ERLINDA ASEJO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R.
No. 157433, July 24, 2007
“x x x.
The foregoing findings clearly support private complainant's
claim regarding the purpose of the money, that is, that petitioner received the money in trust to be used as
proof of her financial liquidity. The Trust
Undertaking, which was regularly executed, shows that the agreement was not a loan. This places the
transaction within the purview of Art. 315, the relevant paragraphs of which
read:
Art. 315. Swindling
(estafa).Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
hereinbelow shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prisiόn
correccional in its maximum period to prisiόn mayor in
its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos 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 cases, 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 prisiόn
mayor or reclusiόn temporal, as the case may be;
x x x provided that in the x x x
cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means:
1. With unfaithfulness or
abuse of confidence, namely:
x x x x
(b) By misappropriating or
converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods or any other personal
property 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, even though such obligation be totally or
partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money,
goods, or other property
The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence under
Art. 315 1(b) are:
1. That the money, goods or other personal property be
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;
2. That there be misappropriation or conversion of such
money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt;
3. That such misappropriation or conversion or denial
is to the prejudice of another; and
4. That there is a demand made by the offended party to
the offender.
All these elements are present in the case at bar. Petitioner
admitted having received in trust the amount of PhP 100,000 from Castro; the
amount was misappropriated or converted; such misappropriation or conversion
was to the prejudice of Castro; and Castro demanded payment from petitioner.
Petitioner asserts that upon receipt of the amount, it was
transferred to her and she was not prohibited to use or spend the same.[16] The
very same money cannot be returned but only the same amount. This makes
the transaction a loan and not a trust agreement; thus, her liability is merely
civil and not criminal.
Petitioners arguments are not meritorious. Art. 315
1(b) explicitly includes money in its scope. The nature of money, that is, the
exact bills and coins received in trust cannot be returned, was already
considered by the law. As long as the money was received in trust, on
commission, for administration, or under an obligation to return, failure to
account for it upon demand is punishable under Art. 315 1(b). The
Solicitor General added:
In a trust agreement, the transfer
of the property to the trustee is mere physical possession and
not juridical possession. Unlike in a contract of loan where the debtor
acquires juridical possession and is technically the owner of the amount, in a
trust, the obligation of the trustee is fiduciary in nature, i.e.
to take care of the thing strictly for the benefit of the trustee in accordance
with the purpose of the express trust.[17]
In the case at bar, the amount was received by the
petitioner for the sole purpose of using it as show money to the bank. The
money was entrusted to her for a particular purpose. Hence, she did not
acquire the right to dispose or spend the amount as she sees fit; she had the
obligation to account for said amount.
Furthermore, the Trust Undertaking expressly states that the
amount was received by the petitioner not as a loan or credit. Under the
parol evidence rule,[18] petitioner
cannot vary the terms of the written agreement by claiming that the amount was
received pursuant to a contract of sale of their lot.
X x x.”
