G.R. No. 246700, March 03, 2021
Rodolfo “Sonny” D. Vicente, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Rodolfo “Sonny” D. Vicente was charged with estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that in June 2008, Vicente received in trust from Roxaco Land Corporation the amount of P42,600.00 for the purpose and under the obligation of delivering it to Winner Sign Graphics as payment for services rendered, but he misappropriated and converted the amount to his own personal use.
The evidence showed that Vicente inquired with Winner Sign Graphics, through its account officer Bethea Liwanag, about making billboards for his client, Roxaco Land Corporation. Winner’s owner instructed Liwanag to transact directly with Roxaco. Vicente then introduced Albert Gamboa as Roxaco’s representative. Winner provided a quotation, which was accepted via facsimile, and proceeded to print and install three billboards. After installation, Winner sent the statement of account to Roxaco, but Roxaco responded that its contract was with Vicente’s company, Snydesign. Roxaco paid Vicente, but Vicente did not pay Winner. Winner sent a demand letter. Vicente, through email and counsel, claimed the contract was between him and Roxaco and that Winner was only entitled to P35,400.00.
Vicente testified that his contract with Roxaco was exclusive and he subcontracted the printing to Winner. He received payment from Roxaco via checks and asserted he was the rightful owner of the funds, though he admitted owing Winner P35,400.00 for the billboards. He claimed he tried to offer payment but was told to wait.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Vicente of estafa, sentencing him to thirteen years of reclusion temporal and ordering him to pay P35,400.00 as actual damages and P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to six months of arresto mayor, applying Republic Act No. 10951.

ISSUE

Whether all the elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, particularly the receipt of money in trust or under an obligation to deliver the same and its subsequent misappropriation, were proven beyond reasonable doubt against petitioner Vicente.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution and ACQUITTED Vicente of estafa.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the first two essential elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b). First, there was no proof that Vicente received the money from Roxaco in trust, on commission, for administration, or under any obligation involving the duty to deliver or return it to Winner. The evidence established that Vicente had an exclusive contract with Roxaco. Winner was aware of this, as Liwanag admitted Roxaco informed her their contract was with Snydesign (Vicente’s company) and that the billboards were completed for Vicente’s account. The payment Vicente received from Roxaco was pursuant to their own contract, not for transmission to Winner. Second, since there was no obligation to deliver the specific money received from Roxaco to Winner, Vicente’s act of not paying his separate debt to Winner for the subcontract did not constitute misappropriation or conversion of funds held in trust. His failure to pay Winner the amount of P35,400.00 gave rise only to a civil obligation arising from breach of their subcontract, not a criminal liability for estafa. However, the Court ordered Vicente to pay Winner P35,400.00 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of demand (July 14, 2008) until finality of the decision, and thereafter at 6% per annum until full satisfaction.