G.R. No.

204755, September 17, 2014

SOLEDAD TRIA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

REYES, J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated April 20, 2012 and Resolution2 dated
September 18, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 33529 which
affirmed the Decision3 dated July 16, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Valenzuela City, Branch 172, in Criminal Case No. 970-V-01, finding Soledad Tria
(petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa and sentencing her to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum.

The Facts

The criminal information to which the petitioner pleaded “Not Guilty” reads: chanRoblesvirt ualLaw lib rary

That on or [about] March 8, 2000 in Valenzuela City, Metro Manila and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud and deceive SEVEN SPHERE ENTERPRISES
represented by one GERTRUDES MENESES in the following manner to wit: the said
accused received assorted jewelry from SEVEN SPHERE ENTERPRISES
worth P23,375.50 under the express obligation on the part of the said accused to sell
the same and to account for and deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the
merchandise, if unsold, to SEVEN SPHERE ENTERPRISES, within six (6) days from
receipt thereof, but said accused once in possession of the pieces of jewelry, with abuse
of trust and confidence, misappropriate, misapply and convert to her own personal use
and benefit the said amount of P23,375.50 and despite repeated demands to her to
immediately account for and remit the proceeds of the sale of [sic] to return the goods,
refused and failed and still refuses and fails to do so, to the damage and prejudice of
SEVEN SPHERE ENTERPRISES in the aforementioned amount of P23,375.50.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

In support of the foregoing accusation, the prosecution presented the testimony of its
lone witness, Gertrudes Meneses (Meneses), as well as several pieces of documentary
evidence. Taken together, the evidence for the prosecution showed that: chanRoblesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry

Meneses is a Cash Custodian of Seven Sphere Enterprises (Seven Sphere) while the
petitioner was one of the consignees. On March 8, 2000, the petitioner received on
consignment from Seven Sphere twenty two (22) pieces of jewelry valued at
P47,440.00 subject to the condition that she will remit the proceeds of the sale thereof
and return any unsold pieces within six (6) days.5 The petitioner returned eight (8)
unsold pieces of the jewelry valued at P16,380.00 leaving a balance of P31,060.00. To
cover the balance, the petitioner issued four (4) Banco Filipino post-dated checks all
with the equal face value of P7,765.00 to wit: No. 0089027 dated March 30, 2000; No.
0089028 dated April 15, 2000; No. 0089029 dated April 30, 2000, and No. 0089030
dated May 15, 2000. When presented for payment, however, the checks were
dishonored by the issuing bank for the reason: “account closed.” Upon being informed
by Seven Sphere that the checks were dishonored for payment, the petitioner returned
three (3) pieces of jewelry valued at P7,684.50 thus leaving the unpaid balance of
P23,375.50.6 cralawlawlibra ry

Seven Sphere then sent a demand letter to the petitioner for the payment of the unpaid
balance. Despite receipt of the letter, however, the petitioner failed to pay.7 cralawlawlibra ry

The defense failed to present evidence despite several opportunities given by the trial
court. Hence, on April 19, 2010, the petitioner was declared to have waived her right to
present evidence and the case was submitted for decision.8 cralawlawlibra ry

Ruling of the RTC

In its Decision9 dated July 16, 2010, the RTC found the petitioner guilty of estafa, as
defined and penalized under Article 315 (1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), for
misappropriating the proceeds of the sale of the jewelry consigned to her by Seven
Sphere. The RTC found that the unremitted balance was actually P23,370.00 because
the petitioner remitted cash and jewelry worth P7,690.00.10 Accordingly, the RTC
judgment disposed as follows: chanRoblesvirtual Lawlib rary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused SOLEDAD TRIA guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of estafa under Art. 315 subdivision
No. 1 paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code. She is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of four (4) years two (2) months of prision correccional as
minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum. The accused is ordered to
indemnify the private complainant of the unremitted amount of P23,370.00.

There being no showing on record that the private complainant paid the legal fees on
the civil liability arising from the crime as there was no notice to pay sent to the private
complainant, the legal fees shall be considered a lien on the judgment in satisfaction of
said lien.

Costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED.11

Ruling of the CA

In its Decision12 dated April 20, 2012, the CA sustained the conviction meted upon the
petitioner upon finding that all the elements of estafa were established beyond
reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The CA ruling disposed thus: chanRoblesvirt ual Lawli brary

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision in Criminal Case No. 970-V-01 is

hereby AFFIRMED and the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.13 chanrob leslaw

The petitioner sought reconsideration14 but her motion was denied in the CA
Resolution15 dated September 18, 2012. Hence, this petition.

The Arguments of the Petitioner

In lobbying for her acquittal, the petitioner asserts that the element of fraud in estafa is
absent in view of Meneses’ admission that the petitioner returned the unsold pieces of
jewelry and remitted part of the sale proceeds of the sold pieces. The petitioner also
claims that during the pendency of the case, she has been paying her balance to Seven
Sphere upon the latter’s declaration that she will be eventually absolved from liability
once she settles the full amount. The petitioner avers that if it was her intention to
defraud Seven Sphere, then she could have evaded paying the balance or even denied
receipt of the jewelry entrusted to her.16 cralawlawlib rary

The petitioner further argues that the penalty imposed by the courts a quo was
incorrect because “the fact that the amount involved exceed P22,000.00 should not be
considered in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalty and instead, the
matter should be taken as analogous to modifying circumstances in the imposition of
the maximum term of the full indeterminate sentence.” She proffers that the minimum
of her indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within six (6) months and one (1)
day to four (4) years while the maximum term should be at least six (6) years and one
(1) day, plus an additional one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00 in excess of
P22,000.00.17 cralawlawlibra ry

In its Comment,18 filed through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the
respondent prays that the petition be denied and the conviction meted by the courts a
quo upon the petitioner be sustained for lack of reversible error.

In her Reply,19 the petitioner explains that her failure to present any evidence during
trial was due to her verbal agreement with Seven Sphere, through Meneses.
Apparently, the petitioner agreed to render services to Seven Sphere in order to settle
her unpaid accountabilities by deducting portions thereof from her monthly salary. The
petitioner claims that she relied in good faith on the representation of Seven Sphere
that such arrangement will cause the dismissal of the case filed against her. Attached to
her Reply are copies of the front pages of her pay envelopes showing that she started
working for Seven Sphere in September 2006 and from then on until February 2008,
payments for her unpaid balance to Seven Sphere were deducted from her monthly
salary.20
cralawlawlibra ry

Lastly, the petitioner contends that she failed to account for the jewelries or their
equivalent value because “[they] were, in truth and in fact, sold on credit, to different
customers, who, however, failed and/or refused to return the jewelries or pay the value
thereof.”21 cralawlawlib ra ry

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is devoid of merit.

Preliminarily, it bears emphasizing that factual findings of the trial court, especially
when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding on and accorded great respect by this
Court.22 There are instances when this rule is not applicable such as: (1) when there is
grave abuse of discretion; (2) when the findings are grounded on speculations; (3)
when the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (4) when the judgment of the CA is
based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the factual findings are conflicting; (6)
when the CA went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the
admissions of the parties; (7) when the CA overlooked undisputed facts which, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (8) when the findings of the
CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) when the facts set forth by the petitioner
are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of the CA are premised
on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.23 cralawlawlibra ry

None of these situations are, however, attendant in the present case. Instead, a re-
examination of the evidence proffered by the prosecution and all records in the trial
proceedings confirm the moral certainty of the petitioner’s guilt for the crime imputed
to her.

Estafa through misappropriation or conversion is defined and penalized under Article

315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which states: chanRoblesvirtual Lawlib ra ry

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the
means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by: chanroblesvi rtua llawli bra ry

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos 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 cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be
imposed under the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision
mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
xxxx

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: chanroble svirtual lawlib rary

xxxx

(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods or

any other personal property 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, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a
bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property.

The elements of estafa under this provision are: (1) that the money, good 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; (2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or
property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such
misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that
there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.24 cralawlawlibra ry

The first, third and fourth elements are immediately discernible from the prosecution’s
evidence. Exhibit “B” which is the ‘Receipt of Goods on Consignment’ shows that on
March 8, 2000, the petitioner received pieces of jewelry on consignment from Seven
Sphere with the obligation to return the unsold pieces or remit the sale proceeds of the
sold items. This documentary evidence was corroborated by the testimony of Meneses,
who signed the document in behalf of the consignor at the time of its execution. She
identified the petitioner’s signature on the document and she confirmed the contents of
the agreement as being a consignment contract, as well as the petitioner’s consequent
duties thereunder to remit sale proceeds or return the unsold pieces of jewelry.

