Petitioner Damian Robles was charged with estafa for receiving office equipment worth 14,895 pesos from Roberto Ng y Shiang to sell and remit the proceeds but failing to do so despite demands. The trial court convicted Robles, which the Court of Appeals affirmed though modifying the penalty. The Supreme Court ruled that Robles' failure to remit the proceeds or return the equipment constituted estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. His failure to account for funds held in trust, without explanation, warranted his conviction for estafa. The delivery documents signed by Robles imposed a duty to return the goods or proceeds within two days, establishing the crime of estafa.
Petitioner Damian Robles was charged with estafa for receiving office equipment worth 14,895 pesos from Roberto Ng y Shiang to sell and remit the proceeds but failing to do so despite demands. The trial court convicted Robles, which the Court of Appeals affirmed though modifying the penalty. The Supreme Court ruled that Robles' failure to remit the proceeds or return the equipment constituted estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. His failure to account for funds held in trust, without explanation, warranted his conviction for estafa. The delivery documents signed by Robles imposed a duty to return the goods or proceeds within two days, establishing the crime of estafa.
Petitioner Damian Robles was charged with estafa for receiving office equipment worth 14,895 pesos from Roberto Ng y Shiang to sell and remit the proceeds but failing to do so despite demands. The trial court convicted Robles, which the Court of Appeals affirmed though modifying the penalty. The Supreme Court ruled that Robles' failure to remit the proceeds or return the equipment constituted estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. His failure to account for funds held in trust, without explanation, warranted his conviction for estafa. The delivery documents signed by Robles imposed a duty to return the goods or proceeds within two days, establishing the crime of estafa.
DAMIAN ROBLES, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. FACTS : Petitioner, Damian Robles, was charged with the crime of estafa. Petitioner, received in trust from Roberto Ng y Shiang an office equipments amounting to P14,895.00 for selling the same. Under the express obligation of turning over the proceeds of the sale, if sold, or of returning the said office equipments if not sold. Despite repeated demands, he refuses to remit the proceeds of the sale or return the office equipments. The trial court convicted petitioner for the crime charged. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. CA affirmed the decision of the trial court but modified the penalty. ISSUE : Whether or not petitioner is guilty of estafa? RULINGS : We note that under Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law, the violation by an entrustee of his obligations under a trust receipt document, more specifically his failure to turnover the proceeds of the sale of the goods covered by the trust receipt, or to return said goods as they were not sold or disposed of, would constitute the crime of estafa under Article 315 (1) (b), Revised Penal Code. It is also pertinent to point out that quite apart from and even in the absence of the provisions of Section 13 of the Trust Receipt Law, the failure of Damian Robles to comply with his fiduciary obligation under the delivery trust receipts here involved, constituted the offense of estafa punishable under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code. In other words, the elements of the offense of estafa set out in Article 315 (1) (b) are present in the instant case. Those elements are: (1) "unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence;" (2) "misappropriating . . . money or goods . . .; (3) received by the offender in trust or on commission . . . or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same . . .;" and (4) "to the prejudice of another." The delivery trust receipts, in the case at bar, admittedly signed by petitioner Damian Robles imposed on him the duty to return the article or the proceeds thereof to Paramount within two (2) days from the specified dates of the trust receipts. The failure to account, upon demand, for funds or property held in trust is evidence of misappropriation which, not having been explained away or rebutted by petitioner Damian Robles, warranted his conviction for estafa under the Revised Penal Code. This was settled doctrine long before the promulgation of the Trust Receipts Law. We note in this connection that the delivery trust receipts here involved in fact constituted trust receipts within the meaning of Presidential Decree No. 115, known as the "Trust Receipts Law," which took effect on 29 January 1973. Section 4 thereof defines a "trust receipt" and a "trust receipt transaction" for purposes of the decree in the following terms: Sec. 4. What constitutes a trust receipt transaction. A trust receipt transaction, within the meaning of this Decree, is any transaction by and between a person referred to in this Decree as the entruster, and another person referred to in this Decree as the entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns or holds absolute title or security interests over certain specified goods documents or instruments, releases the same to the possession of the entrustee upon the latter's execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed document called a "trust receipt" wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods, documents or instruments with the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or the goods, documents or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt, . . . .