swindling (Estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow  2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. The elements of the above crime are the following: 1. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; 2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; 3. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and 4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. All the elements of the crime of Estafa through Falsification of Official/Commercial Documents were established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The crime committed was the complex crime of Estafa Through Falsification of Documents, as charged in the Information dated March 1, 2005. When the offender commits on a public, official or commercial document any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC as a necessary means to commit another crime like Estafa under Article 315 of the RPC, the two crimes form a complex crime under Article 48 of the same law. A complex crime, as earlier defined, may refer to a single act which constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies or to an offense as a necessary means for committing another. Wherefore SB Resolution affirmed.