Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83894:58619&catid=1589&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:01:20+00:00

Document:
MARIA LINA S. VELAYO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds Accused Lina S. Velayo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and, accordingly, sentences her to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, one (1) month and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Accused is directed to return to private complainant WJA Holdings, Inc. the amount of P3,429,225.00 with legal interest until fully paid.
That on or about the 29th day of March 2001 in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, LINA S. VELAYO, defrauded and deceived WJA Holdings, Inc. herein represented by its President, Jayne O. Abuid, in the following manner to wit: that the accused being then the President of Alorasan Realty Development Corporation entered into in its behalf a contract to purchase two parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 142675 and 122230 for Php20,000,000.00 and Php40,000,000.00 respectively with WJA Holdings, Inc., with the understanding that the applicable withholding tax which WJA Holdings, Inc. was supposed to withhold and remit to the BIR re: the Php40,000,000.00 purchase price in the amount of Php3,000,000.00 representing the 7.5% withholding tax will not be deducted hence the total amount of Php40,000,000.00 was received by the accused under the obligation of effecting the registration and transfer of the title in the name of WJA and further accused received from the WJA the amount of Php346,670.00 representing documentary stamp tax for such transfer and the accused once in possession of the said aggregate amount of Php3,346,670.00, which amount accused misapplied, misappropriated and converted to her own personal use and benefit, and despite repeated demand made upon her, accused failed to comply, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the aforesaid amount of Php3,346,670.00.
In its Decision14 dated January 25, 2011 convicting Velayo of estafa, the RTC found that Velayo actually received the total purchase price of P60 Million, including the P3 Million for the withholding taxes on TCT No. 122230. It noted in particular that notwithstanding the express provision in the parties’ Contract to Sell that WJA would remit the said taxes, Velayo volunteered to do the errand herself for WJA and convinced them not to deduct the taxes from the gross price. However, Velayo failed to remit to the BIR the P3 Million in taxes, as well as P429,617.00 in documentary stamp tax due on TCT No. 122230. Only the taxes on TCT No. 142675 were remitted, enabling her to secure a new title in the name of WJA. But Velayo insisted that she did not have “juridical possession” over the P3 Million for the taxes on TCT No. 122230, notwithstanding the acknowledgment receipt she executed, nor could she justify her failure to return the said amount despite demands. According to the RTC, all the elements of the crime of estafa under paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) were established. Velayo’s motion for reconsideration was denied in the court’s Order15 dated May 17, 2011.
Velayo maintains that an essential element of the crime of estafa is absent, since it is not shown that personal property was held by her in trust, on commission, for administration or under any other circumstance, for WJA. She insists that she had no juridical, but only physical or material, possession of the missing funds for the reason that under the Contract to Sell between ARDC and WJA, she was under no personal obligation to withhold the taxes due on the subject transaction. At best, her possession of the missing funds was in trust for ARDC which she represented, and any prejudice caused to WJA should be redressed by ARDC itself. In short, her possession gave rise only to a civil liability to ARDC.
Moreover, the Contract to Sell was between ARDC and WJA, from which ARDC’s obligation over the missing funds arose. She herself was not a party thereto in her personal capacity, and thus she was not personally obligated to withhold or remit the taxes, a task which WJA assumed both under the law and under the aforesaid contract, yet the RTC and CA gave more credence to the witnesses of WJA by way of parol evidence.
Petitioner was charged with the crime of estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code. In general, the elements of estafa are: (1) that the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence or (b) by means of deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. Deceit is not an essential requisite of estafa with abuse of confidence, since the breach of confidence takes the place of the fraud or deceit, which is a usual element in the other estafas.
(4) that there be demand for the return of the property.
Have the foregoing elements been met in the case at bar? We find the first element absent. When the money, goods, or any other personal property is received by the offender from the offended party (1) in trust or (2) on commission or (3) for administration, the offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received. Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner. In this case, petitioner was a cash custodian who was primarily responsible for the cash-in-vault. Her possession of the cash belonging to the bank is akin to that of a bank teller, both being mere bank employees.
Moreover, it was Velayo alone who transacted with WJA and AIMS in behalf of ARDC. It was to her that all the above checks were handed in payment for the lots, and she alone opened a deposit account with UCPB, although in the name of ARDC, where she deposited all the check payments she received from WJA. Then, only her signature is in the UCPB signature cards, and thus she alone was the sole authorized signatory for the said account. There is then no doubt that Velayo had sole possession and control of the missing funds intended for payment of the capital gains and documentary stamps taxes.
Under this contract to sell, it is provided in No. 2 “The purchase price shall be paid by the buyer to the seller less the applicable creditable withholding tax which the buyer shall withhold and remit to BIR for the credit of the seller, upon the execution of this contract.” Can you tell the Court, Madam Witness, if the buyer who happens to be WJA Holdings and represented by Jayne Abuid withheld the creditable withholding tax?
The creditable withholding tax was not withheld by the buyer.
When you are referring to the buyer, who is this?
Why is that so, Madam Witness?
Because Mrs. Velayo presented herself that she will take charge of it because she knows somebody from the BIR.
Can you please explain what you mean take charge?
