Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Baguio City
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 102784 April 7, 1997
ROSA LIM, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
Acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Rosa Lim praying for her acquittal, this Court takes a second hard look at the present case in the light of the various arguments raised by the movant.
Petitioner Rosa Lim was charged with, and subsequently convicted of, the crime of estafa as defined under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code before Branch 92 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.1 This conviction was affirmed by the Court Appeals.2 Aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court, Rosa Lim filed a petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court. This Court subsequently sustained the ruling of the Court of Appeals, hence, this Motion for Reconsideration seeking the reversal of our decision dated February 28, 1996.
Her motion for reconsideration is anchored on the following grounds:
I. THE COURT A QUO FAILED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TRUE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS A SALE ON CREDIT AND NOT AN AGENCY TO SELL AS BROUGHT OUT IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION MADE BY THE PRIVATE PROSECUTOR ON THE PETITIONER AND AURELIA NADERA AS WELL AS ON THE CROSS EXAMINATION MADE ON THE COMPLAINANT BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER; and
II. ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER RETURNED THE RING VALUED AT P169,000.00 TO COMPLAINANT THRU AURELIA NADERA, THE COURT A QUO FAILED TO CONSIDER CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT SAID RING WAS IN FACT RETURNED TO COMPLAINANT AS SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT SHE FILED A CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST AURELIA NADERA FOR ISSUING A BOUNCING CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF P169,000.00 WHICH SHE ISSUED IN PAYMENT OF THE RING IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY.
It will be recalled that the facts of this case are as follows:
Rose Lim arrived in Manila from Cebu City sometime in October, 1987 with her friend Aurelia Nadera. On October 8, 1987, they went to the Williams Apartelle in Timog, Quezon City, where they met Victoria Suarez, a jewelry dealer. Suarez and Nadera knew each other since the latter often sold jewelry for the former on commission basis. Nadera had previously introduced Rosa Lim to Suarez as a wealthy businesswoman.
Lim was offered two pieces of jewelry by Suarez to wit: one (1) 3.35 carat diamond ring worth P169,000.00 and one (1) bracelet worth P170,000.00. The pieces were to be sold by Lim on commission. Accordingly, Lim signed a receipt prepared by Nadera for Suarez, which stated that:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY, that I received from Vicky Suarez the following jewelry:
Description Price
1 ring 3.35 solo P169,000.00
1 bracelet 170,000.00
—————
Total P339,000.00
in good condition, to be sold in CASH ONLY within . . . days from date of signing receipt:
if I could not sell, I shall return all the jewelry, within the period mentioned above; if I would be able to sell, I shall immediately deliver and account the whole proceeds of sale thereof to the owner of the jewelries [sic] at his/her residence; my compensation or commission shall be the over-price on the value of each jewelry quoted above. I am prohibited to sell any jewelry on credit or by installment; deposit, give for safekeeping; lend, pledge or give as security or guaranty under any circumstance or manner, any jewelry to other person or persons,
I sign my name this . . . day of . . . 19 . . . at Manila.
____________________________________
Signature of Persons who received jewelries [sic]
Address: _________________________________________3
On October 12, 1987, before departing for Cebu, Lim called up Mrs. Suarez by telephone to inform her that she was no longer interested in the ring and the bracelet. Suarez replied that she was busy at the time and instructed her to return the pieces of jewelry to Nadera instead, who would in turn give them back to Suarez. Lim then returned the jewelry to Nadera who issued a handwritten receipt dated October 12, 1987.4
On March 21, 1988, Suarez, thru her counsel, sent Lim a demand letter asking for the return of the ring. Lim, also thru counsel, sent a response letter to Suarez averring that she had already returned both ring and bracelet to Nadera and as such, she no longer had any liability to Suarez insofar as the said items were concerned. Irked, Suarez filed a complaint for estafa under Article 315, par. 1 (b) against Rosa Lim. Trial ensued thereafter.
During the trial, Lim asserted that she had already returned both the bracelet and ring to Nadera. This was admitted by Nadera during her direct examination before the trial court:
Q: Do you know if Rosa Lim returned the jewelries [sic]?
A: She gave the jewelries [sic] to me.
Q: Why did Rose Lim give the jewelries [sic] to you?
A: Rosa Lim called up Vicky Suarez the following morning and told Vicky Suarez that she was going home to Cebu and asked if she could give the jewelries [sic] to me.
Q: And when did Rosa Lim give you the jewelries [sic]?
A: Before she left for Cebu.5
Nadera further testified that she issued a check in favor of Suarez in payment for the ring which Lim had previously returned to her:
Q: What happened to the ring?
