G.R. No. 207373 , March 23, 2022
LOURDES CHENG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Lourdes Cheng, a former employee of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), NCR, was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that from 1994 to 1998, in Quezon City, she defrauded multiple individuals by receiving specific sums of money in trust for administration under the express obligation to refund them upon demand, but she misappropriated and converted the total amount of Php838,000.00 to her personal use. The complainants were members of the “NAPOLCOM Employees Paluwagan,” an association formed in January 1994 where members contributed money to grant loans with interest. Petitioner was appointed as secretary, treasurer, and administrator, handling loan disbursements, collections, accounting, and liquidation. From 1994 to 1997, she returned the contributions with interest at year’s end. However, in December 1998, she failed to return the contributions and interest. Upon inquiry in January 1999, petitioner explained she could not collect from borrowers, particularly residents of Dagat-dagatan who were hold-up victims, and promised to return the money. After six months without compliance, the complainants sent a demand letter on July 31, 1999, and later filed a complaint. Petitioner denied the charge, admitting she could not return the 1998 contributions due to collection difficulties from borrowers, including some NAPOLCOM employees.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner Lourdes Cheng is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The elements of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) are: (1) money, goods, or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (2) there is misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial of receipt thereof; (3) the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender. All elements were proven. Petitioner received the complainants’ money in trust for the paluwagan with the obligation to return it. She failed to return the funds at the agreed time and to account for them despite demand, causing prejudice to the complainants. Her failure to account for the funds constituted circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. The defense of collection difficulties did not negate criminal liability for misappropriation. The Court modified the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered her to indemnify the complainants the specific amounts listed in the trial court’s decision.