G.R. No. L-74231 April 10, 1987
CORAZON J. VIZCONDE, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT & PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Corazon J. Vizconde, a friend of Dr. Marylon J. Perlas, was initially entrusted with Perlas’s 8-carat diamond ring to sell on commission. Vizconde returned the ring shortly after, but later returned with co-accused Pilar A. Pagulayan, who claimed to have a buyer. Perlas, though hesitant, relinquished the ring after Pagulayan issued a postdated check for P85,000.00. Both Pagulayan and Vizconde signed a receipt for the ring, with Vizconde explicitly guaranteeing the obligation jointly and severally. The check was dishonored twice. Subsequently, Pagulayan paid P5,000.00 and delivered three certificates of title as security for the balance, with Vizconde again signing the conforming receipt. Demands for the ring or its value were unheeded, leading to the filing of an estafa case against both.
The trial court convicted Vizconde of estafa, a decision affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court, which even increased the penalty. Vizconde appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari. Notably, the Solicitor General, despite having argued for affirmance in the Court of Appeals, filed a comment recommending Vizconde’s acquittal of the criminal charge, though maintaining she should be held civilly liable.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Corazon J. Vizconde is criminally liable for the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court acquitted Vizconde of the crime of estafa. The legal logic centers on the distinction between criminal liability and civil obligation arising from the same act. For estafa under Article 315(1)(b) to exist, the accused must have received the property in a fiduciary capacity, such as in an agency to sell, and must have misappropriated or converted it. The Court found that the evidence established that Vizconde acted merely as a guarantor, not as an agent who received the property. The receipt signed on April 22, 1975, showed Pagulayan as the principal recipient of the ring, with Vizconde only guaranteeing the obligation solidarily. Her role was that of a surety.
The failure to return the ring or remit the proceeds constituted a breach of a contractual duty of Pagulayan, guaranteed by Vizconde. This breach gives rise to civil liability for the unpaid balance, but not criminal culpability, as the element of misappropriation or conversion by Vizconde herself was not proven. The criminal intent (dolo) required for estafa was absent in her capacity as a guarantor. Consequently, her liability is purely civil in nature. The Court affirmed the civil aspect of the judgment, holding Vizconde solidarily liable with Pagulayan for the unaccounted balance of P55,000.00, subject to any valid offsets from prior levies. The criminal conviction was reversed and set aside.