A: I sold it.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Whet happened to the proceeds of the sale of the ring?
A: The check that was paid to me bounced. So my check also
bounced.6
After another thorough and painstaking scrutiny of the records of this case, we have decided to act favorably on the petitioner's motion. Thus, upon a careful and deliberate consideration of the errors assigned by the petitioner, as well as of prevailing jurisprudence, we are convinced that Rosa Lim must be acquitted.
Rosa Lim asserts that she gave both the bracelet and the ring to Aurelia Nadera for it to be returned to Suarez and that it was Suarez herself who instructed her to do so. Suarez, on the other hand, refutes this contention by saying that she could not have entrusted the return of the pieces of jewelry to Nadera since the latter already owed her a substantial amount of money and that to entrust the return of the said ring would be to tantamount to undue risk on her part. However, Suarez herself admitted that the bracelet was in fact received by her from Nadera:
ATTY. TORIO: Now, Mrs. Witness, you said that the bracelet was returned to you, is it not true that this bracelet was returned by Aurelia Nadera?
A: I already answered that.
COURT: What was the answer?
WITNESS: It was returned by Aurelia Nadera.7
It is highly unlikely that Lim, if she truly had any intention of defrauding Suarez, would still make an effort to return the bracelet, considering that as between the two items, it is the more expensive one. Moreover, the Court of Appeals in examining the facts of this case held that there was indeed such are turn:
. . . This claim (that the ring had been returned to Suarez thru Nadera) is disconcerting. It contravenes the very terms of Exhibit A. The instruction by the complaining witness to appellant to deliver the ring to Aurelia Nadera is vehemently denied by the complaining witness, who declared that she did not authorize and/or instruct appellant to do so. And thus, by delivering the ring to Aurelia without the express authority and consent of the complaining witness, appellant assumed the right to dispose of the jewelry as if it were hers, thereby committing conversion, a clear breach of trust, punishable under Article 315, par. 1 (b), Revised Penal Code. (emphasis ours)
In other words, it has been established that the ring which is the subject of the prosecution for estafa was indeed returned, albeit to a person whom Suarez claims has no authority to receive said item.
Generally, the delivery to a third person of the thing held in trust is not a defense in estafa. As enunciated in the earlier case of United States vs.
Eustaquio:8
When merchandise is received for sale on commission, under the obligation to return the same, or its value, and is thereafter delivered to a third person without the knowledge or authority of the owner, the two elements which constitute the crime of estafa exist: (a) the deceit by which it was intended to defraud; and (b) the damage caused the owner.
However, this rule has already been modified in subsequent cases. In People vs. Nepomuceno9 and People vs. Trinidad, 10 it has been held that:
In cases of estafa the profit or gain must be obtained by the accused personally, through his own acts, and his mere negligence in permitting another to take advantage or benefit from the entrusted chattel cannot constitute estafa under Article 315 paragraph 1-b, of the Revised Penal Code; unless of course the evidence should disclose that the agent acted in conspiracy or connivance with the one who carried out the actual misappropriation, when the accused would be answerable for the acts of his co-conspirators. If there is no such evidence, direct or circumstantial, and if the proof is clear that the accused herself was the innocent victim of her sub-agent's faithlessness, her acquittal is in order. (emphasis ours)
Aurelia Nadera herself admits that she received both the bracelet and the ring in question from Lim. In her testimony, she had no qualms in admitting that she sold the ring in question and that she issued a check in favor of Suarez as payment for said ring. She also admitted that such check had bounced. She is now facing a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 instituted by Suarez herself. It is significant to note that the amount of the bouncing check issued by Nadera as payment to Suarez corresponds to the amount of the ring given by Suarez to Lim — P169,000.00.
We cannot conceive of any motive on the part of Nadera in admitting not only receiving the ring, but also issuing, in payment thereof, a bouncing check, save the desire to tell the truth, in order that one who is innocent of any crime would not be erroneously convicted. For, the same can only be to her detriment, considering that she is now facing a criminal charge herself. That she and Lim are very good friends is of no moment, as it is inconceivable that she would admit as fact what did not actually happen, when such admission could very well lead to her own incarceration. Nadera's admission is a declaration against her own interest made under oath. It must thus be given full weight and credence.
