| |
Chapter 1
ESTAFA
“In estafa, the person prejudiced or the immediate
victim of the fraud need not be the owner of the
goods misappropriated — the use by the law of the
word ‘another’ instead of the word ‘owner’ means
that as an element of the offense, loss should have
fallen upon someone other than the perpetrator of
the crime.”
—Mi. Justice Puno
ESTAFA DEFINED AND
EXPLAINED
Estafa is committed by a person who
defrauds another causing him to suffer damage, by
means of unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, or
of false pretense opt fraudulent acts. For the
existence of the crime of estafa, two elements are
indispensable: fraud and damage.2 In other words,
the essential elements of estafa are: (1) The deceit
employed to defraud another; and (2) the injury or
damage caused thereby.
Swindling or estafa under
the Revised Penal Code
ART. 315. Swindling
(estafa). — Any person, who shall defraud
another by any of the means mentioned herein below
shall be punished by law:
1st. The penalty
of prison correcional in its maximum period to
prison mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of
the fraud is over 12,000 but does not exceed 22,000
pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum,
the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be
imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for
each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.
In such case, and in connection with the accessory
penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose
of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty
shall be termed prison mayor or reclusion temporal,
as the case may be.
2nd. The penalty
of prison correccional in its minimum and medium
periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000
pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and
3rd. The penalty
of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prison
correctional in its minimum period, if such amounts
is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos;
and
4th. By arresto
mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if such
amount does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in
the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by
any of the following means:
1. With
unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(a) By
altering the substance, quantity, or quality of
anything of value which the offender shall deliver
by virtue of an obligation to do so, even though
such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal
consideration.
(b) By
misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of
another, money, goods, or any other personal
property received by the offender in trust or in
commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the duty to make delivery
of or to return the same, even though such
obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a
bond; or by denying having received such money,
goods, or other property.
(c) By taking
undue advantage of the signature of the offended
party in blank, and by writing any document above
such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the
offended party or any third person.
2. By means of
any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent
acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending
to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
(b) By altering
the quality, fineness or weight of anything
pertaining to his art or business.
(c) By
pretending to have bribed any Government employee,
without prejudice to the action for calumny, which
the offended party may deem proper to bring against
the offender party may deem proper to bring against
the offender. In this case, the offender shall be
punished by the maximum period of the penalty.
(d) By
postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of
an obligation when the offender had no funds in the
bank, or his funds deposited therein were not
sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The
failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the
amount necessary to cover his check within three (3)
days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or
insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence
of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent
act. (As amended by Rep. Act No. 4885, approved June
17, 1967.)
(e) By obtaining
any food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel,
inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or
apartment house and the like without paying
therefore, with intent to defraud the proprietor or
manager thereof, or by obtaining credit at a hotel
inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or
apartment house by the use of any false pretense, or
by abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part
of his baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house or apartment house
after obtaining credit, food, refreshment or
accommodation therein without paying for his food,
refreshment, or accommodation. (As amended by Corn.
Act No. 157.)
3. Through any
of the following fraudulent means:
(a)
By inducing another, by means of deceit, to
sign any document.
(b) By resorting to
some fraudulent practice to insure success in a
gambling game.
(c) By removing,
concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any
court record, office files, document or any other
papers.
The case Zalazar vs.
People, 391 SCRA 154.
In this case, the Supreme Court hold that: “Even a
temporary (disturbance of property rights
constitutes misappropriation. The words ‘convert’
and ‘misappropriate’ as used in Article 315, par 1
(b), Revised Penal Code, connote an act of disposing
another’s property as if it were one’s own, or
drawing of devoting it to a purpose or use different
from that agreed upon. “Moreover, the element of
demand in estafa is satisfied if it demand is made
is made upon the corporation in which the accused is
an officer if at the time of such demand it is not
known that the accused is the one primarily liable
of the act complained of. Finally, “it is not
necessary that the proper ‘offended party’ file a
complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation
by the fiscal. A complaint filed with the fiscal may
be filed by any person. If a complaint is filed
directly in court, the same must be filed by the
offended party and in case of an information, the
same must be filed by the fiscal. Portions of the
decision follow.
