GR 84719; (January, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 84719 ; January 25, 1991
YONG CHAN KIM, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. EDGAR D. GUSTILO, Presiding Judge, RTC, 6th Judicial Region, Branch 28 Iloilo City and COURT OF APPEALS (13th Division), respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Yong Chan Kim, a SEAFDEC researcher, was charged with Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. He received cash advances under two travel orders (T.O. No. 2222 and T.O. No. 2268) with a four-day overlap. During liquidation, he was found to have collected per diems twice for the overlapping period, totaling P1,230.00. He claimed he made “make-up trips” for the days he failed to travel under the first order. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court convicted him, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court. The Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal for being filed out of time, holding he improperly filed a notice of appeal instead of a petition for review from the RTC’s appellate decision.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner is guilty of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted the petitioner. The legal logic centered on the essential element of misappropriation or conversion under Article 315(1)(b), which requires a fiduciary relationship arising from the receipt of money in trust or on commission. The Court held that a cash advance creates a debtor-creditor relationship, not a fiduciary one. Ownership of the cash advance is transferred to the employee, obliging him to pay an equivalent amount upon liquidation or, failing that, through salary deduction. Prosecution witness Virgilio Hierro confirmed this, testifying that the employee “already owns the money but subject to liquidation.” Since no fiduciary relationship existed between Kim and SEAFDEC, the element of misappropriation or conversion was absent. The Court further noted SEAFDEC’s policy of deducting unliquidated advances from salary, which was applied to Kim. Consequently, his criminal liability for estafa was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
