When someone receives money to invest in a specific company but instead invests it elsewhere without the investor’s permission, they can be held criminally liable for other forms of deceit under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. This law is designed to cover various types of deception that don’t fall under the more specific articles addressing fraud, ensuring that individuals who misuse funds are held accountable, even if their actions don’t precisely fit traditional definitions of estafa. This ruling protects investors by ensuring transparency and adherence to agreed-upon investment plans.

From Philam Life to PMIAM: When Promised Investments Take Unexpected Turns

In Maria C. Osorio v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court addressed whether an individual could be convicted of estafa when she misrepresented to an investor that their funds would be invested in a specific company (Philam Life), but instead diverted those funds to another company (PMIAM) without the investor’s explicit consent. The case revolves around the interpretation of Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, which defines estafa as swindling through false pretenses or fraudulent acts. The court ultimately found Osorio not guilty of estafa under this article, but liable for other deceits under Article 318.

The facts of the case are as follows: Josefina Gabriel, a stall owner in Manila, was approached by Maria Osorio, who identified herself as an agent of Philam Life. Osorio offered Gabriel an investment opportunity with Philam Life Fund Management, promising a 20% annual return. Gabriel, enticed by the offer, invested P200,000.00 with Osorio, who issued Philam Life receipts. However, Gabriel later discovered that her investment had been diverted to Philippine Money Investment Asset Management (PMIAM) without her prior consent. While PMIAM sent Gabriel a letter thanking her for the investment and indicating she would earn interest, Gabriel was displeased and requested a refund of her initial investment. Although she received a partial payment, she was unable to recover the full amount. The pivotal question before the Supreme Court was whether Osorio’s actions constituted estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code addresses swindling, also known as estafa, stating:

Article 315. Swindling (Estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
. . . .

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 key elements required to sustain a conviction under this provision are that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to one’s power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and as a result, the offended party suffered damage.

The Supreme Court clarified that the element of deceit under Article 315(2)(a) was not sufficiently proven. While Osorio misrepresented that the investment would be with Philam Life, she did not use a fictitious name or falsely claim to be a Philam Life agent. In fact, it was confirmed that she was indeed a Philam Life agent. However, the Court also clarified that, although Osorio could not be convicted under Article 315(2)(a), she could be held liable for other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 318 serves as a catch-all provision to cover forms of deceit not specifically listed in Articles 315, 316, and 317, ensuring that individuals who commit deceitful acts causing damage are still held accountable under the law.

The legal reasoning behind the decision hinged on the scope and application of Article 318. This article states:

Article 318. Other Deceits. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of the damage caused and not more than twice such amount shall be imposed upon any person who shall defraud or damage another by any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles of this chapter.

The Court noted that all the elements of Article 318 were present: Osorio made a false representation about where the money would be invested, this representation was made before Gabriel parted with her funds, and Gabriel suffered damage as a result of the misrepresentation. The Court emphasized that Osorio’s deviation from the agreed-upon investment plan constituted deceit, even if it didn’t fall under the specific categories listed in Article 315.

The Supreme Court distinguished this case from typical money market transactions, where dealers often have discretion on where to place investments. In this instance, there was a specific agreement that the funds would be invested in Philam Life. The Court cited MERALCO v. Atilano, stating:

[I]n money market transactions, the dealer is given discretion on where investments are to be placed, absent any agreement with or instruction from the investor to place the investments in specific securities.

Because Osorio violated this specific agreement, she could not claim the leeway typically afforded in money market dealings. Even though Osorio was charged with estafa under Article 315(2)(a), the Court invoked the rule on variance under Rule 120, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows a defendant to be convicted of a lesser offense if that offense is necessarily included in the crime charged.

The Court also addressed the defense that Gabriel eventually consented to the investment in PMIAM. The Court found that this alleged ratification was not genuine consent, as Gabriel’s insurance policies had already lapsed, placing her in a precarious position. This lack of genuine consent was evidenced by Gabriel’s continued requests for a refund, even after receiving initial interest payments. Therefore, the Court upheld Osorio’s conviction, albeit under Article 318 rather than Article 315(2)(a), ensuring accountability for her deceitful actions. As a result, the Supreme Court affirmed with modification the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding Osorio guilty of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Maria Osorio committed estafa by misrepresenting that Josefina Gabriel’s investment would be placed in Philam Life when she actually invested it in PMIAM without Gabriel’s consent. The Supreme Court ultimately addressed whether the misdirection of investment funds constituted estafa or another form of deceit under the Revised Penal Code.
What is estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code?	Estafa, under Article 315(2)(a), involves defrauding another by using fictitious names, falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, or through other similar deceits. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused employed such deceit to induce the victim to part with their money or property.
Why was Osorio not found guilty of estafa under Article 315(2)(a)?	Osorio was not found guilty of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) because the prosecution did not sufficiently prove that she used a fictitious name or falsely claimed to be a Philam Life agent. While she misrepresented the investment destination, her actions didn’t align with the specific forms of deceit outlined in that particular article.
What is Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code?	Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code covers “Other Deceits,” serving as a catch-all provision for fraudulent acts not specifically defined in Articles 315, 316, and 317. It ensures that individuals who cause damage through deceitful means are held accountable, even if their actions don’t fit neatly into other estafa classifications.
What are the elements of Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code?	The elements of Article 318 include a false pretense, fraudulent act, or pretense not covered in Articles 315, 316, and 317; the false pretense must occur before or during the commission of the fraud; and the offended party must suffer damage or prejudice as a result. The damage or prejudice suffered by the offended party should be proven.
How did the court justify convicting Osorio under Article 318 when she was charged under Article 315?	The court justified the conviction under Article 318 by invoking the rule on variance, which allows a defendant to be convicted of a lesser offense if it’s necessarily included in the crime charged. Since the elements of deceit and damage are common to both Article 315 and Article 318, the conviction was deemed appropriate.
Was Josefina Gabriel’s eventual consent to the PMIAM investment considered valid by the court?	No, Gabriel’s eventual consent was not considered valid because her insurance policies had already lapsed, placing her in a vulnerable position. The court determined that her consent was not freely given but rather a result of the circumstances created by Osorio’s initial misrepresentation.
What was the penalty imposed on Maria Osorio?	Maria Osorio was sentenced to a penalty of two (2) months and (1) day to four (4) months of arresto mayor and ordered to pay a fine of P200,000.00, which corresponds to the amount of damage caused to Josefina Gabriel. The penalty reflects the application of Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code.

This case underscores the importance of transparency and adherence to agreed-upon terms when handling investments. While Article 315(2)(a) requires specific forms of deceit, Article 318 ensures that individuals who engage in other forms of deceit that cause damage are still held accountable. This ruling serves as a reminder that investors must be informed and give explicit consent when their funds are diverted from the initially agreed-upon investment vehicle.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Maria C. Osorio v. People, G.R. No. 207711, July 02, 2018