INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA.

DE CARUNGCONG, represented
by MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG, as Administratrix, Petitioner
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and WILLIAM SATO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 181409               February 11, 2010

FACTS:

Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong died, leaving Mediatrix Carungcong, her daughter, as
the administratrix of her intestate estate.

Mediatrix filed a complaint-affidavit for Estafa against her brother-in-law, William Sato, herein
respondent. He allegedly deceived his mother-in-law Manolita, who was already blind at that
time, to sign a document that pertains to her taxes but was actually a Special Power of Attorney
authorizing Wendy Mitsuko Sato (his daughter) to sell and transfer four properties of Manolita in
Tagaytay City.

The City prosecutor dismissed the complaint but the Secretary of Justice reversed and set aside
the decision upon appeal and directed the City Prosecutor to file an Information against Sato for
violation of Article 315 par. 3(a) of the RPC.

Contending that his relationship with the person who was allegedly defrauded (Manolita) was
his mother-in-law and that was an exempting circumstance under Article 332 of the RPC,
William moved to quash the information.

The prosecution opposed. The counter argument of the prosecution was that upon the death of
the wife of William Sato, who was the daughter of Manolita, has severed the relationship by
affinity between the accused and Manolita. Thus the mantle of protection provided to the
accused is no longer binding.

In an order dated April 17, 2006, the trial court granted Sato’s motion and ordered dismissal of
the criminal case.

ISSUE:

WON under Article 332 of the RPC William Sato is exempted from criminal liability.

RULING:

No. William Sato is not exempted from criminal liability under Article 332.

The petition to reverse the resolution of dismissal is granted. The trial court is directed to accuse
him of estafa through falsification of Public documents.

William Sato cannot avail for himself the Absolutory Cause provided under Article 332 of RPC in
his favour. The Supreme Court finds the “Continuing Affinity View” in this case applicable, it
maintains that the relationship by affinity between the surviving spouse and the kindred of the
deceased spouse continues even after the death of the deceased spouse regardless of whether
the marriage produced children or not. This view is applies in the interpretation of laws that
intend to benefit step-relatives or in-laws. Since the purpose of the absolutory clause is meant to
be beneficial to relatives by affinity within the degree covered.

Although the relationship by affinity survives the death of either party to the marriage which
created the affinity, Article 332 of the RPC only applies to felonies of theft, swindling, and
malicious mischief. It does not apply to the mentioned crimes which is complexed by
another crime. In this case, theft through falsification of documents. 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.
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 clause.

“WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision dated August 9, 2007 and the
resolution dated January 23, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. S.P. No. 95260
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the trial court which is directed to try the
accused with dispatch for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents.”