Juvy Desmoparan

Juvy Desmoparan vs.
People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 233598, March 27, 2019
Peralta, J.:
FACTS: The accused here is Juvy Desmoparan. He misrepresented himself

to be an employee of the City Engineer’s Office in Dumaguete, by using the
name “Rodulfo M. Cordura,” to apply a salary loan from the Cooperative.
Desmoparan was complete in his fraudulent scheme such as he had an ID with
his picture on it, but bearing the name of another person namely “Rodulfo M.
Cordura”. He did this to fraudulently support his application for loan from the
Cooperative.The Cooperative believed his misrepresentation and the former
released to him the amount of P40,000.00. Soon this act was discovered by the
real Rodulfo Cordura and Desmoparan was arrested. The accused was
convicted of the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents by
RTC. CA affirmed and thus this appeal to the SC.
ISSUES: Whether or not the conviction should be affirmed?
Held: The conviction is affirmed.
According to the accused there a need for the prosecution to present direct proof
that he (Desmoparan) was the author of the falsification which is absent in this
case.
According to the Supreme Court: It cannot be said that just because none of
the prosecution witnesses actually saw Desmoparan do the act of
falsifying, the latter cannot be held liable for falsification. Considering that
Desmoparan had in his possession the falsified loan documents and had actually
took advantage of and profited from them, the presumption is that he is the
material author of the falsification The absence of a direct proof that
Desmoparan was the author of the falsification is of no moment for the rule
remains that whenever someone has in his possession falsified documents
and uttered or used the same for his advantage and benefit, the
presumption that he authored it arises. In the absence of a satisfactory
explanation, one who is found in possession of a forged document and who used
or uttered it is presumed to be the forger.
The elements of the crime of falsification of commercial documents under Article

172 (1), in relation to Article 171, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
RA10951, are: “(1) that the offender is a private individual (2) that the offender
committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code; and, (3) that the act of falsification is committed in a
commercial document.”
Here, all the above-mentioned elements were sufficiently established.
First, Desmoparan is a private individual; second, the acts of falsification

consisted in Desmoparan’s act of causing it to appear that Cordura had
participated in the act of applying for a loan when, in fact, he did not do so;
and third, the falsification was committed in a loan application, a deed of
assignment, and a promissory note, which are all commercial documents.
DESMOPARAN IS GUILTY OF THE COMPLEX CRIME OF ESTAFA

THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS SINCE THE
CRIME OF FALSIFICATION WAS ESTABLISHED TO BE A NECESSARY
MEANS TO COMMIT ESTAFA.
Here, Desmoparan used the falsified documents bearing the name and
qualifications of Cordura in fraudulently applying for a salary loan from CFI
Cooperative, which resulted in therelease and withdrawing of the cash advance
of P40,000.00 from CFI Cooperative. Clearly, Desmoparan employed deceit by
falsifying loan documents in order to take hold of the money and, thereafter,
convert it to his own personal use and benefit, resulting in the damage and
prejudice of CFI Cooperative and Cordura.
When the offender commits on a public, official, or commercial document any of

the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171of the Revised Penal Code as a
necessary means to commit another crime like estafa, the two crimes form a
complex crime. Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code,there are two
classes of a complex crime. A complex crime 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.
Here, Desmoparan could not have succeeded in getting hold of the money

without falsifying the loan documents bearing the name and qualifications of
Cordura, and make it appear that he is actually the real Cordura. The falsification
was, therefore, a necessary means to commit estafa, and falsification was
already consummated even before the falsified documents were used to defraud
CFI.
—————————————
Penalty: Omitted from the Students view: With the passage of RA 10951, the
penalties of some crimes which are dependent on the value of the subject matter
of the crimes have been greatly affected, and one of these is estafa. The law
being more favorable to the Desmoparan, the same is given a retroactive effect.
Below is the comparison of the penalty for Estafa under the old provisions of the
Revised Penal Code and RA 10951.
Revised Penal Code RA 10951
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — xxx