For failure of Aurora/Uni-Group to deliver the
ladies jeans or to account for the US$41,300.00
despite demand, Skiva, through its local agent
represented by Ms. Tujan, filed a criminal complaint
for estafa against Mr. Lettmayr and petitioner.
After preliminary investigation, the Public
Prosecutor dismissed the complaint against Mr.
Lettmayr and an information was filed against
petitioner.”
After trial, the lower court convicted herein
petitioner of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 1
(b) of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of
eight (8) years and one (1) day of prison mayor as
the minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months
and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as the maximum
and to pay Uni-Group and Aurora the amount of
P595,259.00. On March 13, 1997, the lower court
denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the
decision of the trial court and denied petitioner’s
Motion for Reconsideration.
Aggrieved by the aforementioned rulings, petitioner
files the instant petition for review.
The petition is bereft of
merit.
The following are the elements of estafa under
Article 315 paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal
Code: (a) that money, goods or other personal
property is received by the offender in trust, or on
commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the duty to make delivery
of, or to return the same; (b) that there be
misappropriation or conversion of such money or
property by the offender; or denial on his part of
such receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another;
and (ci) there is demand made by the offended party
to the offender.
We agree with the trial court’s finding that the
contract between Skiva and Aurora/Uni-Group was one
of sale. Thus, upon remittance by Skiva of its
advance payment in the amount of US$41,300.00,
ownership thereof was transferred to Aurora/UniGroup
and Aurora/Uni-Group had no obligation under the
contract of sale being to deliver the 700 dozens of
ladies jeans. However, petitioner, as an employee of
Aurora/Uni-Group who was aware of the specific
purpose of the remittance, upon receipt of the
amount, had the obligation to account for the
proceeds thereof to Aurora/Uni-Group.
The records establish that: 1) the amount of
US$41,300.00 was remitted by telegraphic transfer to
the joint account of the petitioner and his wife and
Mr. And Mrs. Werner Lettmayr; 2) the said amount was
remitted as advance payment by Skiva for the jeans
it ordered an(l 3) the amount of US$21,675.21 was
withdrawn by petitioner on January 16, 1986 and the
amount of US$20,000.00 was withdrawn by petitioner
on January 22, 1986. In fact, petitioner himself
admits having withdrawn from the joint account on
two occasions after the remittance was made.
Petitioner further admits having made such
withdrawal for the purpose of purchasing materials
to be used for the jeans ordered by Skiva and a
portion thereof to be given to Aurora. Thus, upon
withdrawal by petitioner of the amounts advanced by
Skiva, petitioner received the same in trust with an
obligation to return the funds or account for the
proceeds thereof.
With respect to the element of conversion or
misappropriation of the amount received, petitioner
claims that a portion of the amount was used to
purchase 3,000 meters of Litton fabrics and the
balance was returned to Aurora. However, upon
cross-examination, petitioner was unable to recall
the amount paid for the purchase of the fabrics or
the amount given to Aurora nor was petitioner able
to identify whether payment for the purchase of
fabric or the return of funds to Aurora was made in
cash or in check.
In fact, except for his bare testimony, petitioner
failed to present evidence to support his defense
that payment for the purchase of the fabrics had
been made or that the balance of the amount received
by petitioner was given to Aurora. The only reason
why the Court is inclined to believe that 3,000
meters of Litton fabrics were purchased for the
manufacturer of the jeans is because the witness for
the prosecution, Ms. Tujan, independently verified
the purchase of the said materials from Litton
Mills.
To support petitioner’s claim that the remainder of
the amount withdrawn was returned to Aurora,
petitioner presents a letter dated October 15, 1986
from the Philippine Veterans Investment Development
Corporation (Pill VIDEC) addressed to Mr. Werner
Lettmayr, President of Aurora, regarding the
financial audit of Aurora, wherein the amount of
P850,780.00 is indicated as an amount “due to
Uni-Group,” Atty. Cesar Singson, witness for the
defense, testified that the amount of P850,780.00
indicated in the said letter represents the peso
equivalent of the advance payment of US$41,300.00
made by Skiva to Uni-Group.
Next
Pages |
|
