GR 198932; (October, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 198932 , October 09, 2019
Danilo S. Ibañez, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Danilo S. Ibañez was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that on April 25, 2002, the spouses Arturo T. Pineda and Honorata K. Pineda authorized the accused to sell their three-hectare orchard for P6,000,000.00, payable in 24 months. The accused sold various lots totaling P2,513,544.00, with an obligation to remit 60% of the collections to the complainants. However, they remitted only P860,166.45, leaving a balance of P647,560.00, which they allegedly misappropriated. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the petitioner of estafa. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modification of the penalty. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner is guilty of the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED the petitioner. The Court held that the offense of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) requires misappropriation or conversion of money, and breach of trust and confidence as an indispensable element. The evidence, particularly the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed by the parties, established that the transaction was a contract of sale, not an agency. The MOA stipulated that the vendor (complainant) sold the property to the vendee (petitioner) for a purchase price of P6,000,000.00. The Special Power of Attorney (SPA) was executed to enable the petitioner to subdivide and sell the property to effect payment. Therefore, the petitioner, as vendee, became the owner of the property, and his failure to pay the full price did not constitute estafa but merely made him an unpaid vendor. The complainant’s remedy was to enforce the sale, not to file a criminal action for estafa. Absent evidence proving misappropriation or conversion, the petitioner could not be convicted of estafa. The Court ordered the petitioner to pay the balance of P647,960.00 to the complainant, plus interest, as a civil obligation.