G.R. No. L-47674 October 30, 1980
SANTIAGO ONG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Santiago Ong and Tony Chua were charged with estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that on March 31, 1966, they received seven pieces of jewelry valued at P123,500.00 from Florentina Buyco with the obligation to sell them and remit the proceeds or return the unsold items within an hour. They allegedly misappropriated the items. After the City Fiscal filed an information without preliminary investigation, the court granted a reinvestigation. The Investigating Assistant City Fiscal, after the first reinvestigation, recommended the exclusion of Ong from the information, absolving him. The City Fiscal moved to admit an amended information charging only Chua.
The private prosecutors moved to reopen the reinvestigation, which the court granted. A second, extensive reinvestigation was conducted. Again, the Investigating Fiscal recommended Ong’s exclusion. Despite the City Fiscal’s manifestation sustaining this recommendation, the trial court, upon opposition from the private prosecutors, denied the motion to admit the amended information. The case proceeded to trial, resulting in Ong’s conviction, which the Court of Appeals affirmed with penalty modification.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Santiago Ong for estafa based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Santiago Ong. The legal logic centered on the failure of the prosecution to prove all elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) beyond reasonable doubt. For estafa through misappropriation, the prosecution must establish that the accused received the property in trust or on commission and subsequently misappropriated it. The Court found the evidence for the prosecution insufficient and unreliable. The sole testimony of the complainant, Florentina Buyco, was deemed uncorroborated and inconsistent. She testified that she delivered the jewels to Tony Chua alone at his store, not to Ong. This directly contradicted the information’s allegation of joint receipt. No evidence placed the jewels in Ong’s possession. The prosecution failed to prove that Ong ever received the items, a fundamental element of the crime. Furthermore, the Court found the trial court’s disregard of the City Fiscal’s reinvestigation findings, which twice recommended exoneration, to be a prejudicial error. The Fiscal’s findings, based on a thorough investigation, indicated a lack of probable cause against Ong. Since the prosecution did not overcome the presumption of innocence by proving Ong’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly his receipt and subsequent conversion of the jewels, his acquittal was mandated.