Enduring relationship

Pursuant to Article 332 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, “No criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the spouses, ascendants and descendants or relatives by affinity in the same line.” This is the law that Akihiro, a Japanese National, tried to invoke in his case.

Akihiro was married to Teresa, a Filipina and one of the daughters of a widow, Juanita who owned substantial properties particularly four valuable pieces of land in Tagaytay City. Akihiro and Teresa begot six children, the older ones being Hazel and Tricia. Unfortunately, after several years of marriage Teresa died in Japan.

Subsequently, Akihiro and his children returned to the Philippines to stay with Juanita. While staying with Juanita, Akihiro presented a document to her (who was then already blind) and induced her to sign and thumb-mark the same. He made Juanita believe that said document was in connection with her taxes when it was in fact a special power of attorney (SPA) authorizing his minor daughter Hazel to sell and dispose the Tagaytay properties. Relying on these fraudulent representations, Juanita signed and thumb-marked the SPA.

On the basis of said SPA, Akihiro found buyers for property and made Hazel sign three Deeds of Absolute Sale in favor of two Filipino-Chinese women-buyers for a total consideration of P22,034,000. But he neither delivered the proceeds to Juanita nor accounted for the same until the latter died.

Upon her death, one of her surviving daughters, Helen, was appointed administratrix of her estate. Helen learned from her niece Hazel about the fraud committed by Akihiro and thus demanded an accounting and delivery of the proceeds of sale. But Akihiro refused and failed and continued to refuse and fail to do so. So as Administratrix of the estate of her late mother Juanita, Helen filed a complaint affidavit for estafa against her brother-in-law Akihiro.

Thus after preliminary investigation which reached the Department of Justice, the City Prosecutor filed an Information estafa against Akihiro. But the latter moved to quash the Information, claiming that under Article 332 (1) of the Revised Penal Code his relationship to the person defrauded, the deceased Juanita who was his mother-in-law, exempts him from criminal liability.

The Prosecution opposed this motion contending that the death of Teresa, the wife of Akihiro severed the relationship between him and his mother-in-law Juanita. But the RTC still granted the motion and ordered the dismissal of the criminal case against Akihiro declaring that the death of his wife Teresa does not erase the fact that he is still the son-in-law of Teresa’s mother Juanita. So, according to the RTC, he cannot be held criminally liable pursuant to Article 332 of the RPC. This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) .Were the RTC and CA correct?

The Supreme Court ruled that the relationship by affinity endures even after the dissolution of the marriage that produced it as a result of the death of one of the parties to the marriage. So even with the death of Teresa, Akihiro, remains the son-in-law of Juanita. Thus for purposes of Article 332 (1), the relationship by affinity between the surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse survives the death of either party to the marriage which created the affinity.

But said article only applies to the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It does not apply where any of the crimes mentioned therein is complexed with another crime such as estafa through falsification.

A reading of the facts alleged in the Information reveals that Akihiro is being charged not with simple estafa but with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents. Akihiro resorted to falsification of public documents particularly the SPA and the Deeds of Sale, as necessary means to commit the estafa. Article 332 only covers the violation of the juridical right to property committed by the offender against certain family members which is a private matter and therefore subject only to civil liability. The exemption from criminal liability does not apply when the violation of the right to property is achieved through falsification of public documents that involves paramount public interest. So Akihiro should really be tried and held   criminally liable for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents (Estate of Gonzales Vda De Carungcong vs. People and William Sato, G.R. 181408, February 11, 2010)

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]