Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Baguio City
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 102784 April 7, 1997
ROSA LIM, petitioner,
s!
COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF TE PILIPPINES, respon"ents!
R # S O $ % T I O N

ERMOSISIMA, !R., J.:
&cting on the 'otion for reconsi"eration file" by petitioner Rosa $i' praying for her ac(uittal, this
Court ta)es a secon" har" loo) at the present case in the light of the arious argu'ents raise" by
the 'oant!
Petitioner Rosa $i' *as charge" *ith, an" subse(uently conicte" of, the cri'e of estafa as "efine"
un"er &rt! +,-, par! ,.b/ of the Reise" Penal Co"e before Branch 01 of the Regional Trial Court of
2ue3on City!
1
This coniction *as affir'e" by the Court &ppeals!
2
&ggriee" by the "ecision of the
appellate court, Rosa $i' file" a petition for reie* un"er Rule 4- before the Supre'e Court! This Court
subse(uently sustaine" the ruling of the Court of &ppeals, hence, this 5otion for Reconsi"eration see)ing
the reersal of our "ecision "ate" February 16, ,007!
8er 'otion for reconsi"eration is anchore" on the follo*ing groun"s9
I! T8# CO%RT A QUO F&I$#D TO CONSID#R #VID#NC# TO T8# #FF#CT T8&T
T8# TR%# &:R##5#NT B#T;##N T8# P&RTI#S ;&S & S&$# ON CR#DIT
&ND NOT &N &:#NC< TO S#$$ &S BRO%:8T O%T IN T8# CROSS=
#>&5IN&TION 5&D# B< T8# PRIV&T# PROS#C%TOR ON T8# P#TITION#R
&ND &%R#$I& N&D#R& &S ;#$$ &S ON T8# CROSS #>&5IN&TION 5&D# ON
T8# CO5P$&IN&NT B< T8# CO%NS#$ FOR T8# P#TITION#R? an"
II! ON T8# ISS%# OF ;8#T8#R OR NOT T8# P#TITION#R R#T%RN#D T8#
RIN: V&$%#D &T P,70,@@@!@@ TO CO5P$&IN&NT T8R% &%R#$I& N&D#R&, T8#
CO%RT A QUO F&I$#D TO CONSID#R CONC$%SIV# #VID#NC# T8&T S&ID
RIN: ;&S IN F&CT R#T%RN#D TO CO5P$&IN&NT &S S8O;N B< T8# F&CT
T8&T S8# FI$#D & CRI5IN&$ C&S# &:&INST &%R#$I& N&D#R& FOR ISS%IN:
& BO%NCIN: C8#CA IN T8# &5O%NT OF P,70,@@@!@@ ;8IC8 S8# ISS%#D IN
P&<5#NT OF T8# RIN: IN T8# R#:ION&$ TRI&$ CO%RT OF 2%#BON CIT<!
It *ill be recalle" that the facts of this case are as follo*s9
Rose $i' arrie" in 5anila fro' Cebu City so'eti'e in October, ,06C *ith her frien" &urelia
Na"era! On October 6, ,06C, they *ent to the ;illia's &partelle in Ti'og, 2ue3on City, *here they
'et Victoria Suare3, a De*elry "ealer! Suare3 an" Na"era )ne* each other since the latter often sol"
De*elry for the for'er on co''ission basis! Na"era ha" preiously intro"uce" Rosa $i' to Suare3
as a *ealthy business*o'an!
$i' *as offere" t*o pieces of De*elry by Suare3 to *it9 one .,/ +!+- carat "ia'on" ring *orth
P,70,@@@!@@ an" one .,/ bracelet *orth P,C@,@@@!@@! The pieces *ere to be sol" by $i' on
co''ission! &ccor"ingly, $i' signe" a receipt prepare" by Na"era for Suare3, *hich state" that9
T8IS IS TO C#RTIF<, that I receie" fro' Vic)y Suare3 the follo*ing De*elry9
Description Price
, ring +!+- solo P,70,@@@!@@
, bracelet ,C@,@@@!@@
EEEEE
Total P++0,@@@!@@
in goo" con"ition, to be sol" in C&S8 ON$< *ithin ! ! ! "ays fro' "ate of signing receipt9
if I coul" not sell, I shall return all the De*elry, *ithin the perio" 'entione" aboe? if I
*oul" be able to sell, I shall i''e"iately "elier an" account the *hole procee"s of
sale thereof to the o*ner of the De*elries FsicG at hisHher resi"ence? 'y co'pensation
or co''ission shall be the oer=price on the alue of each De*elry (uote" aboe! I
a' prohibite" to sell any De*elry on cre"it or by install'ent? "eposit, gie for
safe)eeping? len", ple"ge or gie as security or guaranty un"er any circu'stance or
'anner, any De*elry to other person or persons,
I sign 'y na'e this ! ! ! "ay of ! ! ! ,0 ! ! ! at 5anila!
