VICIA D. PASCUAL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 160540, March 22, 2007
“x x x.
PETITIONER COMMITTED ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315, PARAGRAPH 1(B) OF THE RPC
In estafa through misappropriation under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the RPC, the following essential elements must be present: (1) that money, goods, or other personal property is received by the accused in trust or on commission or for administration or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (2) that there is misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the accused 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 on the accused.
All the elements concur in this case. First, petitioner received the money in trust or for administration as the council’s acting president; second, she failed to substantiate her claim that she did not misappropriate the money; third, the council was prejudiced by such misappropriation and fourth, she failed to return the money to the council despite repeated demands to do so.
Finally, we find no conflict in the findings of fact of the lower courts. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on us.Without any cogent or compelling proof that the lower courts committed reversible error in their decisions, we shall not deviate from the rule. We therefore affirm the findings of both the trial court and the CA that petitioner committed estafa punishable under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC.
x x x.”
 Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals), and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Edgardo F. Sundiam of the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 72-88.
 Id., p. 100.
 Id., pp. 33-34.
 ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). − Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(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. xxx
 Decided by Judge Francisco B. Ibay, RTC, Makati City, Branch 135. Rollo, pp. 31-37.
 Id., p. 82.
 Id., pp. 83-88.
 Supra note 2.
 Rollo, pp. 17-18.
 Roxas v. Vasquez, 432 Phil. 148 (2002).
 Dayrit v. Philippine Bank of Communications, 435 Phil. 120 (2002); Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 362 Phil. 1 (1999).
 Sps. Friend, et al. v. Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 165767, 29 November 2005, 476 SCRA 453; Salonga v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 111478, 13 March 1997, 269 SCRA 534; Bacelonia v. Court of Appeals, 445 Phil. 300 (2003).
 Rollo, p. 80.
 Salva v. CA, 364 Phil. 281 (1997); Alabanzas v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 29 November 1991, 204 SCRA 304; Sps. Friend, et al. v. Union Bank of the Philippines, supra.
 Villanueva v. Sps. Alejo and Virginia Salvador, G.R. No. 139436, 25 January 2006; People v. Chua, G.R. No. 128280, 4 April 2001, 356 SCRA 225; Ayson v. Enriquez Vda. De Carpio, G.R. No. 152438, 17 June 2004, 432 SCRA 449; Reburiano v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 294 (1999).
 Velasquez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138480, 25 March 2004, 426 SCRA 309; L.T. Datu & Co., Inc. v. Sy, G.R. No. 143701, 23 March 2004, 426 SCRA 189.
 San Agustin v. People, G.R. No. 158211, 31 August 2004, 437 SCRA 392.
 Id.; Villaflor v. Vivar, 402 Phil. 222 (2001).
 Filadams Pharma, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132422, 30 March 2004, 426 SCRA 460.
 Velasco v. People, G.R. No. 166479, 28 February 2006.