G.R. No. 167084 ; October 31, 2006
MONINA PUCAY, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Asian Retailers, Inc. (ARI) conducted a lending operation for employees of the Land Transportation Office (LTO). Petitioner Monina Pucay, an LTO Cashier II, was among those responsible for deducting loan repayments from employee salaries and remitting the collections to ARI. After the LTO ordered ARI to cease operations due to a theft incident, ARI’s President, Benjamin Gochangco, and Pucay privately agreed to continue the lending. Under their verbal agreement, Pucay would deduct payments and remit them to Gochangco, receiving a commission. Pucay subsequently collected amounts totaling P205,695.00 but failed to remit them to Gochangco.
Despite repeated demands, Pucay did not deliver the funds, claiming the money was stolen. She later wrote a letter pleading for time to remit P205,000.00. After a formal written demand was served and acknowledged by Pucay in the presence of LTO officials and Gochangco’s lawyer, she still failed to account for the money. Consequently, an Information for Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code was filed against her.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Monina Pucay’s conviction for the crime of Estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) are present: (1) money, goods, or personal property was received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration; (2) the offender misappropriated or converted such property or denied its receipt; (3) the misappropriation or conversion was to the prejudice of the owner; and (4) there was a demand by the offended party. The evidence established that Pucay received the collections in trust under her agreement with Gochangco. Her failure to remit the funds despite repeated demands, coupled with her plea for time to pay in her letter, constitutes misappropriation. Her defense of theft was unsubstantiated.
Regarding the penalty, since the amount defrauded exceeded P22,000.00, the penalty under Article 315 was to be imposed in its maximum period, with an additional year for each additional P10,000.00, but not to exceed twenty years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty was taken from the penalty next lower in degree (prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum), and the maximum was set at twenty years of reclusion temporal. The civil liability for the actual amount defrauded was also upheld.