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Signature of Persons *ho receie" De*elries FsicG
&""ress9 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#
On October ,1, ,06C, before "eparting for Cebu, $i' calle" up 5rs! Suare3 by
telephone to infor' her that she *as no longer intereste" in the ring an" the bracelet!
Suare3 replie" that she *as busy at the ti'e an" instructe" her to return the pieces
of De*elry to Na"era instea", *ho *oul" in turn gie the' bac) to Suare3! $i' then
returne" the De*elry to Na"era *ho issue" a han"*ritten receipt "ate" October ,1,
,06C!
4
On 5arch 1,, ,066, Suare3, thru her counsel, sent $i' a "e'an" letter as)ing for
the return of the ring! $i', also thru counsel, sent a response letter to Suare3 aerring
that she ha" alrea"y returne" both ring an" bracelet to Na"era an" as such, she no
longer ha" any liability to Suare3 insofar as the sai" ite's *ere concerne"! Ir)e", Suare3
file" a co'plaint for estafa un"er &rticle +,-, par! , .b/ against Rosa $i'! Trial ensue"
thereafter!
During the trial, $i' asserte" that she ha" alrea"y returne" both the bracelet an"
ring to Na"era! This *as a"'itte" by Na"era "uring her "irect eJa'ination before
the trial court9
29 Do you )no* if Rosa $i' returne" the De*elries
FsicGK
&9 She gae the De*elries FsicG to 'e!
29 ;hy "i" Rose $i' gie the De*elries FsicG to youK
&9 Rosa $i' calle" up Vic)y Suare3 the follo*ing
'orning an" tol" Vic)y Suare3 that she *as going
ho'e to Cebu an" as)e" if she coul" gie the
De*elries FsicG to 'e!
29 &n" *hen "i" Rosa $i' gie you the De*elries
FsicGK
&9 Before she left for Cebu!
$
Na"era further testifie" that she issue" a chec) in faor of Suare3 in pay'ent for the
ring *hich $i' ha" preiously returne" to her9
29 ;hat happene" to the ringK
&9 I sol" it!
JJJ JJJ JJJ
29 ;het happene" to the procee"s of the sale of the
ringK
&9 The chec) that *as pai" to 'e bounce"! So 'y
chec) also
bounce"!
%
&fter another thorough an" painsta)ing scrutiny of the recor"s of this case, *e hae
"eci"e" to act faorably on the petitionerLs 'otion! Thus, upon a careful an"
"eliberate consi"eration of the errors assigne" by the petitioner, as *ell as of
preailing Durispru"ence, *e are conince" that Rosa $i' 'ust be ac(uitte"!
Rosa $i' asserts that she gae both the bracelet an" the ring to &urelia Na"era for it
to be returne" to Suare3 an" that it *as Suare3 herself *ho instructe" her to "o so!
Suare3, on the other han", refutes this contention by saying that she coul" not hae
entruste" the return of the pieces of De*elry to Na"era since the latter alrea"y o*e"
her a substantial a'ount of 'oney an" that to entrust the return of the sai" ring
*oul" be to tanta'ount to un"ue ris) on her part! 8o*eer, Suare3 herself a"'itte"
that the bracelet *as in fact receie" by her fro' Na"era9
&TT<! TORIO9 No*, 5rs! ;itness, you sai" that the
bracelet *as returne" to you, is it not true that this
bracelet *as returne" by &urelia Na"eraK
&9 I alrea"y ans*ere" that!
CO%RT9 ;hat *as the ans*erK
;ITN#SS9 It *as returne" by &urelia Na"era!
