G.R. No. L-38711. January 31, 1985.
FRANCISCO SYCIP, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Francisco Sycip was convicted of estafa by the Court of First Instance of Manila. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The factual findings established that in April 1961, complainant Jose K. Lapuz, who was entrusted with 2,000 shares of Republic Flour Mills stock by Albert Smith for sale on commission, delivered the shares to Sycip upon Sycip’s representation that he had good stock market connections. Lapuz clarified the shares were not his own. Sycip subsequently sold 758 shares, for which Lapuz accounted to Smith. Regarding the remaining 1,000 shares, Sycip informed Lapuz that 500 shares had been sold and issued a draft for P8,000, which was later dishonored. Sycip then issued a P5,000 check from his daughter’s account, which was also dishonored.
Lapuz demanded payment, threatening to file an estafa case. Sycip failed to pay the proceeds or return the shares. The trial court found Sycip guilty of misappropriating the sale proceeds. On appeal, Sycip argued, among other things, that the appellate court denied him a hearing and that the essential elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code were not proven, citing People vs. Benitez.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Sycip’s conviction for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) were sufficiently established. First, the element of fraud or deceit was present. Sycip received the shares for sale on commission, and his subsequent acts—issuing a worthless draft and a dishonored check after the shares were sold, and his failure to remit the proceeds—constituted a clear abuse of confidence and fraudulent misappropriation. The Court cited U.S. vs. Pascual, stating that abuse of confidence in misappropriating funds is a fraud upon the injured party.
Second, the element of demand was satisfied. The Court ruled that a formal demand for the return of the specific shares was not required under the circumstances. Since Sycip had already informed Lapuz that the shares were sold, Lapuz’s rightful demand was for the payment of the proceeds. Lapuz’s act of “hunting” for Sycip and his subsequent written threat to file a case constituted a valid demand for the money. Sycip’s response with a worthless check further evidenced fraudulent intent.
Third, Sycip failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his inability to account for the proceeds. His claim that he gave the shares to a creditor did not exonerate him; instead, it confirmed the conversion of the property for a purpose other than that agreed upon. The Court found no merit in Sycip’s procedural arguments regarding a denied hearing, as the record showed a full consideration of the case based on the evidence. The appellate court committed no reversible error.