G.R. No. 102784 . April 7, 1997.
Rosa Lim, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosa Lim was convicted of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution established that Lim received jewelry from Victoria Suarez on an “agency to sell” basis, as evidenced by a signed receipt prohibiting sale on credit and requiring return if unsold. Lim later informed Suarez she was no longer interested and, upon Suarez’s instruction, returned the items to Aurelia Nadera, who had facilitated the transaction. Nadera issued a receipt for the returned jewelry.
Suarez later demanded the return of a ring, claiming non-receipt. Lim asserted she had returned it to Nadera as instructed. During trial, Nadera admitted receiving the jewelry from Lim and issuing a bouncing check to Suarez for the ring, which she had sold. Suarez herself admitted receiving the returned bracelet from Nadera.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Rosa Lim is criminally liable for estafa.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration and acquitted Lim of criminal liability. The Court found no criminal intent (dolo) to defraud, which is essential for estafa. Lim’s act of returning the more expensive bracelet and the ring to Nadera, the very person who prepared the receipt and introduced the parties, negated any fraudulent intent. Her belief in Nadera’s authority was reasonable under the circumstances.
At worst, Lim was merely negligent in assuming Nadera’s continued authority to receive the jewelry on Suarez’s behalf. Estafa cannot be committed through negligence; it requires deliberate intent. Consequently, Lim could not be held criminally liable. However, the Court found her civilly liable for the value of the unreturned ring due to her negligence, ordering her to pay Suarez P169,000.00 as actual damages plus legal interest. The acquittal is based on the absence of the requisite criminal intent for the crime charged.