G.R. No. 225753 & 225799, October 15, 2018
JOSE PAULO LEGASPI Y NAVERA and VICTOR DAGANAS Y JANDOC, PETITIONERS, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners Jose Paulo Legaspi and Victor Daganas were charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that they defrauded Fung Hing Kit by inducing him to invest P9.5 million in iGen-Portal International Corporation, and upon receipt, misappropriated the funds. The prosecution established that the private complainant, a Hongkong-based businessman, remitted the amount after a business proposal. Petitioners, however, claimed the transaction was for the purchase of corporate shares by the complainant’s domestic helper, Marcelina Balisi, and that the complainant later demanded the shares be transferred to his name, which could not be done.
The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioners of estafa. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding all elements present: receipt of money, misappropriation evidenced by failure to issue stock certificates or return the money, prejudice to the complainant, and demand. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the Information was fatally defective for failing to allege the essential element of “receipt in trust” or under an obligation to return, sell, or deliver the money, which is required for estafa under Article 315(1)(b).

ISSUE

Whether the Information sufficiently alleged all the essential elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and dismissed the criminal charges. The Court held that the Information was fatally defective for failing to allege an essential element of the crime. For estafa under Article 315(1)(b) to exist, the money, goods, or other personal property must be received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same. The Information merely stated that the complainant “invested and in fact deposited” the amount into iGen-Portal’s account and that petitioners, “once in possession,” misappropriated it. This allegation is insufficient.
The Court explained that the phrase “once in possession” does not equate to an allegation that the petitioners received the money in a fiduciary capacity or under an obligation to return or account for it. The money was deposited into the corporate account of iGen-Portal. An investment, by its nature, entails a business risk and does not automatically create a fiduciary duty to return the specific amount. The Information failed to state that petitioners personally received the money under an obligation to redeliver it, which is indispensable for this type of estafa. A conviction based on a defective Information violates the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. Since the very allegation of the crime was deficient, the petitioners could not be validly convicted.