G.R. No. 150443 ; January 20, 2006
SYLVIA PEREZ, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Sylvia Perez was employed as an accounts receivable and recording clerk at Storck Products, Inc. She was charged with estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly misappropriating cash collections amounting to P148,160.35 from October 1990 to September 1993. The prosecution established that under company procedure, salesmen would remit cash replacements for bounced checks directly to Perez, who was then obligated to turn them over to the cashier. An audit revealed a shortage, and Perez admitted to the company’s sales manager that she used the money “for her intention.” She and her husband later executed a promissory note and an affidavit of undertaking to repay the amount, and she made an initial payment of P20,000.
Perez denied the allegations, claiming that the salesmen themselves were responsible for directly remitting cash to the cashier and that she only handled recording duties. She also contested the validity of the affidavit of undertaking, stating she was forced to sign a different document to avoid termination. The trial court found her guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centered on the elements of estafa through misappropriation under Article 315(1)(b): (1) money is received by the offender in trust or on commission; (2) there is a misappropriation or conversion of said money; (3) the misappropriation is to the prejudice of the owner; and (4) there is a demand by the owner. The Court found all elements present. Perez received the cash collections from salesmen in her official capacity, creating an obligation to remit them to the company treasurer. Her admission to the sales manager, the execution of the promissory note and affidavit of undertaking, and her partial payment constituted clear evidence of misappropriation and an acknowledgment of her obligation. Her defense, which sought to shift responsibility to the salesmen, was deemed unconvincing and inconsistent with the credible testimonies and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution.
Regarding the penalty, the Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The amount defrauded was P148,160.35. Following the formula in People v. Gabres, the penalty is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum (4 years, 2 months, and 1 day to 8 years), which shall be imposed as a straight penalty. This is then increased by one year for every additional P10,000. The proper indeterminate sentence was computed to be 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum, to 12 years, 8 months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal as maximum. Actual damages were reduced to P63,755.50, representing the amount not restituted after her initial payment.