Facts:

The case at bar involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari in G.R. No. 76647, filed by petitioner Cecilio J. Amorsolo against the People of the Philippines. The events occurred on March 23, 1983, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila. The petitioner Amorsolo was accused of estafa under Section 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, based on a trust agreement he had with Raul Isidro. Isidro entrusted Amorsolo with two acrylic paintings valued at a total of P19,000.00 to sell on a commission basis, with an express obligation to remit the proceeds or return the paintings if unsold.

In the trial court, Isidro was the lone witness for the prosecution, while Amorsolo presented himself as the sole witness for the defense. Isidro testified that he entrusted the paintings to Amorsolo for sale at P9,500.00 each, allowing Amorsolo a 30% commission. After Amorsolo failed to return the paintings following a demand letter sent by Isidro's lawyer, charges were filed against him

...

Facts:

The Consignment Arrangement and Transaction

• On or about March 23, 1983, in Makati, Metro Manila, petitioner Cecilio J. Amorsolo received from Raul Isidro two acrylic paintings valued at P9,500.00 each, totaling P19,000.00.
• The paintings were received in trust on a commission basis with the express obligation that the agent (accused) was to remit the proceeds if sold or return the paintings if they remained unsold.
• There was no fixed time frame for performing the tasks, and the agreement allowed the accused to consign the paintings to third parties.

Sequence of Events and Handling of the Paintings

• Initially, the accused offered the paintings to Jorge Tee, who did not purchase them, and subsequently consigned them to the Heritage Gallery managed by Mario Alcantara.
• In May 1983, when Isidro learned that the paintings had been sold, he, through his lawyer Atty. Armando S. Leyva, Jr., sent a letter dated May 18, 1983 demanding that the full payment of P19,000.00 be remitted within ten (10) days. The accused received the letter on June 20, 1983.
• On July 28, 1983, the accused retrieved one painting (entitled “Shadows”) and offered it to the fiscal’s office, but Isidro demanded the return of both paintings.
• On August 15, 1983, the accused retrieved the second painting, which had by then been consigned, and facilitated its sale to Mr. J. P. Lomotan.
• Payment from Mr. Lomotan was made by a Metro-bank check for P6,500.00; however, the check later bounced due to a “closed account.”
• On October 9, 1984, Isidro accepted the one painting offered along with a partial payment of P4,000.00 from the accused, who promised to pay the remaining balance of P5,500.00 – a commitment he ultimately failed to fulfill.

Trial Court Proceedings

• The trial court, after hearing testimony from both Isidro (complainant) and Amorsolo (accused), found the accused guilty of estafa under Section 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
• The court ruled that the accused’s failure to return the paintings or their full value—even after a valid demand—constituted conversion and misappropriation.
• The accused was sentenced to four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days of arresto mayor to one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional, ordered to indemnify Isidro in the amount of P5,500.00, and required to pay court costs.

Appellate Proceedings and Issues Raised

• The accused appealed the trial court’s decision before the Court of Appeals, alleging that the evidence did not sufficiently prove the guilt of estafa.
• Appellant argued that there were extenuating circumstances surrounding his failure to return the paintings (one of which was already in the possession of a buyer, Mr. Lomotan, evidenced by a bounced check).
• The appellate court, after reviewing the evidence—including the receipt of the paintings, the letter-demand, and the subsequent retrieval and sale—affirmed the conviction on estafa on the ground that the accused failed to remit the proceeds or return the paintings within the demanded period.
• The accused further contended that his liability should be civil in nature since his actions did not demonstrate an intent to defraud or appropriate the property for personal use, emphasizing that he had even paid a partial amount from his own pocket.

Petition for Review on Certiorari

• The petitioner raised questions whether his acts indeed constituted estafa and whether the essential element of misappropriation or conversion was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Specifically, he maintained that because the second painting was already with a prospective buyer and he had attempted to settle the matter (through partial payment), his failure was not born of criminal intent.
• The petitioner invited the court to consider that his circumstances transformed his liability from a criminal offense to a purely civil obligation.

Issue:

Whether the acts of petitioner Cecilio J. Amorsolo, in receiving the paintings and subsequently failing to remit or return them upon demand, constituted the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

• Whether the element of misappropriation or conversion was established by the act of failing to return the paintings or their value.
• Whether the circumstances involving the consignment sale and the buyer’s bounced check mitigate or nullify the criminal intent necessary to sustain a conviction for estafa.
• Whether, in light of the surrounding facts—including the existence of a bona fide transaction with a prospective buyer—the petitioner’s liability should be recharacterized as civil rather than criminal.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)