GR 85785; (April, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-85785. April 24, 1989.
BENITO SY y ONG, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Benito Sy y Ong, an insurance agent, was engaged by Panama Sawmill, Inc. to secure a P3,000,000 marine insurance policy for a log shipment. Panama issued a P6,000 check payable to the insurance company for the corresponding premium. Petitioner initially obtained a P3M policy from Oriental Assurance but later canceled it upon the request of Panama’s intermediary, Tau Tian, who found the premium too high and wanted to pay only P6,000. Petitioner then procured a P1M policy from Oriental and a separate P2M policy from First Integrated Insurance, with total premiums of P5,967.50. However, a partial loss of the shipment occurred. Panama discovered its coverage was only P1M from Oriental, as the First Integrated policy had lapsed due to non-payment of premium, which petitioner settled only months after the loss and after the criminal complaint was filed.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner is guilty of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code for misappropriating the balance of the P6,000 entrusted to him for procuring insurance.
RULING
Yes, petitioner is guilty of Estafa. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions by the lower courts. The legal logic centers on the presence of all elements of estafa through misappropriation. First, petitioner received the P6,000 in trust specifically to obtain a P3M insurance coverage. Second, he misappropriated the funds by failing to apply the full amount to the intended purpose. The critical fact is that the P2M policy from First Integrated was not in force at the time of the loss due to non-payment of premium; petitioner paid it only later in a belated attempt to cover his tracks. This establishes he used the balance for his own benefit, constituting conversion and a breach of trust.
Third, this misappropriation caused prejudice to Panama, which believed it had full coverage. The disturbance of its property rights, even if temporary, suffices as damage. Fourth, while demand can be circumstantial evidence of misappropriation, it is not an indispensable element when misappropriation is proven by other evidence, as here. Petitioner’s actions—securing a lesser policy, allowing another to lapse, and paying the premium only after the loss and criminal charge—prove his fraudulent conversion beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of convictions was thus upheld.