Title
Supreme Court
Osorio vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 207711
Decision Date
Jul 2, 2018
A Philam Life agent misled a client into investing P200,000, diverting funds without consent, leading to a conviction for "other deceits" under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 210488)

Case Background and Charges

The petitioner, Maria C. Osorio, was charged with the crime of estafa, specifically under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The charge arose from her alleged fraudulent activities between November 19, 2001, and January 11, 2002, in Manila, where she deceived Josefina O. Gabriel into investing PHP 200,000 under the pretense that her money would earn a 20% annual interest through the Philam Life Fund Management. Osorio purported that the investment would help cover Gabriel's insurance premiums but subsequently misappropriated the funds.

Prosecution's Case

The prosecution's case was built around the testimonies of the private complainant, Gabriel, and witness Alberto Fernandez. Gabriel recounted her initial meetings with Osorio, where she was introduced as a Philam Life agent. Gabriel entered an agreement for insurance coverage and later invested in what she believed was a secure investment based on Osorio's assurances. The prosecution argued that Osorio's misrepresentation led to Gabriel suffering a financial loss, as her insurance policies lapsed due to non-payment of premiums, which were purported to be covered by the investment proceeds.

Osorio's Defense

Osorio's defense centered on her claim that she acted in good faith and that Gabriel consented to the diversion of her investment to another company, Philippine Money Investment Asset Management (PMIAM). She argued that her actions were justified based on the potential for a higher return on investment offered by PMIAM. Osorio contended that she had disclosed this change to Gabriel, who allegedly agreed to the new investment placement.

Regional Trial Court Decision

The Regional Trial Court found Osorio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa and sentenced her to an indeterminate prison term ranging from four years and two months to twenty years of reclusion temporal. The court determined that Osorio's false representations regarding the nature and security of the investment had induced Gabriel to part with her funds, emphasizing that the justifications provided by Osorio did not absolve her of liability.

Court of Appeals Review

On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the Regional Trial Court's decision, affirming Osorio's conviction. It rejected her arguments regarding good faith and consent, asserting that Gabriel had no real choice in accepting the diversion of her investment once her insurance policies lapsed.

Supreme Court's Review

The Supreme Court distinguished between questions of law and fact in its review of the case. It confirmed that the factual findings of the lower courts were binding and noted that the prosecution had sufficiently proven the elements of estafa, specifically the deceit and resulting damages to Gabriel. The Supreme Court clarified that the misrepresentation made by Osorio in directing Gabriel's investment constituted a basis for criminal liability for other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code.

Legal Implications of Misrepresentation

The Supreme Court concluded that Osorio could be liable not only for estafa und

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.