GR 166246; (April, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166246 ; April 30, 2008
ANTONIO NEPOMUCENO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Antonio Nepomuceno was the manager of Lipa Lending Investor, Inc. The corporation, through Nepomuceno, granted a loan to Rommel Villanueva. After Villanueva made a substantial payment, Nepomuceno, claiming an overpayment, facilitated the issuance of three corporation checks from Lipa Lending’s funds. One check for P180,000 was made payable to Nepomuceno himself, which he subsequently encashed. He was charged with estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code for misappropriating corporate funds under his administration.
Nepomuceno defended himself by asserting that the P180,000 represented a personal debt from Villanueva to him, not corporate money. He argued that since Villanueva requested the check in his favor, the amount already belonged to Villanueva as his change or overpayment, and thus its transfer caused no damage to Lipa Lending, negating an essential element of estafa.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether Nepomuceno is guilty of estafa through misappropriation under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the nature of the funds and the breach of fiduciary duty. The P180,000 was indisputably drawn from the corporate coffers of Lipa Lending. As manager, Nepomuceno held these funds in a fiduciary capacity, under an obligation to administer them for the corporation’s benefit. By causing the corporation to issue a check payable to himself and converting the amount for personal use, he committed misappropriation. The act of misappropriation is complete upon the conversion of the funds held in trust, and proof of actual demand is not an element of the crime under this mode of estafa.
The Court rejected the defense that the money belonged to Villanueva. The check was drawn against Lipa Lending’s account, making the corporation the source. Any private arrangement between Villanueva and Nepomuceno did not absolve the latter from unlawfully diverting corporate assets entrusted to him. Damage to the corporation was inherent in the unauthorized depletion of its funds. Consequently, all elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b)—(1) receipt of money in trust or for administration, (2) misappropriation or conversion, and (3) prejudice to another—were duly established. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was sustained.