Facts:

• Rosella Barlin was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
• The charge was for misappropriating funds and failing to return unsold items entrusted to her by Ruth S. Gacayan.
• The events occurred between March 3 and May 8, 1999, in San Juan, Metro Manila.
• Both Barlin and Gacayan were dealers of Triumph products.
• After Barlin's store was destroyed by fire, Gacayan agreed to place orders on Barlin's behalf through her credit line, covered by Trust Receipt Agreements (TRAs).
• Barlin was supposed to either pay for the items or return them if unsold within 30 days.
• Barlin failed to pay for items worth P74,055.00 and issued checks that bounced.
• Gacayan filed a criminal complaint for estafa.
• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 151, found Barlin guilty and sentenced her to an indeterminate sentence of four years and two months of prision correccional as minimum to thirteen years of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordered her to indemnify Gacayan P74,055.00.
• The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and the amount owed to P24,975.00.
• Upon Barlin's motion for reconsideration, the CA further modified the minimum penalty to six months and one day of prision correccional.
• Barlin then filed a petition challenging the CA's decisions.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA's decisions with modification.
• Barlin was sentenced to three months and eleven days of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
• She was directed to pay Gacayan P8,275.00 with interest of 12% per annum from the fi...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court found that all the essential elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC were present.
• Barlin received merchandise from Gacayan under TRAs 0081 and 0083, which she signed herself.
• The TRAs clearly stated that Barlin received the goods in trust and was obligated to remit the proceeds of the sale or return the unsold items.
• Barlin failed to do so, and her issuance of post-dated checks that bounced further proved her misappropriation or conversion of the proceeds.
• The Court held that the agreements between Barlin and Gacayan were indeed trust receipt agreements, not barter or exchange.
• The prose...continue reading