If you are in-charge, it means you will be the one to pay the BIR for the payment of the withholding tax for the issuance of certificate authorizing registration.
It is my understanding, Madam Witness, that the buyer did not withhold the applicable withholding tax because Mrs. Velayo represented herself that she will be the one to pay the BIR directly?
Yes, sir. x x x.
Now you testified about the sales transactions involving the two (2) parcels of land and the seller is Alorasan, which is a corporation. Aside from Mrs. Velayo, did you have any deal with any officers of Alorasan Corporation?
None, sir. She was the only one.
And do you know the reason why she requested that, Miss Witness?
With regards to the transaction, what was the agreement or arrangement?
The arrangement was in terms of payment and the total amount. The agreement that we come up with was we will pay her the total amount of what has been agreed and we will not anymore withhold the taxes we are supposed to withhold. She said, she will be the one to do all of these things for us for expediency reasons.
How much were the properties sold? How much each is the property?
We always talk in terms of lump sum. I know that we paid P40 million and P20 million. So, we are talking of a total of P60 million for the two (2) properties.
Madam Witness, you mentioned that you will not anymore withhold the tax and that the accused would arrange this matter for expediency reason. What tax are you referring to, Madam Witness?
I understand there are supposed to be capital gain tax to be paid, documentary stamp tax and creditable withholding tax to be paid. We were supposed to subtract these amounts because supposed to be, it is buyer’s responsibilities.
Why did you not subtract, Madam Witness, these amounts?
Because she talked us into not doing it. Because she said she has some friends in the BIR and that she was hoping these things will go fast.
Madam Witness, how much was that amount which you were supposed to withhold but you did not because of her representation?
I remember a P3 million category and the P775,000.00 plus.
Now, Madam Witness, the properties, which you bought, in whose name are they right now? The two (2) properties?
The other property is already at WJA’s name. The other property is still with Alorasan’s name.
With Alorasan. Why is that property still with Alorasan’s name?
Velayo was able to submit the CAR only for TCT No. 142675 but not for TCT No. 122230, and thus only TCT No. 142675 was transferred to WJA.26 Velayo’s reliance on Chua-Burce is misplaced, for unlike in Chua-Burce where the petitioner was a mere bank cash custodian, Velayo is an agent of WJA who received money on its behalf with the agreed task to remit the same to the BIR and thus facilitate the transfer of the titles to WJA. First, Velayo is not a mere bank teller or bank employee with only a material possession of the missing funds, she was a Director and Corporate Secretary of ARDC, and she exercised sole and complete control over the funds of the company; second, Velayo is not being sued by ARDC for misappropriating the missing funds, but by WJA, who entrusted the same to her in her personal capacity because of her assurance that she would remit the same to the BIR; third, in Chua-Burce, the money deposited was intended for the depository bank, which acquired juridical possession, even ownership, thereof, whereas here, although the checks for the withholding taxes were deposited in the account of ARDC, Velayo and WJA were fully aware that Velayo not only had sole material possession, but the missing funds were personally entrusted to her, not to ARDC. ARDC had no obligation to receive, keep or remit them in behalf of WJA, only Velayo.
As the CA noted, the clear intention of the parties was for Velayo herself, not ARDC, to exercise juridical possession over the missing funds. Stated otherwise, Velayo did not receive the same in behalf of ARDC, but received it for herself, through her own representations. WJA had no obligation to pay to ARDC the withholding tax; its obligation was to pay the same to the BIR itself. It was only due to Velayo’s own representations that she was able to get hold of the money.27 Thus, while in Chua-Burce, as in People v. Locson,28 money was received by the bank teller in the ordinary course of duty in behalf of the bank, in the instant case ARDC had nothing to do with the arrangement between Abuid and Velayo as to the remittance of the withholding taxes to BIR. Through her own representation, Velayo was able to get hold of the funds, then she absconded with it. She acted on her own without sanction from ARDC, and she cannot now be allowed to escape criminal liability for her breach of trust. True, she was ARDC’s representative in the principal transaction, but this does not shield her from criminal liability because it was her voluntary unilateral act which caused injury to WJA.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Del Castillo,* and Villarama, Jr.,JJ., concur.
* Additional member per Raffle dated October 1, 2014 in view of the inhibition of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Florito S. Macalino, concurring; id. at 52-76.
3 Issued by Presiding Judge Wilhelmina B. Jorge-Wagan; id. at 80-95.
6 Id. at 55, 82.
16 387 Phil. 15 (2000).
18Lee v. People, 495 Phil. 239, 249-250 (2005).
20Chua-Burce v. Court of Appeals, supra note 16, at 25-27.
21 In her letter to Abuid, Velayo wrote: “Please be advised that you already withheld the creditable withholding income tax on the sale of that parcel of land more particularly described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 122230 issued by the Registry of Pasay City, pursuant to Section 3 of the Deed of Absolute Sale which we have executed last April 2001. Please be advised that the said Deed of Absolute Sale represents the entire agreement between us and supersedes any and all prior understanding and agreement between us.” Rollo, p. 67.
28 57 Phil. 325 (1932).
29Matrido v. People, 610 Phil. 203, 214 (2009), citing Chua-Burce v. Court of Appeals, supra note 16, at 26.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.