G.R. No. 207418 , June 23, 2021
Rosella Barlin, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosella Barlin and private complainant Ruth S. Gacayan were both dealers of Triumph products. After petitioner’s store was gutted by fire, Gacayan agreed to place orders for Triumph products on petitioner’s behalf using Gacayan’s credit line, with their transactions covered by Trust Receipt Agreements (TRAs). The agreement was that petitioner would either pay for the items or return them if unsold within 30 days. The prosecution presented 22 TRAs, but only two (Nos. 0081 and 0083) were signed by petitioner herself; the others were signed by her salespersons. Gacayan claimed petitioner failed to pay for items valued at P74,055.00 and issued bouncing checks. Petitioner admitted receiving only the items under the two TRAs she signed, claimed she returned unsold items, and asserted that Gacayan also purchased Avon items from her, the value of which should be offset. A separate criminal case for violation of B.P. 22 was filed, and a Compromise Agreement on civil liability was entered into. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and reduced the amount owed to P24,975.00, considering only the TRAs proven by the prosecution.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting petitioner of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition but modified the CA decision. It held that all essential elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) were present, but petitioner could only be held liable for the two TRAs (0081 and 0083) she personally signed, as the prosecution failed to prove that her salespersons were authorized to sign the other TRAs on her behalf. The Court found that petitioner received the goods in trust under these TRAs, misappropriated or converted them by failing to remit the proceeds or return the unsold items, to the prejudice of Gacayan, and demand was made. The Compromise Agreement in the B.P. 22 case did not novate the trust receipt agreements or extinguish her criminal liability. Petitioner was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of three months and eleven days of arresto mayor and ordered to pay Gacayan P8,275.00 (the total value under TRAs 0081 and 0083) with interest at 12% per annum from the filing of the Information on October 30, 2000 until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of judgment, and thereafter 6% per annum until full payment.