7
It is highly unli)ely that $i', if she truly ha" any intention of "efrau"ing Suare3, *oul"
still 'a)e an effort to return the bracelet, consi"ering that as bet*een the t*o ite's,
it is the 'ore eJpensie one! 5oreoer, the Court of &ppeals in eJa'ining the facts
of this case hel" that there *as in"ee" such are turn9
! ! ! This clai' .that the ring ha" been returne" to Suare3 thru
Na"era/ is "isconcerting! It contraenes the ery ter's of #Jhibit &!
The instruction by the co'plaining *itness to appellant to "elier the
ring to &urelia Na"era is ehe'ently "enie" by the co'plaining
*itness, *ho "eclare" that she "i" not authori3e an"Hor instruct
appellant to "o so! &n" thus, by delivering the ring to Aurelia *ithout
the eJpress authority an" consent of the co'plaining *itness,
appellant assu'e" the right to "ispose of the De*elry as if it *ere
hers, thereby co''itting conersion, a clear breach of trust,
punishable un"er &rticle +,-, par! , .b/, Reise" Penal Co"e!
.e'phasis ours/
In other *or"s, it has been establishe" that the ring *hich is the subDect of the
prosecution for estafa *as in"ee" returne", albeit to a person *ho' Suare3 clai's
has no authority to receie sai" ite'!
:enerally, the "eliery to a thir" person of the thing hel" in trust is not a "efense in
estafa! &s enunciate" in the earlier case of United States vs!
Eustaquio9
8
;hen 'erchan"ise is receie" for sale on co''ission, un"er the
obligation to return the sa'e, or its alue, an" is thereafter "eliere"
to a thir" person *ithout the )no*le"ge or authority of the o*ner, the
t*o ele'ents *hich constitute the cri'e of estafa eJist9 .a/ the "eceit
by *hich it *as inten"e" to "efrau"? an" .b/ the "a'age cause" the
o*ner!
8o*eer, this rule has alrea"y been 'o"ifie" in subse(uent cases! In People
vs! Nepomuceno
9
an" People vs! Trinidad,
10
it has been hel" that9
In cases of estafa the profit or gain 'ust be obtaine" by the
accuse" personally, through his o*n acts, and his mere negligence
in permitting another to take advantage or beneit rom the entrusted
chattel cannot constitute estaa under Article !"# paragraph "$b% o
the &evised Penal 'ode? unless of course the ei"ence shoul"
"isclose that the agent acte" in conspiracy or conniance *ith the
one *ho carrie" out the actual 'isappropriation, *hen the accuse"
*oul" be ans*erable for the acts of his co=conspirators! ( there is no
such evidence% direct or circumstantial% and i the proo is clear that
the accused hersel )as the innocent victim o her sub$agent*s
aithlessness% her acquittal is in order! .e'phasis ours/
&urelia Na"era herself a"'its that she receie" both the bracelet an" the ring in
(uestion fro' $i'! In her testi'ony, she ha" no (ual's in a"'itting that she sol" the
ring in (uestion an" that she issue" a chec) in faor of Suare3 as pay'ent for sai"
ring! She also a"'itte" that such chec) ha" bounce"! She is no* facing a cri'inal
case for iolation of Batas Pa'bansa Blg! 11 institute" by Suare3 herself! It is
significant to note that the a'ount of the bouncing chec) issue" by Na"era as
pay'ent to Suare3 correspon"s to the a'ount of the ring gien by Suare3 to $i' E
P,70,@@@!@@!
;e cannot conceie of any 'otie on the part of Na"era in a"'itting not only
receiing the ring, but also issuing, in pay'ent thereof, a bouncing chec), sae the
"esire to tell the truth, in or"er that one *ho is innocent of any cri'e *oul" not be
erroneously conicte"! For, the sa'e can only be to her "etri'ent, consi"ering that
she is no* facing a cri'inal charge herself! That she an" $i' are ery goo" frien"s
is of no 'o'ent, as it is inconceiable that she *oul" a"'it as fact *hat "i" not
actually happen, *hen such a"'ission coul" ery *ell lea" to her o*n incarceration!
Na"eraLs a"'ission is a "eclaration against her o*n interest 'a"e un"er oath! It
'ust thus be gien full *eight an" cre"ence!
