The Supreme Court, in Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. de Carungcong v. People, clarified the scope of Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, particularly concerning relationships by affinity and its effect on criminal liability for estafa. The Court ruled that while the death of a spouse does not dissolve the relationship by affinity for purposes of Article 332, this absolutory cause does not extend to the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents. This decision underscores the importance of balancing familial considerations with public interest in prosecuting complex crimes.

When Family Ties Meet Fraud: Can Death Dissolve Affinity in Estafa?

This case revolves around William Sato, who was charged with estafa for allegedly defrauding his mother-in-law, Manolita Gonzales Vda. de Carungcong. Sato purportedly induced Manolita, who was blind, to sign a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) allowing his daughter to sell her Tagaytay properties. Manolita believed the document concerned her taxes, but Sato allegedly used the SPA to sell the properties and misappropriate the proceeds. The central legal question is whether Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, which exempts certain relatives from criminal liability for theft, estafa, or malicious mischief, applies to Sato, despite the death of his wife (Manolita’s daughter) and the complex nature of the crime (estafa through falsification).

The trial court initially dismissed the case, citing Article 332 and reasoning that Sato remained Manolita’s son-in-law despite his wife’s death. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, emphasizing the lack of legal distinction regarding the dissolution of affinity upon the death of a spouse. However, the Supreme Court reversed these rulings, holding that while the relationship by affinity endures, Article 332 does not cover complex crimes like estafa through falsification of public documents.

The Supreme Court’s analysis hinged on two key issues: the effect of death on relationships by affinity and the scope of Article 332. Regarding affinity, the Court considered two views: the ‘terminated affinity view,’ which holds that affinity ends with the marriage’s dissolution, and the ‘continuing affinity view,’ which maintains that affinity persists even after a spouse’s death. The Court adopted the continuing affinity view for purposes of Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code, stating:

For purposes of Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code, we hold that the relationship by affinity created 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.

This decision aligns with the constitutional mandate to protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. The Court emphasized that preserving family harmony and avoiding scandal are key objectives of Article 332. Furthermore, applying the principle of in dubio pro reo (when in doubt, rule for the accused), the Court favored an interpretation that benefits the accused in cases of ambiguity in penal statutes.

However, the Court clarified that Article 332’s absolution from criminal liability is strictly limited to the simple crimes of theft, swindling, and malicious mischief. The Court stated clearly that:

The plain, categorical and unmistakable language of the provision shows that it applies exclusively to the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It does not apply where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with another crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa through falsification.

In Sato’s case, the Information charged him with estafa. However, the Court determined that the facts alleged constituted the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents. The Information detailed how Sato allegedly deceived Manolita into signing the SPA, falsely representing its purpose. This act of falsification, the Court reasoned, was a necessary means to commit the estafa.

The Court emphasized that the falsification of the SPA allowed Sato to sell Manolita’s properties and misappropriate the proceeds. The estafa was thus not a simple crime but a complex one involving a breach of public interest in the integrity of public documents. The Court distinguished this from simple estafa, where the damage would have been caused at the same time as the execution of the document. The Supreme Court explained that the action provided under Article 332 concerns the private relations of the parties as family members. When estafa is committed through falsification of a public document, the matter acquires a very serious public dimension and goes beyond the respective rights and liabilities of family members among themselves. Effectively, when the offender resorts to an act that breaches public interest in the integrity of public documents as a means to violate the property rights of a family member, he is removed from the protective mantle of the absolutory cause under Article 332.

The Court also addressed the argument that if Sato could not be held criminally liable for simple estafa, he should also be absolved from the complex crime. The Court rejected this, explaining that applying Article 332 to one component crime of a complex crime would unduly expand its scope. A complex crime, although composed of two or more crimes, is treated as one offense with a single criminal liability. The waiver of criminal liability under Article 332, designed to preserve family harmony, does not extend to cases where the violation of property rights is intertwined with a breach of public interest, like falsification of documents. In a complex crime, there is only one criminal intent, even if one offense is a necessary means to commit the other. This contrasts with a material plurality of crimes, where different criminal intents result in separate crimes.

Finally, the Court clarified that the falsification of the SPA was indeed a “necessary means” to commit the estafa, even under Article 315 (3[a]) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court referred to People v. Salvilla:

In People v. Salvilla, the phrase “necessary means” merely signifies that one crime is committed to facilitate and insure the commission of the other.

The falsification was consummated when Manolita signed the SPA, believing it related to her taxes. The estafa was consummated later, when Sato used the SPA to sell the properties and pocket the proceeds. This sequence of events demonstrates that the falsification was used to facilitate and ensure the commission of the estafa. If Manolita had signed a deed of sale directly, the crime would have been simple estafa. If there was no inducement, the crime would have only been falsification.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides an absolutory cause for certain relatives in cases of theft, estafa, and malicious mischief, applies to the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents committed by a son-in-law against his deceased wife’s mother.
Does the death of a spouse dissolve relationships by affinity?	The Supreme Court adopted the ‘continuing affinity view,’ holding that the relationship by affinity between a surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse survives the death of either party for the purposes of Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code.
What crimes are covered by the absolutory cause in Article 332?	The absolutory cause under Article 332 only applies to the simple crimes of theft, swindling, and malicious mischief. It does not extend to complex crimes where these offenses are combined with other crimes, such as estafa through falsification of public documents.
What is the difference between simple estafa and estafa through falsification?	Simple estafa involves defrauding another person, while estafa through falsification involves using a falsified document as a necessary means to commit the fraud. The falsification breaches public interest in the integrity of public documents, making it a more serious offense.
Why was Sato charged with estafa through falsification?	Sato was charged with estafa through falsification because he allegedly induced his mother-in-law to sign a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) under false pretenses, then used the SPA to sell her properties and misappropriate the proceeds. The deceit regarding the nature of the document, which was a falsification, was a necessary means for him to commit the estafa.
What does ‘necessary means’ signify in the context of complex crimes?	‘Necessary means’ signifies that one crime is committed to facilitate and ensure the commission of another. In Sato’s case, the falsification of the SPA was the necessary means to facilitate and carry out his scheme to swindle his mother-in-law.
How does Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code relate to this case?	Article 48 addresses complex crimes, where a single act constitutes two or more grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing another. In this case, falsification of the SPA was deemed the necessary means to commit estafa, resulting in a single complex crime.
What was the Supreme Court’s final ruling?	The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and remanded the case to the trial court, directing it to proceed with the trial of Sato for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case clarifies that while familial relationships by affinity are recognized under Article 332, they do not provide a blanket exemption from criminal liability, especially in cases involving complex crimes that undermine public interests. The ruling reinforces the principle that acts of falsification used to commit fraud against family members are subject to criminal prosecution, balancing familial considerations with the need to uphold the integrity of public documents.

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: Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. de Carungcong v. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010