G.R. No. 199150 ; February 6, 2012
Carmina G. Brokmann, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

The petitioner, Carmina G. Brokmann, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City for the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The charge stemmed from her failure to return or remit the proceeds from the sale of jewelries valued at ₱1,861,000.00, which she received on consignment from the private complainant, Anna de Dios, under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA acknowledged the petitioner’s receipt of the jewelries and her obligation to remit sale proceeds or return unsold items. The prosecution presented the MOA and the testimony of the private complainant. In her defense, the petitioner admitted receiving the jewelries but asserted a lack of bad faith or intent to deceive, citing a 15-year business relationship, partial payments made, and the absence of a specific period for remittance or return in the MOA. The RTC sentenced her to imprisonment ranging from six years and six months of prision mayor (minimum) to twenty years of reclusion temporal (maximum) and ordered restitution. The CA affirmed the conviction, finding all elements of estafa by abuse of confidence present.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the judgment of the RTC finding the petitioner guilty of estafa beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove the element of deceit.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that the CA committed no reversible error in affirming the conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b). The offense charged was estafa committed by abuse of confidence, not by means of deceit. Therefore, deceit is not an essential element; the breach of confidence substitutes for fraud or deceit. The petitioner’s cited jurisprudence (People v. Singson and People v. Ojeda) was inapplicable as those cases involved estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), where deceit is a necessary element. The Court found all elements of estafa by abuse of confidence present: (1) the petitioner received the jewelries in trust or under an agency agreement for sale; (2) she misappropriated or converted them by failing to account for and remit the proceeds or return the items upon demand; (3) the private complainant suffered prejudice; and (4) demand was made. However, the Court modified the indeterminate penalty imposed. Applying People v. Temporada, the minimum term should be within the range of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months), one degree lower than the prescribed penalty. Thus, the minimum term was reduced from six years and six months of prision mayor to four years and two months of prision correccional. The maximum term of twenty years of reclusion temporal was retained. The dispositive portion affirmed the CA decision with modification of the penalty to imprisonment of four years and two months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.