Estafa is the legal term for swindling [panloloko] committed using any fraudulent means. It happens when someone deceives another who suffers damages by misrepresenting themselves as someone else or by promising they can do things they cannot. The damages may refer to the loss of money, personal property or valuables as a result of the deceit. Together with fraud, these are the elements that have to be present for a case to qualify as estafa.
In general, the elements of estafa include: [a] fraud – when a person defrauds another through abuse of confidence or by deceit and [b] the victim suffers damage – capable of monetary estimation.
Under the Revised Penal Code, there are four separate articles on estafa: Article 315 – swindling, divided into three ways of committing it thru (1) unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; (2) deceit or fraudulent acts and (3) fraudulent means] and each of which is further subdivided into not less than three modes of committing it; Article 316 – other forms of swindling; Article 317 – swindling a minor; and Article 318 – other deceits.
As a rule, one can only be convicted of the crime with which one is charged. This rule proceeds from the Constitutional guarantee that an accused shall always be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her. An exception to this is the rule on variance [when what was proven is different from what was alleged in the Information].
An accused may be convicted of the offense proved if it is included in the offense charged. An accused may also be convicted of the offense charged if it is necessarily included in the offense proved. The application of the rule on variance in relation to estafa was explained in the case of Osorio v. People, G.R. No. 207711 dated 02 July 2018 where accused enticed the victim to engage in an investment scheme for one company, but she invested the same to a different company. The Supreme Court found Osorio guilty of violating of other deceits under Article 318, but not of Article 315.
Gabriel met a Philam Life agent Maria Osorio, who offered insurance coverage and investment opportunity that will earn 20 percent every year, which will cover the payment of her insurance premium. Enticed, she gave P200,000. Her insurance policies lapsed for non-payment of premiums. She learned that her money was invested with Philippine Money Investment Asset Management [PMIAM], not to Philam Life. When confronted, Maria explained that PMIAM investments would yield a higher rate of return. Displeased with what had happened, Gabriel asked for a full refund. She received P13,000 from PMIAM, but did not recover her money.
Maria was charged with estafa under Article 315. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted her. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction. She again appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 315 is not the proper crime of conviction because there is no proof that Maria Osorio pretended to possess the authority to solicit investments for Philam Life.
In estafa, by means of deceit under Article 315 [2] [a], Revised Penal Code, the false pretense must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, criminal liability will not attach. But, she is still liable for other deceits under Article 318 for misrepresenting the money would be invested in Philam Life and its proceeds would be used to pay the insurance premiums. This false representation is what induced Gabriel to part her funds and disregard the payment of her insurance premiums. As Osorio deviated from what was originally agreed upon by placing the investment in another company, the insurance policy lapsed.
Persons who receive money for investment in a particular company but divert the same to another without the investor’s consent may be held criminally liable for other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code [RPC]. Article 318 of the RPC is broad in scope intended to cover all other kinds of deceit not falling under Articles 315, 316, and 317. Although Maria Osorio was still convicted, yet her sentence of four years to 20 years rendered by the RTC under Article 315 was reduced to two months to four months for what she violated was Article 318.
