GR L 16955; (May, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16955; May 30, 1962
SALVADOR PANLILIO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Salvador Panlilio was convicted of estafa by the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte. The charge stemmed from an October 16, 1957 transaction where Panlilio received P1,000 from Roberto Surla. A signed receipt documented that the money was given for the specific purpose of buying commercial goods for Surla, with an obligation to return the amount within one week if the purchase failed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but increased the indemnity to P358.60.
Panlilio appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari, raising two errors. First, he argued the information did not sufficiently allege the fiduciary nature of the receipt or his misappropriation. Second, he contended the transaction established a partnership with Surla, and the absence of liquidation precluded a finding of estafa.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the information validly alleged estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code; and (2) whether the evidence sufficiently proved misappropriation, negated by a purported partnership.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court held the information was valid. It specifically alleged that Panlilio received the money in trust for buying goods for Surla, with a duty to return it if unsuccessful, and that he unlawfully misappropriated it. These allegations precisely constituted the elements of estafa through misappropriation or conversion.
On the second issue, the Court found the evidence of misappropriation conclusive. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals, which are binding in a certiorari review, established that after receiving the money, Panlilio left Daet and never returned to account for the transaction or refund the money despite demands. His defense of a partnership was correctly rejected. The receipt explicitly stated the money was for buying goods “for the said Roberto Surla,” not for a partnership venture. The Court of Appeals’ factual determination that no partnership existed was final. The evidence showed Panlilio only purchased cigarettes worth P641.40, which were later stolen, leaving an unaccounted balance of P358.60, which he failed to return or explain, thus constituting misappropriation.