G.R. No. 152065 . January 29, 2008.
Belen Real, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Belen Real was an agent for private complainant Benjamin Uy’s jewelry business. On January 10, 1989, Real obtained seven pieces of jewelry from Uy, valued at P371,500.00, by signing a receipt (Katibayan) stipulating her obligation to remit the sale proceeds or return the items within ten days. After the period lapsed, Uy demanded payment. Real initially claimed the items were sold and payment was via post-dated checks, but she repeatedly deferred payment upon Uy’s collection attempts. Following a formal demand letter that Real ignored, Uy filed a criminal complaint for estafa.
At trial, Real admitted to prior dealings but denied the January 10 transaction. She alleged the signed receipt was fabricated from a blank paper she signed during an earlier transaction in December 1988. The trial court found her guilty of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Real elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for the crime of estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction, but modified the penalty. The Court found all elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) present: (1) Real received the jewelry in trust, on commission, under an obligation to return them or deliver the proceeds; (2) she misappropriated or converted the items for her own use; and (3) Uy suffered prejudice. Her failure to account for or return the property upon demand constituted circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, noting that Real’s denial could not prevail over Uy’s positive testimony and the corroborating receipt.
However, the Court corrected the penalty. The trial court imposed a straight penalty of 20 years of reclusion temporal, which was erroneous. For estafa involving P371,500.00, the penalty should be based on the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The maximum term is taken from the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law (prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum), which is increased by one year for each additional P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00. The minimum term is within the range of the penalty next lower in degree (arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum). The proper indeterminate sentence imposed was four years and two months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.