Rose $i'Ls assertion that she ha" returne" the ring in (uestion to Na"era, in a""ition
to the latterLs uns*ering testi'ony a"'itting the sa'e, raises reasonable "oubt as
to $i'Ls liability for estafa! Conersion or 'isappropriation has not been sufficiently
proen! &s hel" in the case of People vs! +ope,9
11
;hen a "e'an" for the "eliery of the thing pro'ise", or the return
of the 'oney "eliere" in trust, is 'a"e, an" such "e'an" is not
fulfille" *ithin a reasonable ti'e, a presu'ption arises that the
a'ount has been 'isappropriate"! This inference, ho*eer, is only
"e"ucible *hen the eJplanation gien by the accuse" for his failure to
account for the 'oney is absolutely "eoi" of 'erits! -here the
e.planation does not completely destroy the presumption but at least
raises reasonable doubt that accused had misappropriated the
amount in question% acquittal is in order!
It is *ell=settle" that the essence of estafa thru 'isappropriation is the appropriation
or conersion of 'oney or property receie" to the preDu"ice of the o*ner! The *or"s
MconertM an" M'isappropriateM connote an act of using or "isposing of anotherLs
property as if it *ere oneLs o*n or "eoting it to a purpose or use "ifferent fro' that
agree" upon! To 'isappropriate for oneLs o*n use inclu"es, not only conersion to
oneLs personal a"antage, but also eery atte'pt to "ispose of the property of
another *ithout right!
12
Rosa $i'Ls sole purpose in "eliering the pieces of De*elry to &urelia Na"era, *as for
Na"era to effect their return to Victoria Suare3! By no stretch of the i'agination can
the act of returning sai" ite's to its rightful o*ner, although through the 'e"iation of
a thir" party, be consi"ere" as conersion or 'isappropriation! Verily, that sai" act
'anifeste" Rosa $i'Ls recognition that the pieces of De*elry "o not belong to her! In
"oing so, she ac)no*le"ge" Suare3L right of "o'inion oer the'! Thus, it cannot be
regar"e" as conersion or 'isappropriation in its true sense sufficient to conict her
for estafa! $i' "i" not "elier the bracelet an" the ring to Na"era so that the latter
'ay re=sell the' as her sub=agent! 8er only purpose *as to hae the' returne" to
their rightful o*ner! 5oreoer, she "eliere" the sai" pieces of De*elry to one *ho is
not a total stranger, but to a person )no*n to both her an" Suare3 an" *ho, fro' all
in"ications, enDoy their 'utual trust an" confi"ence! To reiterate, this raises
reasonable "oubt as to the presence of any cri'inal intent ascribe" to her by the
prosecution!
The act of $i' in returning the ite's to Na"era only sho*s that she ha" reason to
beliee that the latter ha" the authority to receie the sa'e! This belief *as inspire"
by the fact that at the ti'e of the sai" transaction bet*een $i' an" Suare3, it *as
Na"era herself, in behalf of Suare3, *ho prepare" the receipt to be signe" by
$i'!
1#
In a""ition, Na"era *as the one *ho intro"uce" Suare3 an" $i' to each other!
8ence, Rosa $i' can at 'ost be hel" negligent in returning the ring to one *hose
authority to receie the sa'e *as subse(uently refute"! Conse(uently, for negligently
assu'ing Na"eraLs authority to receie the ring, $i' cannot be hel" cri'inally liable!
Settle" it is in our Durispru"ence that there can be no estafa through negligence! &t *orst,
she shoul" only be hel" ciilly liable! &ccor"ingly, *e hol" her liable to pay Vic)y Suare3
the full a'ount of the ring as actual "a'ages plus legal interest in the a'ount of siJ
percent .7N/ fro' the ti'e of eJtraDu"icial "e'an"!
;8#R#FOR#, the 5otion for Reconsi"eration is :R&NT#D! The "ecision "ate"
February 16, ,007 is hereby 5ODIFI#D! Petitioner Rosa $i' is hereby &C2%ITT#D
of any cri'inal liability, but is hel" ciilly liable in the a'ount of P,70,@@@!@@ as
actual "a'ages, plus legal interest, *ithout subsi"iary i'prison'ent in case of
insolency!
No pronounce'ent as to cost!
SO ORD#R#D!
Padilla% /ellosillo% 0itug and 1apunan% 223% concur3