Case Digest (G.R. No. 228704)
Facts:
Diosa Arrivas, petitioner, was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph l(b) of the Revised Penal Code for receiving on consignment a men's diamond ring valued at P75,000 on July 23, 2003, and failing to return it or remit the proceeds as required by a trust receipt; a partial payment of P20,000 was made on August 8, 2003 and a demand letter was sent by Manuela Bacotoc, respondent, on November 3, 2004. The Regional Trial Court convicted Arrivas on September 7, 2010; the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification on May 26, 2016 and denied reconsideration on September 30, 2016, prompting this Rule 45 petition.Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in not finding that the P20,000 payment converted the trust relationship into a debtor-creditor relationship?
- Was there novation of the principal obligation so as to extinguish the trust antecedent to the alleged Estafa?
Ruling:
The petition was denied and the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution were affirmed with mo Case Digest (G.R. No. 228704)
Facts:
- Parties and nature of the prosecution
- Diosa Arrivas, Petitioner, was charged in an Information with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph l(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
- Manuela Bacotoc, Respondent and offended party, was alleged to be the owner of the property subject of the Information.
- The charged transaction and trust receipt
- On or about July 23, 2003, Bacotoc entrusted to Arrivas one men's ring described as "2K solo diamond at the center with eight smaller diamonds around, in yellow Gold (14K)" valued at P75,000.00.
- A trust receipt executed and signed by the parties on July 23, 2003 stated that the ring was received on consignment to be sold on commission and to be returned if not sold within two days; it prohibited delivery to sub-agents and required either return of the goods or remittance of proceeds on demand.
- Subsequent events between July 2003 and filing of complaint
- Two days after July 23, 2003, Arrivas failed to return the ring or remit proceeds as provided in the trust receipt.
- Arrivas could not be located at her usual place of business and was seen only after two weeks; she then promised payment within thirty days but failed to pay.
- Arrivas later asked to pay in installments and to settle old accounts; Bacotoc agreed but Arrivas did not pay.
- On August 8, 2003, Arrivas allegedly paid Bacotoc a partial amount of P20,000.00; the trial court and the CA found the receipts did not specifically reference the July 23, 2003 transaction.
- Bacotoc sent a demand letter dated November 3, 2004, by registered mail, which was personally received by Arrivas on November 5, 2004.
- Additional testimonial points
- Testimony established that Arrivas and Bacotoc were long-time acquaintances and frequent business counterparts in buying and selling jewelry.
- Testimony of Daphne Lopez stated that Arrivas signed the trust receipt at Bacotoc's request because two prospective buyers had unsettled accounts.
- Procedural history and dispositions below
- Arrivas pleaded not guilty and was tried before the Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, Branch...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Main issues raised by petitioner
- WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE PHP20,000.00 PAYMENT MADE BEFORE THE LETTER OF DEMAND WAS FOR THE VALUE OF THE DIAMOND RING AND THIS CONVERTED THE TRUST RELATIONSHIP INTO DEBTOR-CREDITOR RELATIONSH...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)