G.R. No. 224673. January 24, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. CECILIA RIVAC, Respondent.

FACTS

The case stemmed from an Information charging Cecilia Rivac with Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on August 4, 2007, Rivac received several pieces of jewelry on consignment from Asuncion Farinas, with a total value of ₱439,500.00, under an obligation to remit the sales proceeds or return the unsold items within seven days. Despite the lapse of the period and subsequent demands, Rivac failed to comply, leading Farinas to believe the items were misappropriated. Rivac pleaded not guilty, claiming the transaction was a loan secured by a land title, and the signed consignment document was blank and merely a formality for that loan.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Rivac, finding all elements of estafa present. The court gave credence to the consignment document and rejected Rivac’s defense based on the parol evidence rule. Rivac moved to reopen proceedings to present new testimony from Farinas, who then recanted, stating she never released the jewelry due to an existing loan. The RTC denied the motion regarding another witness and affirmed the conviction, treating Farinas’s new statement as a disfavored recantation.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Rivac’s conviction for Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centered on the elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) and the evaluation of evidence. For conviction, the prosecution must prove: (a) the accused received money, goods, or other personal property in trust or on commission; (b) the accused misappropriated or converted the property or denied receipt; and (c) the act caused damage or prejudice. The Court found these elements established. The consignment document, signed by Rivac, proved receipt of the jewelry for sale on commission. Her failure to account for the items or remit proceeds after demand constituted misappropriation, causing financial prejudice to Farinas.
The Court upheld the lower courts’ rejection of Rivac’s defense and the recantation. The parol evidence rule barred Rivac from altering the terms of the written consignment agreement with oral testimony claiming a loan. Farinas’s recantation was viewed with extreme caution, as recantations are unreliable and often made for dubious reasons. The original trial testimony was consistent with the documentary evidence and demand letters, whereas the recantation was an afterthought that did not align with the established factual sequence. The CA correctly found no reason to overturn the RTC’s factual findings, which are accorded high respect. The penalty imposed was within the range prescribed by law, considering the amount involved.