GR 174181; (June, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174181 ; June 27, 2012
ANDRE L. D’ AIGLE, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Andre L. D’Aigle was the Managing Director of Samfit Philippines, Inc. (SPI), tasked with the management, care, and custody of company properties. Following his dismissal in November 1996 due to a conflict of interest, an audit revealed that several SPI properties, including an electric transformer, electronic and computer boxes, and machine spare parts with a total value of ₱681,665.35, were missing and unaccounted for. Investigation showed some of these items were found inside the premises of TAC Manufacturing Corporation, a separate entity owned by petitioner. Despite a formal written demand from SPI’s counsel to return the properties, petitioner failed to do so, leading to his prosecution for Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
In his defense, petitioner admitted possession of some items but claimed a right of lien over them, arguing SPI owed him money for repairs and unpaid salary. He asserted the properties were held as security for these collectibles and denied any misappropriation, contending his possession was lawful due to the outstanding debts owed to him by SPI.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner’s failure to account for and return the SPI properties upon demand constitutes estafa through misappropriation under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed petitioner’s conviction for Estafa. The legal logic centers on the nature of the obligation under Article 315(1)(b). The prosecution established that petitioner received the properties in a fiduciary capacity, creating an obligation to return them upon demand. His failure to account for or deliver them, despite repeated demands, constitutes circumstantial evidence of misappropriation or conversion.
The Court rejected petitioner’s defense of a possessory lien. A lien is a right of retention over property until a debt is paid, but it must be expressly granted by law or contract. No such agreement existed here. Petitioner’s unilateral act of holding the properties based on alleged unpaid debts did not create a legal lien; it merely demonstrated his intent to appropriate the items. His obligation to return the entrusted properties was separate from any monetary claim he had against SPI, which should be pursued in a separate civil action. Therefore, his unjustified failure to return the properties upon demand fulfilled the element of misappropriation to the prejudice of SPI, completing the crime of Estafa.