It is also indubitable from Meneses’ unrebutted testimony that Seven Sphere was
prejudiced in the amount of P23,370.00 after the petitioner failed to return the
remaining eleven (11) pieces of jewelry consigned to her or their value. Demand for
payment was made upon the petitioner in a letter dated August 21, 2001 but despite
receipt thereof, she was unable to return the remaining pieces of jewelry or remit their
sale proceeds.

Meanwhile, the second element of misappropriation or conversion has been defined in

this wise:
chanRoblesvi rtual Lawl ibra ry

The words “convert” and “misappropriate” connote the act of using or disposing of
another’s property as if it were one’s own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different
from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for one’s own use includes not only
conversion to one’s personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the
property of another without right. In proving the element of conversion or
misappropriation, a legal presumption of misappropriation arises when the accused fails
to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the items to be sold and fails to give an
account of their whereabouts.25 chanrob leslaw

Indeed, misappropriation or conversion is deducible from the petitioner’s failure to

return the last eleven (11) pieces of jewelry entrusted to her. She never endeavoured
to refute this fact during trial and even until the herein appellate proceedings. Instead,
the petitioner anchors her plea for acquittal on the claim that intent to defraud is
negated by the established fact that out of the twenty two (22) jewelry items entrusted
to her, she was able to return eleven (11) pieces.

The argument fails to convince. The petitioner’s asseveration bolsters rather than
weakens the case for the prosecution, as it implies an admission of her receipt of
twenty two (22) jewelry items from Seven Sphere and her failure to account for all of
them.

The return of eleven (11) pieces of the jewelry items is inconsequential because she
received twenty two (22) items on consignment and bound herself to return ALL of
them if unsold. The petitioner breached her legal duty under the consignment contract
to return or remit the sale proceeds of ALL of such items when she was able to return
only half of them while the other eleven (11) pieces remained unreturned and
unaccounted for, to the damage and prejudice of the consignor.

Neither can we lend credence to the petitioner’s claim that her failure to account for the
jewelry subject of this indictment was because she sold the same on credit. Such act
directly contravenes the explicit terms of the authority granted to her because the
consignment transaction with Seven Sphere prohibited her from selling the jewelry on
credit, viz:
chanRoblesvirtual Lawlib ra ry

And which pieces of Jewelry I received in TRUST ONLY shall remain the property of the
consignor until and unless fully paid and for me to sell within a period of six (6) days
under the condition that should any or all said pieces of jewelry be sold by me. I am
under obligation to remit to __________ the proceeds of the said sale and if the same
are not sold, for me to return the remaining unsold goods to the consignor all within six
(6) days as previously adverted to.

That finally, the consignee shall have no right or privilege to sell the goods on
credit nor to name, appoint, or employ sub-agent(s) without the written authority of
the consignor MARICHU REYES. Partial remittance of proceeds and acceptance thereof
after the lapse of the period herein mentioned will not alter, modify nor constitute a
novation of this receipt/agreement. In case of suit or Litigation, the venue shall be
brought before the proper courts of Valenzuela.

I likewise certify that I have read and understood the contents and consequences of
this receipt/agreement before I affix my signature.26 (Emphasis supplied)

Misappropriation and conversion is again palpable from these circumstances. By selling

the jewelry on credit, the petitioner used the property for a purpose other than that
agreed upon. The words “convert” and “misappropriate” connote an act of using or
disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own or devoting it to a purpose or
use different from that agreed upon.27 cralawlawlib rary

Further, her alleged verbal agreement with Seven Sphere that she can render services
in exchange for the dismissal of the case, casts no significant bearing to the herein
proceedings. “Only the State may validly waive the criminal action against an
accused.”28 The consequences of such agreement with Seven Sphere can affect only her
civil liability to the former for the value of the misappropriated jewelry items. Such
matter can be more properly threshed out during the execution stage of the civil aspect
of this case before the trial court where the evidence of such verbal agreement as well
as the deductions made on the petitioner’s salary can be received.

