GR 102784; (February, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102784 ; February 28, 1996
Rosa Lim, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rosa Lim was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on October 8, 1987, Lim received from Victoria Suarez a diamond ring valued at P169,000.00 under a receipt (Exhibit “A”) stating the ring was received in trust to be sold on a commission basis, with the obligation to remit the proceeds or return the item if unsold. Lim failed to return the ring or account for its proceeds despite demands. The defense presented a contrary version, claiming the transaction was a sale on approval or a purchase consideration, not a commission agreement. Lim testified she signed the receipt on its upper portion, not in the designated signature space, to indicate her non-conformity with its terms.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for estafa, despite her claim that the parol evidence rule was waived and the true agreement was a sale, not a trust receipt transaction.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) were established. First, Exhibit “A” conclusively proved Lim received the ring in trust for sale on commission, creating an obligation to return it or its proceeds. The parol evidence rule bars any oral contradiction of this written agreement, and no waiver occurred merely through cross-examination on the document’s terms. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, finding the prosecution’s evidence more credible, is accorded high respect. Second, Lim’s failure to return the ring or account for it, despite demand, constituted misappropriation. Third, this misappropriation caused evident damage to Suarez. The defense of a sale was unsubstantiated and incompatible with the clear terms of the receipt and Lim’s own conduct. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was in accordance with law.