People v. Fortuno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Fidel Fortuno, was charged with estafa for fraudulently appropriating a "frigidaire" valued at P450, owned by H. E. Heacock Company. He had received the item under the obligation to return it within two days of demand. Procedural History: Fidel Fortuno pleaded guilty to the charge of estafa before the Court of First Instance of Manila, waiving preliminary investigation. He was immediately sentenced to four months and one day of arresto mayor, to indemnify H. E. Heacock Company in the amount of P450, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay half the costs. The Appeal: Despite his confession, the accused appealed the sentence to the Supreme Court, alleging that the judgment was not in accordance with law. The sole error assigned was that the sentence did not grant him the alternative of returning the "frigidaire" or paying its fair value.
Issue(s)
Whether the sentence imposed by the lower court for the crime of estafa is in accordance with law, specifically regarding the penalty and the accused's right to restitution. Whether the accused should be given the alternative to return the misappropriated property or pay its value.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the appealed decision. It affirmed the conviction and the penalty imposed but modified the sentence to grant the appellant the alternative of returning the "frigidaire" to H. E. Heacock Company or, in default thereof, paying its value of P450, in accordance with Articles 104, 105, and 106 of the Revised Penal Code. No costs were awarded in the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court affirmed that the penalty for estafa, where the amount defrauded exceeds P200 but does not exceed P6,000, is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, which translates to four months and one day of arresto mayor to two years and four months of prision correccional. The lower court imposed the minimum penalty, which was deemed correct. The Court's primary concern was not the penalty itself but the manner of restitution. On Issue 2: The Court found that the sentence should have granted the accused the alternative to either return the "frigidaire" or pay its value. This is a procedural right afforded to the accused under the Revised Penal Code, ensuring that the offended party is compensated for their loss. The Court explicitly stated that the sentence was modified to include this alternative, citing Articles 104, 105, and 106 of the Revised Penal Code, which govern restitution and reparation of damages. This modification ensures that the offended party receives the value of the property if the property itself cannot be returned.
Main Doctrine
The crime of estafa, when the amount defrauded exceeds P200 but does not exceed P6,000, is punishable under Article 315, case 3.º of the Revised Penal Code with arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. The Court modified the sentence to allow the accused the alternative of returning the misappropriated property or paying its value.