G.R. No. 160540 March 22, 2007
VICIA D. PASCUAL, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Vicia D. Pascual was the acting president of the Assumption College Parents Council for the 1996-1997 school year, entrusted with the council’s bank funds. Upon the assumption of a new president in 1998, petitioner was repeatedly demanded to turn over the council’s money but failed to do so. It was discovered she had withdrawn the funds from the original bank accounts. Although she opened a new account in the council’s name, she failed to deposit approximately ₱578,208.96. Consequently, she was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code for misappropriating the money entrusted to her.
At trial, the prosecution presented bank statements, checks petitioner issued to herself, and demand letters. Petitioner claimed the council authorized the withdrawals to finance a covered walk construction and presented a Secretary’s Certificate. She later moved for a new trial, submitting an affidavit that she gave the money to a contractor who absconded, along with documents she claimed were newly-discovered evidence. The trial court convicted her, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) are present: (1) money was received by the offender in trust or for administration; (2) the offender misappropriated or converted such money; (3) the misappropriation was to the prejudice of the owner; and (4) there was a demand by the owner. Petitioner, as acting president, received the council’s funds in a fiduciary capacity. Her failure to account for and return the money upon demand, coupled with her act of withdrawing the funds and issuing checks to herself, constituted clear misappropriation. Her defense of having spent the money on a construction project was properly rejected by the lower courts as unsupported by credible evidence; the alleged project was non-existent and her claim of a lost receipt was deemed unbelievable. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals, an indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum, was correct, computed based on the amount misappropriated exceeding ₱22,000.00.