Case Digest (G.R. No. 157781)
Facts:
In Robert Crisanto D. Lee vs. People of the Philippines and Atoz Trading Corporation (G.R. No. 157781, April 11, 2005), Atoz Trading Corporation (ATC) filed ten separate Informations on September 27, 1994 in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig (Branch 159) against petitioner Robert Crisanto D. Lee, then Marketing Manager of ATC. Each Information charged Lee with estafa through misappropriation under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly receiving telegraphic transfers from Ocean Feed Mills, a key ATC client, and converting these payments—totaling over ₱318,672—to his own use without remitting them to ATC despite notices and demands. One case was later dismissed; nine proceeded to joint trial following Lee’s “Not Guilty” plea on February 20, 1995. The prosecution presented ATC’s president (Johnny Jaotegan), UCPB teller, Ocean Feed Mills’ secretary, and ATC accounting personnel, establishing that payments intended for ATC were credited to Lee’s UCPB account and tCase Digest (G.R. No. 157781)
Facts:
- Proceedings and Charges
- At the instance of Atoz Trading Corporation (ATC), ten separate Informations (Crim. Cases Nos. 107020–107029) were filed on September 27, 1994 in RTC Pasig, Br. 159, against petitioner Robert C. D. Lee as ATC’s marketing manager.
- One case (No. 107023) was dismissed; the remaining nine were consolidated for joint trial.
- Prosecution Evidence
- ATC’s president Johnny M. Jaotegan, UCPB teller Jeffrey Corneby, Ocean Feed Mills’ corporate secretary Maria C. dela Cruz, and ATC encoder Ellen Gusar testified.
- Lee allegedly solicited and received telegraphic transfers from Ocean Feed Mills for ATC, had them credited to his UCPB Savings Account No. 117-105532-0, failed to remit them, and refused to return account statements. An audit revealed an outstanding balance of ₱318,672.00.
- Defense Evidence
- Lee claimed he had prior approval from ATC vice president Lu Hsui Nan to receive payments in his name for convenience.
- He asserted he regularly withdrew credited amounts and turned them over to ATC cashier Elizabeth Ligo, who purportedly failed to issue formal receipts.
- Rebuttal and Sur-rebuttal
- Nan denied knowledge of the arrangement; Ligo testified she received only one payment; Jaotegan recounted a demand for funds at Lee’s Parañaque residence on August 12, 1994.
- On sur-rebuttal, Lee denied any demand for money, insisting only corporate property was requested back.
- Trial Court Decision
- The trial court denied Lee’s demurrer to evidence (Jan. 23, 1996) and, on July 23, 1996, convicted him of nine counts of estafa under Art. 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
- Lee was sentenced to indeterminate penalties (ranging from prision correccional to reclusion temporal) per count and ordered to pay actual damages totaling the misappropriated amounts plus costs.
- Appeals
- On September 13, 2002, the Court of Appeals dismissed Lee’s appeal and denied his motion for reconsideration.
- Lee filed a Rule 45 petition in the Supreme Court, raising: (a) lack of formal demand as a condition for estafa; and (b) alleged grave abuse of discretion by the lower courts.
Issues:
- Whether a formal prior demand is a condition precedent to estafa under Article 315(1)(b) RPC.
- Whether the CA and RTC grave-ly abused their discretion in convicting Lee absent formal demand and sufficient proof of misappropriation.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)