Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83635:57642&catid=1587&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 03:52:58+00:00

Document:
SOLEDAD TRIA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
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.
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.
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.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision in Criminal Case No. 970-V-01 is hereby AFFIRMED and the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The petitioner sought reconsideration14 but her motion was denied in the CA Resolution15 dated September 18, 2012. Hence, this petition.
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.
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.
(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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Bersamin,* and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring; rollo, pp. 24-31.
3 Issued by Judge Nancy Rivas-Palmones; id. at 47-49.
5 Exhibit “B,” Index of Exhibits & Index of Minutes.
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.
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).
34 Sy v. People, G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 264, 273-274.

References: v. 
 Art. 315
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.