GR 46713; (March, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 46713 March 31, 1989
CESAR LACSON, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Cesar Lacson was a distribution salesman for the Philippine Refining Company (PRC) assigned to the Bicol region. His duties included receiving company products for sale on a cash basis, collecting payments, and remitting the proceeds or accounting for the goods. Between October 20, 1969, and February 18, 1970, he received various deliveries of merchandise, as evidenced by signed Ex-Warehouse Stock Transfer Receipts. An audit and physical inventory revealed a stock shortage amounting to P50,586.49. PRC demanded an accounting, but Lacson failed to remit the proceeds or return the goods.
Lacson offered to compromise his obligation by proposing a down payment and installment plan, which PRC refused. An information for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code was filed against him. He pleaded not guilty, contending that his shortage was only around P10,000 and that some receipts were signed in blank or covered goods not actually delivered. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found him guilty, with the CA modifying the penalty. Lacson elevated the case via certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for estafa.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centered on the sufficiency of evidence proving all elements of estafa through misappropriation. The prosecution established that Lacson received the goods under an obligation to sell them and account for the proceeds. His receipt was conclusively proven by the testimony of the trucking company’s delivery man, Eladio Bonto, whose credibility was never impugned and who detailed the personal deliveries and Lacson’s signatures on the receipts.
Crucially, Lacson’s offer to compromise after the information was filed constituted an implied admission of guilt under Section 24, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court rejected his argument that the offer was not a definite admission of the full amount, reasoning that he was aware of the imputed shortage when he made the offer. This, coupled with his failure to account for the missing goods or their proceeds, provided direct and circumstantial evidence of misappropriation with intent to defraud. The findings of fact by the lower courts, being supported by evidence, are binding on review. Thus, all elements of estafa were proven beyond reasonable doubt.