G.R. No. 153198 ; July 11, 2006
Crisanta B. Bonifacio, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Crisanta Bonifacio, on three separate occasions in March and April 1996, received various pieces of jewelry from private complainant Ofelia Santos under acknowledgment receipts. The agreements stipulated that Bonifacio would sell the items on commission and remit the proceeds or return unsold jewelry within 15 days. Bonifacio failed to account for the items or their value upon demand. The total unremitted value amounted to P244,000. Partial payment via checks was issued, but these were dishonored. Consequently, an Information for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code was filed against her.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Bonifacio of estafa. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of four years and one day of prision correccional as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Bonifacio filed this petition, arguing that misappropriation was not proven and her liability should only be civil, and that the imposed penalty was excessive.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code and in imposing the indeterminate sentence.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. On the substantive issue, the Court held that all elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) were established. Petitioner received the jewelry in trust under an obligation to account for or return them. Her failure to return the items or remit their value upon the owner’s demand constituted circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. The legal logic is that in an agency for sale, the agent’s duty is to return the property upon demand; the failure to do so, absent a satisfactory explanation, demonstrates conversion. Petitioner’s admissions and failure to refute the prosecution’s evidence at trial confirmed misappropriation to the prejudice of Santos.
Regarding the penalty, the Court found the imposition correct. For estafa involving amounts over P22,000, the prescribed penalty is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum is taken from the penalty next lower in degree (prision correccional minimum to medium), and the maximum is the maximum period of the prescribed penalty. The appellate court correctly set the minimum at four years and one day and the maximum at twenty years, within the allowable range. The Court emphasized that factual findings of lower courts are binding in a Rule 45 petition.