G.R. No. 167805 November 14, 2008
ARNOLD STA. CATALINA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Arnold Sta. Catalina was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that in February 1988, in Makati, petitioner received in trust from Lorenzo B. Ballecer the amount of P100,000.00 for the purpose of opening a letter of credit for the importation of jute sacks from China, with the obligation to return the money if the transaction did not materialize. Petitioner, with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, appropriated the amount for his own use and failed to return it despite demands.
Private complainant Lorenzo B. Ballecer, president of Sunrise Industries Development, Incorporated, entered into a joint business venture with petitioner, president of Century United Marketing and Trading Corporation, for the importation of jute sacks. Petitioner claimed he could secure the sacks from China through a Hongkong agent and had a ready buyer. Ballecer ordered one container load. To open the required letter of credit at Citytrust Bank, a marginal deposit of P100,000 was needed. Ballecer encashed a check for this amount. As they arrived at the bank after banking hours, petitioner suggested depositing the money in his Citytrust account, to which Ballecer agreed. Petitioner executed a document acknowledging receipt of the P100,000, deposited in his account for use in opening the letter of credit, and stating it would be returned if the transaction did not materialize.
Subsequently, Ballecer discovered the actual cost of the jute sacks made the venture unprofitable, so he cancelled the importation and demanded the return of the P100,000. Petitioner failed to return the money despite demands. In defense, petitioner testified the money was spent for shared office expenses, salaries, and miscellaneous costs under an oral profit-sharing agreement.
The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of estafa. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. During the appeal, a motion to retake testimony from the transcript of stenographic notes dated February 5, 1991 was granted, but the public prosecutor later filed a Manifestation stating Ballecer was no longer interested and submitted an Affidavit of Desistance. The appellate court nonetheless affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err in convicting the petitioner for the crime of estafa despite the missing transcript of stenographic notes dated February 5, 1991?

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
First, all elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) were present: (a) petitioner received the money in trust with the obligation to return it if the transaction failed; (b) he misappropriated or converted the money for his own use, as evidenced by his admission of issuing checks from the amount for purposes other than opening the letter of credit; and (c) such misappropriation caused prejudice to Ballecer, who suffered the loss of P100,000 despite demands.
Second, the conviction was proper despite the missing February 5, 1991 transcript. Nothing on record categorically indicates the transcript was missing when the trial court rendered its decision. The trial court’s failure to mention the testimony does not mean it was not considered; courts are not required to state all facts in the record, only the facts and law upon which the decision is based. Even assuming the transcript was missing, other evidence sufficiently established petitioner’s guilt. The missing transcript contained only a portion of Ballecer’s testimony; other transcripts extensively covered his testimonies and provided ample basis for conviction. Furthermore, an affidavit of desistance is generally insufficient to justify acquittal, as it could easily be obtained and would make criminal prosecution interminable.
The petition was denied.