In fine, we find no reversible error in the CA decision affirming the findings of the RTC
on the petitioner’s criminal liability for estafa. However, the penalty imposed upon her
must be corrected.

Under Article 315 (1)(b) of the RPC, the penalty of estafa shall be “prision
correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the
amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos. If such
amount exceeds 22,000.00 pesos, the penalty so provided shall be imposed in its
maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos provided that the
total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), the minimum term of the imposable
penalty shall be “within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed” for the
offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to the
commission of the crime.29 cralawlawlib rary

The penalty prescribed by law for the crime of estafa is prision correccional maximum
to prision mayor minimum; hence, the penalty next lower would then be prision
correccional minimum to medium. The minimum term of the indeterminate sentence
should thus be anywhere within six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and
two (2) months.30 cralawlawlibra ry

Meanwhile, the maximum term shall be taken from the prescribed penalty of prision
correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum in its maximum period, adding 1 year
of imprisonment for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00. To compute the
maximum period of the prescribed penalty, prision correccional maximum to prision
mayor minimum should be divided into three equal portions of time each of which
portion shall be deemed to form one period in accordance with Article 65 of the
RPC,31viz: chanRoblesvirtual Lawli bra ry

Minimum: 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 5 years, 5 months and 10 days

Medium: 5 years, 5 months and 11 days to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days
Maximum: 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years32 chanrobleslaw

Thus, the maximum period of the imposable penalty shall be anywhere within six (6)
years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days to eight (8) years.33 cralawlawl ibra ry

Considering however that the amount in excess of P22,000.00 is only P1,370.00 or

short of the P10,000.00 set by law to justify the imposition of incremental penalty, it is
not appropriate to add an additional one (1) year to the maximum term of the penalty
imposable upon the petitioner because the excess amount of P1,370.00 should be
disregarded. This is pursuant to the rule that in computing the incremental penalty, the
amount defrauded shall be subtracted by P22,000.00, and the difference shall be
divided by P10,000.00, and any fraction of P10,000.00 shall be discarded.”34 cralawlawli bra ry

Observing the foregoing guidelines, the Court deems it proper to impose upon the
petitioner the indeterminate sentence of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional as minimum to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days
of prision mayor as maximum.

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the Decision dated April 20, 2012 and Resolution
dated September 18, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33529 which
affirmed the Decision dated July 16, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City,
Branch 172, in Criminal Case No. 970-V-01, finding petitioner Soledad Tria, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1), sub-
paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code, are hereby AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that she shall suffer the indeterminate sentence of six (6) months
and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum to six (6) years, eight (8) months
and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum.

SO ORDERED. cralawred

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Bersamin,* and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

*
Additional member per Raffle dated September 15, 2014 in view of the inhibition of
Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza.

1Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with Associate Justices Isaias P.
Dicdican and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring; rollo, pp. 24-31.

2
Id. at 33-34.

3
Issued by Judge Nancy Rivas-Palmones; id. at 47-49.

4
Records, p. 1.

5
Exhibit “B,” Index of Exhibits & Index of Minutes.
6
Rollo, pp. 47-48.

7
Id. at 48.

8
Id.

9
Id. at 47-49.

10
Id. at 49.

11
Id.

12
Id. at 24-31.

13
Id. at 31.

14 Id. at 66-70.

15
Id. at 33-34.

16
Id. at 12-22.

17
Id. at 19-20.

18
Id. at 77-81.

19
Id. at 90-95.

20
Id. at 96-114.

21
Id. at 93.

22Milla v. People, G.R. No. 188726, January 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 309, 320.

23Pagsibigan v. People, et al., 606 Phil. 233, 241-242 (2009).

24
Pamintuan v. People, G.R. No. 172820, June 23, 2010, 621 SCRA 538, 546-547.

25 Supra note 22, at 319-320.

26
Exhibit “B,” Index of Exhibits & Index of Minutes.

27 Supra note 22, at 319.

28Degaños
v. People, G.R. No. 162826, October 14, 2013, 707 SCRA 438, 453.

29
Supra note 24, at 552-553.

30
Id. at 553.

31People
v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008, 574 SCRA 258, 301-
304.

32Lito
Corpuz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014
citing Cosme, Jr. v. People, 538 Phil. 52, 71-72 (2006).

33
Id.

34
Sy v. People, G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 264, 273-274.