GR 179577; (August, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 179577 ; August 25, 2010
VON MADARANG Y MONTEMAYOR, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Von Madarang was an agent of Teresita Ramirez, sole proprietor of T.E.R. Trading, authorized via Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs) to collect payments for business registration plates sold to several municipalities and Santiago City. Certifications confirmed petitioner collected full payments from Santiago City, Cordon, and San Mateo. Based on Teresita’s “Von Madarang Accounts” record, petitioner failed to remit ₱132,000 of these collections despite repeated demands, leading to the filing of an Information for Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
Petitioner contested his obligation to remit collections from Santiago City and San Mateo, asserting his authority under an SPA was limited to Cordon, Cauayan, and Ramon. He alternatively claimed a business partnership existed with Teresita, making the collections his share. The trial court found the SPA he presented suspicious due to an apparent insertion, while the valid SPAs explicitly included Santiago City and established an agency relationship.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner is guilty of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code for misappropriating collections received in trust.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed petitioner’s conviction for Estafa. The legal logic centers on the elements of estafa through misappropriation under Article 315(1)(b): (1) receipt of money, goods, or other personal property in trust or on commission; (2) misappropriation or conversion of said property; (3) prejudice to the owner; and (4) demand. The SPAs validly established an agency, not a partnership, granting petitioner authority to collect payments with the obligation to remit them to Teresita. His failure to account for and deliver the collected funds, despite demand, constituted misappropriation.
The Court rejected petitioner’s defense of a partnership, as the SPAs clearly delineated an agency relationship. Minor mathematical inaccuracies in the accounting records (the Information cited ₱132,000, while evidence suggested a ₱165,000 balance later partially paid) did not negate criminal liability, as the exact civil liability was ascertainable from trial evidence. The variance was immaterial to proving the essential element of misappropriation. Petitioner’s abuse of confidence was evident from his conversion of collections for personal use, fulfilling all elements of the crime.