Rose Lim's assertion that she had returned the ring in question to Nadera, in addition to the latter's unswerving testimony admitting the same, raises reasonable doubt as to Lim's liability for estafa. Conversion or misappropriation has not been sufficiently proven. As held in the case of People vs. Lopez: 11
When a demand for the delivery of the thing promised, or the return of the money delivered in trust, is made, and such demand is not fulfilled within a reasonable time, a presumption arises that the amount has been misappropriated. This inference, however, is only deducible when the explanation given by the accused for his failure to account for the money is absolutely devoid of merits. Where the explanation does not completely destroy the presumption but at least raises reasonable doubt that accused had misappropriated the amount in question, acquittal is in order.
It is well-settled that the essence of estafa thru misappropriation is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the owner. The words "convert" and "misappropriate" connote an act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own or devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for one's own use includes, not only conversion to one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without right. 12
Rosa Lim's sole purpose in delivering the pieces of jewelry to Aurelia Nadera, was for Nadera to effect their return to Victoria Suarez. By no stretch of the imagination can the act of returning said items to its rightful owner, although through the mediation of a third party, be considered as conversion or misappropriation. Verily, that said act manifested Rosa Lim's recognition that the pieces of jewelry do not belong to her. In doing so, she acknowledged Suarez' right of dominion over them. Thus, it cannot be regarded as conversion or misappropriation in its true sense sufficient to convict her for estafa. Lim did not deliver the bracelet and the ring to Nadera so that the latter may re-sell them as her sub-agent. Her only purpose was to have them returned to their rightful owner. Moreover, she delivered the said pieces of jewelry to one who is not a total stranger, but to a person known to both her and Suarez and who, from all indications, enjoy their mutual trust and confidence. To reiterate, this raises reasonable doubt as to the presence of any criminal intent ascribed to her by the prosecution.
The act of Lim in returning the items to Nadera only shows that she had reason to believe that the latter had the authority to receive the same. This belief was inspired by the fact that at the time of the said transaction between Lim and Suarez, it was Nadera herself, in behalf of Suarez, who prepared the receipt to be signed by Lim. 13 In addition, Nadera was the one who introduced Suarez and Lim to each other. Hence, Rosa Lim can at most be held negligent in returning the ring to one whose authority to receive the same was subsequently refuted. Consequently, for negligently assuming Nadera's authority to receive the ring, Lim cannot be held criminally liable. Settled it is in our jurisprudence that there can be no estafa through negligence. At worst, she should only be held civilly liable. Accordingly, we hold her liable to pay Vicky Suarez the full amount of the ring as actual damages plus legal interest in the amount of six percent (6%) from the time of extrajudicial demand.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The decision dated February 28, 1996 is hereby MODIFIED. Petitioner Rosa Lim is hereby ACQUITTED of any criminal liability, but is held civilly liable in the amount of P169,000.00 as actual damages, plus legal interest, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Bellosillo, Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-89-2216.
2 CA-G.R. CR No. 10290 entitled "People v. Rosa Lim", promulgated on August 30, 1991.
3 PINATUTUNAYAN KO na aking tinanggap kay __________ ang mga alahas na sumusunod
Mga uri Halaga
1 ring 3.35 solo P169,000.00
1 bracelet 170,000.00
—————
Kabuuan P339,000.00
na nasa mabuting kalagayan upang ipagbili ng KALIWAAN (ALCONTADO) lamang sa loob ng araw mula sa ating pagkalagdaan.
kung hindi ko maipagbili ay isasauli ko ang lahat ng alahas sa loob ng taning na panahong nakatala sa itaas, kung maipagbili ko naman ay dagli kong isusulit at ibibigay ang buong pinagbilhan sa may-ari ng mga alahas sa kanyang bahay-tahanan, ang aking gantimpala ay ang mapapahigit na halaga sa nakatakdang halaga sa itaas ng bawat alahas HINDI ko pinahihintulutang ipa-u-u-tang o ibibigay na hulugan ng alin mang alahas, ilalagak ipagkakatiwala, ipahihiram, isasangla o ipananagot kahit sa anong paraan ang alin mang alahas sa ibang mga tao o tao.
NILALAGDAAN ko ang kasunduang ito ngayong Ika ____ ng dito sa Maynila.
____________________________
(Lagda ng Tumanggap ng mga Alahas)
Address: _____________________.
4 Exhibits "2", "2"-a". Records. p 93.
5 TSN, November 16, 1989, p. 12.
6 Ibid., p. 16.
7 TSN, June 26, 1989, p. 17.
8 3I PHIL 188 (1915).
9 CA 46 O.G 6128 (1949).
10 CA 53 O.G 731 (1956).
11 CA 56 O.G 5879 (1960).
12 Amorsolo vs. People, 154 SCRA 556.
13 Direct examination of Rosa Lim, TSN, June 29, 1989, p. 3.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
|
