GR L 59640; (July, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-59640; July 15, 1991
DAMIAN ROBLES, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Damian Robles was charged with estafa before the Court of First Instance of Manila. The information alleged that between November 19, 1976, and March 9, 1977, Robles received various office equipment (adding machines, typewriters, calculators) valued at P14,895.00 in trust from Roberto Ng of Paramount Business Machines. The purpose was for Robles to sell the equipment under an express obligation to remit the proceeds or return the unsold items. Despite repeated demands, Robles failed to account for the items or the proceeds, allegedly misappropriating them for his own benefit to the damage of Paramount.
The trial court convicted Robles of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and the indemnity amount. Robles then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review, arguing, among other points, that the transaction was a simple loan or a sale on credit, not a trust receipt arrangement that would give rise to criminal liability for estafa.
ISSUE
Whether the acts of petitioner Damian Robles constitute the crime of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the transaction was governed by the Trust Receipts Law (P.D. No. 115), which took effect in 1973. The deliveries made in 1976 and 1977 were covered by delivery trust receipts signed by Robles, obligating him to return the goods or the proceeds of their sale. His failure to do so upon demand squarely fell under the provision of Section 13 of P.D. No. 115, which expressly punishes such violation as estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
The legal logic is twofold. First, under the specific statute (P.D. No. 115), the failure of an entrustee to comply with the terms of a trust receipt constitutes estafa. Second, independently of the Trust Receipts Law, the elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) were present: (1) Robles received the goods in trust or under an obligation to sell and return the proceeds; (2) there was unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; (3) he misappropriated or converted the goods or their value; and (4) Paramount suffered prejudice. The failure to account for the property or proceeds upon demand, unexplained or unrebutted, is prima facie evidence of misappropriation. The Court found no merit in Robles’s claim of a simple loan, as the delivery trust receipts clearly established a fiduciary obligation. The Petition was denied, and the appellate court’s decision was affirmed.