F R E E
Subscription to Living, Retiring, Traveling, Business In The Phils. Discussion List
15, 000+ members

Chapter 1

ESTAFA

“In estafa, the person prejudiced or the immediate victim of the fraud need not be the owner of the goods misappropriated — the use by the law of the word ‘another’ instead of the word ‘owner’ means that as an element of the offense, loss should have fallen upon someone other than the perpetrator of the crime.” —Mi. Justice Puno

ESTAFA DEFINED AND EXPLAINED

Estafa is committed by a person who defrauds another causing him to suffer damage, by means of unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, or of false pretense opt fraudulent acts. For the existence of the crime of estafa, two elements are indispensable: fraud and damage.2 In other words, the essential elements of estafa are: (1) The deceit employed to defraud another; and (2) the injury or damage caused thereby.

Swindling or estafa under the Revised Penal Code

ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person, who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by law:

1st. The penalty of prison correcional in its maximum period to prison mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such case, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prison mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.

2nd. The penalty of prison correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and

3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prison correctional in its minimum period, if such amounts is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and

4th. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if such amount does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means:

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: (a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality of anything of value which the offender shall deliver by virtue of an obligation to do so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration. (b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or in commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property. (c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by writing any document above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or any third person.

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. (b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business. (c) By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny, which the offended party may deem proper to bring against the offender party may deem proper to bring against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty. (d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. (As amended by Rep. Act No. 4885, approved June 17, 1967.). (e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house and the like without paying therefore, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof, or by obtaining credit at a hotel inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house by the use of any false pretense, or by abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house or apartment house after obtaining credit, food, refreshment or accommodation therein without paying for his food, refreshment, or accommodation. (As amended by Corn. Act No. 157.)

3. Through any of the following fraudulent means: (a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.
(b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game. (c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any court record, office files, document or any other papers.

The case Zalazar vs. People, 391 SCRA 154.

In this case, the Supreme Court hold that: “Even a temporary (disturbance of property rights constitutes misappropriation. The words ‘convert’ and ‘misappropriate’ as used in Article 315, par 1 (b), Revised Penal Code, connote an act of disposing another’s property as if it were one’s own, or drawing of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. “Moreover, the element of demand in estafa is satisfied if it demand is made is made upon the corporation in which the accused is an officer if at the time of such demand it is not known that the accused is the one primarily liable of the act complained of. Finally, “it is not necessary that the proper ‘offended party’ file a complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by the fiscal. A complaint filed with the fiscal may be filed by any person. If a complaint is filed directly in court, the same must be filed by the offended party and in case of an information, the same must be filed by the fiscal. Portions of the decision follow.

For failure of Aurora/Uni-Group to deliver the ladies jeans or to account for the US$41,300.00 despite demand, Skiva, through its local agent represented by Ms. Tujan, filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Mr. Lettmayr and petitioner. After preliminary investigation, the Public Prosecutor dismissed the complaint against Mr. Lettmayr and an information was filed against petitioner.” After trial, the lower court convicted herein petitioner of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prison mayor as the minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as the maximum and to pay Uni-Group and Aurora the amount of P595,259.00. On March 13, 1997, the lower court denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court and denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. Aggrieved by the aforementioned rulings, petitioner files the instant petition for review.

The petition is bereft of merit.

The following are the elements of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code: (a) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same; (b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender; or denial on his part of such receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (ci) there is demand made by the offended party to the offender.

We agree with the trial court’s finding that the contract between Skiva and Aurora/Uni-Group was one of sale. Thus, upon remittance by Skiva of its advance payment in the amount of US$41,300.00, ownership thereof was transferred to Aurora/UniGroup and Aurora/Uni-Group had no obligation under the contract of sale being to deliver the 700 dozens of ladies jeans. However, petitioner, as an employee of Aurora/Uni-Group who was aware of the specific purpose of the remittance, upon receipt of the amount, had the obligation to account for the proceeds thereof to Aurora/Uni-Group.

The records establish that: 1) the amount of US$41,300.00 was remitted by telegraphic transfer to the joint account of the petitioner and his wife and Mr. And Mrs. Werner Lettmayr; 2) the said amount was remitted as advance payment by Skiva for the jeans it ordered an(l 3) the amount of US$21,675.21 was withdrawn by petitioner on January 16, 1986 and the amount of US$20,000.00 was withdrawn by petitioner on January 22, 1986. In fact, petitioner himself admits having withdrawn from the joint account on two occasions after the remittance was made. Petitioner further admits having made such withdrawal for the purpose of purchasing materials to be used for the jeans ordered by Skiva and a portion thereof to be given to Aurora. Thus, upon withdrawal by petitioner of the amounts advanced by Skiva, petitioner received the same in trust with an obligation to return the funds or account for the proceeds thereof.

With respect to the element of conversion or misappropriation of the amount received, petitioner claims that a portion of the amount was used to purchase 3,000 meters of Litton fabrics and the balance was returned to Aurora. However, upon cross-examination, petitioner was unable to recall the amount paid for the purchase of the fabrics or the amount given to Aurora nor was petitioner able to identify whether payment for the purchase of fabric or the return of funds to Aurora was made in cash or in check.

In fact, except for his bare testimony, petitioner failed to present evidence to support his defense that payment for the purchase of the fabrics had been made or that the balance of the amount received by petitioner was given to Aurora. The only reason why the Court is inclined to believe that 3,000 meters of Litton fabrics were purchased for the manufacturer of the jeans is because the witness for the prosecution, Ms. Tujan, independently verified the purchase of the said materials from Litton Mills.

To support petitioner’s claim that the remainder of the amount withdrawn was returned to Aurora, petitioner presents a letter dated October 15, 1986 from the Philippine Veterans Investment Development Corporation (Pill VIDEC) addressed to Mr. Werner Lettmayr, President of Aurora, regarding the financial audit of Aurora, wherein the amount of P850,780.00 is indicated as an amount “due to Uni-Group,” Atty. Cesar Singson, witness for the defense, testified that the amount of P850,780.00 indicated in the said letter represents the peso equivalent of the advance payment of US$41,300.00 made by Skiva to Uni-Group.