Enduring relationship

A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) - Jose C. Sison (The

Philippine Star)

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)