G.R. No. 159288 ; October 19, 2004
Johnson Lee, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and Neugene Marketing, Inc., respondents.

FACTS

Neugene Marketing, Inc. (NMI) sold goods to Victorias Milling Company, Inc. (VMCI), which issued two checks payable to NMI totaling ₱1,500,150. Johnson Lee, NMI’s President, received and encashed these checks. Subsequently, NMI’s stockholders voted for voluntary dissolution, and a trustee was appointed to liquidate corporate assets, including the collection of receivables. The trustee demanded that Lee turn over the collected funds, but he refused.
Criminal complaints for estafa through misappropriation were filed against Lee. During preliminary investigation, Lee submitted a counter-affidavit admitting his receipt of the VMCI checks but claiming the funds were used for legitimate corporate expenses and that the dissolution proceedings were invalid. The prosecution proceeded to trial, presenting photocopies of the charge invoices and checks, which Lee objected to as inadmissible for being mere photocopies.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved the elements of estafa against Lee beyond reasonable doubt, particularly focusing on the admissibility of the photocopied documentary evidence and the sufficiency of proof of misappropriation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed Lee’s conviction. On the admissibility of evidence, the Court ruled that the photocopies of the charge invoices and checks were admissible as secondary evidence. The originals were in the possession of VMCI, which refused to produce them. The prosecution laid the proper foundation by proving the execution and existence of the originals and the reason for their non-production. Furthermore, Lee himself admitted in his counter-affidavit to receiving the checks, thereby authenticating the photocopies and rendering the need for the originals unnecessary.
On the merits, all elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code were established. Lee, as a corporate officer, received the checks in a fiduciary capacity for NMI. His failure to deliver the funds to the duly appointed trustee upon lawful demand, despite having no authority to withhold them, constituted misappropriation. His defense that the money was spent for corporate purposes was unsubstantiated and did not excuse his refusal to account for and turn over the funds to the lawful liquidator after dissolution. His intent to gain was inferred from his unjustified conversion and withholding of the money to the prejudice of the corporation.