ART. 315. Swindling
1st. The penalty of prision correccional (estafa). — xxx
in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is 4th. By arresto mayor in
over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 its medium and
pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter maximum periods, if
sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph such amount does not
shall be imposed in its maximum period, exceed Forty thousand
adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos (P40,000)
pesos; xxx
On the other hand, hereunder is the comparison of the penalties of falsification of

commercial documents under the old provisions of the Revised Penal Code and
RA 10951:
Revised Penal Code RA 10951
Art. 172. Falsification by private

individual and use of falsified ART. 172. Falsification by private
documents. — The penalty of individual and use of falsified documents.
prision correccional in its – The penalty of prision correccional in
medium and maximum periods its medium and maximum periods and
and a fine of not more than a fine of not more than One million
P5,000 pesos shall be pesos (P1,000,000) shall be imposed xxx
imposed xxx
From the given comparisons, both under the Revised Penal Code and RA 10951,
the imposable penalty for estafa is based on the amount of damage. In this case,
the amount defrauded is Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00), representing the
total amount of money actually released and received by Desmoparan from CFI.
As such, the prescribed penalty as provided under paragraph 4, Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 10951, is arresto mayor in its medium
and maximum periods, since the amount does not exceed Forty Thousand Pesos
(P40,000.00). Meanwhile, under the old provisions of the Revised Penal Code,
the imposable penalty is prision correccional, in its maximum period, to prision
mayor, in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over Twelve Thousand
Pesos (P12,000.00), but does not exceed Twenty-Two Thousand Pesos
(P22,000.00); and, if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided
in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for
each additional Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). Thus, the penalty for estafa
under the new law should be given retroactive effect, being more favorable to the
petitioner.
In contrast, for falsification of a commercial document, the penalty of

imprisonment is the same for both Article 172 (1), in relation to Article 171 (2), of
the Revised Penal Code and RA 10951 which is prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods, albeit, the imposable fine is different. Under the Revised
Penal Code, the imposable fine is not more than Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00); while under RA 10951, the imposable fine is not more than One
Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00).
Thus, the penalty of imprisonment in the crime of estafa under RA 10951 is now
lighter than the penalty of imprisonment for falsification of commercial
documents. Applying then the provisions of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents,
the penalty for the graver offense should be imposed in the maximum period.
Thus, the penalty for falsification of commercial documents should be imposed in
the maximum period, being the more serious crime than estafa. However, the
penalty of fine of not more than Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) under the old
law should be imposed because this is more favorable to the petitioner than the
penalty of fine of not more than One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) under the
present law.
We, thus, modify the indeterminate sentence imposable on Desmoparan so that
the minimum term should, come from the penalty next lower in degree which is
arresto mayor, maximum, to prision correccional, minimum (4 months and 1 day
to 2 years and 4 months), and the maximum term should come from prision
correccional, medium, to prision correccional, maximum, in its maximum period
(4 years, 9 months and 11 days to 6 years).”

Juvy Desmoparan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Juvy Desmoparan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Juvy Desmoparan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Juvy Desmoparan vs.

People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 233598, March 27, 2019

FACTS: The accused here is Juvy Desmoparan. He misrepresented himself

ISSUES: Whether or not the conviction should be affirmed?

Held: The conviction is affirmed.

The elements of the crime of falsification of commercial documents under Article

Here, all the above-mentioned elements were sufficiently established.

First, Desmoparan is a private individual; second, the acts of falsification

DESMOPARAN IS GUILTY OF THE COMPLEX CRIME OF ESTAFA

When the offender commits on a public, official, or commercial document any of

Here, Desmoparan could not have succeeded in getting hold of the money

Revised Penal Code RA 10951

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — xxx

On the other hand, hereunder is the comparison of the penalties of falsification of

Revised Penal Code RA 10951

Art. 172. Falsification by private

In contrast, for falsification of a commercial document, the penalty of

You might also like