G.R. No. 96428 September 2, 1999
WILMA T. BARRAMEDA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and LOLITA WATANABE, respondents.

FACTS

On September 5, 1985, an Information was filed charging Wilma Barrameda with Estafa under Article 315, par. 1(B) of the Revised Penal Code. It alleged that on or about November 27, 1984, in Pasay City, Barrameda received in trust from Lolita Paguinto Watanabe the amount of US$1,400.00 and 400,000.00 yen (equivalent to about P50,000.00) with the express obligation to deliver it to Papiniana Paguinto at the Manila International Airport. She willfully failed to deliver the money and, upon demand, denied having received it, causing damage to Watanabe.
The prosecution’s version, as established during trial, is as follows: On November 26, 1984, in Japan, Lolita Watanabe counted and handed the money to Barrameda, who was leaving for the Philippines the next day, for delivery to Watanabe’s mother, Papiniana Paguinto. Watanabe informed her mother of the remittance via a long-distance call. On November 27, 1984, Papiniana Paguinto met Barrameda at the Manila International Airport. Barrameda, trembling and feeling cold, stated that she had misplaced the money sent by Watanabe, suggesting it might be in her baggage. They went to a relative’s house in Cabrera, Pasay City, but due to the crowd, Barrameda suggested opening her baggage at her own home in San Pedro, Laguna. Paguinto called Watanabe to inform her the money was missing, and Watanabe spoke with Barrameda, who said she was still looking for it. Barrameda proceeded to Laguna alone, assuring Paguinto she would deliver the money the next morning. She failed to do so, and subsequent demands yielded no result.
For her defense, Barrameda denied receiving any money from Watanabe. She claimed Watanabe only asked her to bring two boxes of assorted goods to the Philippines, which she could not bring due to excess baggage and lack of freight money. She suggested the case was filed in connivance with her estranged husband to prevent her from returning to Japan.
The Regional Trial Court of Pasay City convicted Barrameda, sentencing her under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to imprisonment ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum, and ordering her to indemnify Watanabe P50,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto. Barrameda’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City had jurisdiction over the criminal case for estafa.
2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

1. On Jurisdiction: The Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City had jurisdiction. The crime of estafa through misappropriation under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code is a transitory or continuing crime. The Information alleged the offense occurred “on or about the 27th day of November 1984 in Pasay City.” Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the Information. Furthermore, a key element of the crime—the demand by the offended party for the return of the money—was made in Pasay City when Papiniana Paguinto met Barrameda at the airport and later at a house in Cabrera, Pasay City. Therefore, part of the crime was committed within the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
2. On Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Court found the prosecution successfully proved Barrameda’s guilt. The elements of estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) are: (a) money, goods, or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration; (b) the offender misappropriates or converts such property or denies receiving it; (c) the misappropriation or conversion is to the prejudice of another; and (d) there is a demand by the offended party. All elements were established:
* Receipt in Trust: The testimonies of Lolita Watanabe and Papiniana Paguinto, corroborated by a letter (Exhibit A) and telephone receipts (Exhibits B, B-1, B-2), proved Barrameda received the money in Japan for delivery to Paguinto.
* Misappropriation or Denial: Barrameda failed to deliver the money upon arrival. Her claim of misplacement was deemed a mere pretext, and her subsequent failure to account for or return the money constituted misappropriation. Her defense of denial was found unconvincing and unsupported by evidence.
Prejudice: Watanabe was deprived of her money.
Demand: Papiniana Paguinto made demands for the money at the airport and subsequently, which were unheeded.
The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and consistent. The defense’s theory of a frame-up was not substantiated. The affirmance of the conviction by the Court of Appeals was upheld. The penalty imposed by the trial court, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, was also affirmed.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.