GR 149753; (November, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149753; November 27, 2006
MIGUEL COSME, JR., Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
An Information charged Miguel Cosme, Jr. with estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that between September and October 1994, Cosme received ₱1.8 million in trust from Paul Bunda. The money was intended to settle accrued real estate taxes for a parcel of land in Las Piñas, based on Cosme’s representation that he had connections with the local mayor’s and treasurer’s offices. Bunda delivered ₱200,000 in cash and two checks totaling ₱1.6 million, which Cosme encashed. Cosme failed to pay the taxes and misappropriated the funds despite demands.
Cosme pleaded not guilty, contending the money was a loan for his personal needs, not a trust for tax payment. He denied receiving a demand letter and argued Bunda’s testimony was improbable, as an experienced real estate dealer would not entrust such a task to a mere overseer. The Regional Trial Court convicted Cosme, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals, which reduced the actual damages to ₱1.6 million, reflecting only the encashed checks.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Cosme’s conviction for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The elements of estafa through misappropriation or conversion are present: (1) Cosme received money in trust or under obligation to apply it for a specific purpose; (2) he misappropriated or converted it; (3) to the prejudice of Bunda; and (4) demand was made. The Court found Bunda’s testimony credible and consistent, detailing the entrustment for a specific purpose. Cosme’s defense of a simple loan was unsubstantiated and belied by the evidence showing the money was intended for tax payments, which he failed to perform.
The legal logic centers on the nature of the transaction. The receipt of money for a specific purpose creates a fiduciary duty. Failure to account for and apply the funds accordingly, coupled with misappropriation, constitutes estafa. The Court held that the prosecution proved all elements beyond reasonable doubt. The reduction of damages by the CA was correct, as the cash payments lacked sufficient corroboration. The penalty and award of interest were sustained. Credibility assessments by the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are generally binding unless glaring errors exist, which were not present here.