G.R. No. 225697. September 05, 2018
ROSIEN OSENTAL, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosien Osental was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on August 21, 2008, Osental received from private complainant Maria Emilyn Te the amount of P262,225.00 under a Trust Receipt Agreement. The purpose was for Osental to purchase ready-to-wear goods, sell them, and remit the proceeds or return the unsold items by October 21, 2008. Osental failed to comply with this obligation despite demands. The prosecution presented Te and witness Edna Escobar, who both testified to the agreement’s execution and the delivery of the money.
Osental denied the allegations, claiming the trust receipt was forged and that her transaction with Te involved the purchase of gift checks, not RTW goods. She asserted she had already paid Te P24,500.00 for these checks. To support her forgery claim, she presented identification cards and her daily time record for signature comparison.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Osental’s conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) were established: (1) Osental received money in trust or under a fiduciary duty to purchase goods and remit proceeds; (2) she misappropriated or converted the money; (3) this caused prejudice to Te; and (4) it was done with abuse of confidence. The Trust Receipt Agreement, corroborated by witness testimony, proved the fiduciary nature of the transaction. Osental’s defense of denial and forgery was unsubstantiated. The Court found no merit in her claim, noting that a judge is competent to examine and compare signatures without a handwriting expert. Her own signatures in court filings resembled the one on the trust receipt, undermining her forgery defense.
Regarding the penalty, the Court modified the sentence in line with recent jurisprudence adjusting penalty thresholds. The amount involved (P262,225.00) fell within the revised range under Republic Act No. 10951, warranting the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Osental was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of thirty (30) days of arresto menor, as minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as maximum. The civil indemnity of P262,225.00 was affirmed with legal interest.